"Catholics" and the right to choose?

[elts1956]

Holly3278;5211454:

Read the following articles to understand my point of view better:

rcrc.org/pdf/RCRC_EdSeries_Personhood.pdf

rcrc.org/pdf/RCRC_EdSeries_Fetus.pdf

Luke 1- 44: “For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb lept for joy” (said Elizabeth to the Blessed Virgin)

I looked at your articles. Logical gymnastics to pervert Old Testament passages do by no means make a Biblical case that unborm babies are not persons. Nevetheless, it does not justify their killing. Even “onanism” is a grave sin in the Bible (essentially birth control to avoid the graphic).

As for premarital sex not being a sin? Where is ypur case for that? You ignored that question.

I should think it a quite natural question. First, you volunteered it. Second, I think most of them still think themselves vaguely Christian, and fornication and baby killing are gererally regarded as opposed to Christian morality. Had you said “I’m a humanist”, no question would have been begged and you would at the same time have been honest.

This answer makes sense. Unfortunately, I don’t think you have much to worry about.

You essentially characterized yourself as a Christian in favor of free sex and abortion. I said why and you’re the one confused? You’re the quintessential child of your age, but you haven’t a clue about Christ.

So you see substituting birth control for abortion as the answer to population loss. This makes sense to you?

You can’t be serious, but unfortunately you are. There are many like you, this is why civilization is doomed. When the Lord returns, He isn’t going to be happy.

Hey, did you see where Holly apologized for that post? I don’t know the time lapse between this one and her last one, but give the gal a break.

 

[savienu]

NTOT;5211041:

A usurper to the throne is possible, it has happened (I mean I gave you or some one the anti-popes earlier) and the Church (again look something up, I can’t reprint everything in these boxes), but just read CumExApostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV. Why would a Pope write at length that an heretical usurper would lose all jurisdiction EVEN IF HE HAD THE SUPPORT OF ALL THE CARDINALS, if it were not possible to happen?

Nice job, this is of course from Trent, I’m well familiar with it, and it simply defines (against the protestants, this was at the time of the reformations) that all sucessors of Peter, have the same authority as Peter. It does not mean that there will ALWAYS be a Pope. Because there hasn’t always been a Pope. This is simply an historical fact that even you vatican II loving, limp wristed local Bishop will readily admit. Every time a pope dies, there is a period without a pope. In older times this period sometimes lasted years.

I’m actually the one defending the Papacy, from Peter to Pius XIIth. This new church isn’t Catholic. It is in fact more protestant than most protestants. The Church isn’t about worship of the Pope, but about fidelity to Christ. When the Pope is true, we owe him our obedience, when the Pope defects, and apotascizes, we’re obligated to recognize it. How can the “Pope” kiss the Koran, which blasphemes the Trinity? Well he can’t, as Pope Paul IV taught us in the Bull I referenced above. Look it up. Look up the Papal Coronation Oath. None of the Vatican II “popes” even took the oath. But read what it says! I can’t do it for you. Or hide your head in the sand. It’s your soul.

Don’t believe me? google it.

The silly notion comes from Saint Antanasius, who was the only Catholic Bishop in the East, and exiled in the Desert, during the Aryan Crisis. In my description I essentially quoted him on this point.

Just a question- if Pope Paul VI wasn’t really Pope, how can you be quoting him as validly teaching us anything? Aren’t you contradicting yourself by saying the Papacy ended with Pius XII and then quoting, and referring to Paul VI as the Pope?

 

[mulligan59]

mulligan59;5211329:

Just a question- if Pope Paul VI wasn’t really Pope, how can you be quoting him as validly teaching us anything? Aren’t you contradicting yourself by saying the Papacy ended with Pius XII and then quoting, and referring to Paul VI as the Pope?

I didn’t quote Paul VI. I quoted Paul IV. He was about 500 years earlier.

Glad you asked the question, it is important to at least understand what we’re each saying, even if you don’t agree.

 

[mulligan59]

mulligan59;5211574:

Hey, did you see where Holly apologized for that post? I don’t know the time lapse between this one and her last one, but give the gal a break.

No I did not see it. In fact I was responding to a post she made just last night, in fact to an answer I received from her just last night.

I apologize if I missed something. I’m off the case. Aufwiedersehen.

 

[Alisa]

Mulligan, are you still on this thread? I thought you were leaving.

So now you are convinced you know how the “Holy Ghost” works, and you also know that our civilization is “doomed”. You seem to have inside knowledge of just about everything there is to know. Maybe God can take a vacation and leave you in charge!

 

[savienu]

savienu;5212108:

mulligan59;5211329:

I didn’t quote Paul VI. I quoted Paul IV. He was about 500 years earlier.

Glad you asked the question, it is important to at least understand what we’re each saying, even if you don’t agree.

Sorry. Must have been a little dyslexic this morning.

 

[mapleoak]

These probably aren’t even the best. It is tedious to extract these. But they certainly give an indication of where the early fathers were. Find me one indicating that Desire suffices. Why do I have to do all of the work?

You were provided with the teaching of the Church Father St. Augustine, which you dismissed by claiming you know better than he does, therefore you don’t deserve any more citations of the Holy Church Fathers, but just to humor you a little here are some more:
Saint Thomas Aquinas - Holy Doctor of the Church:

Q. Can the Baptism of blood, or the Baptism of desire, take the place of the Baptism of water? A. Yes,** the Baptism of blood**, which is martyrdom and figures the Passion of our Blessed Lord, and the Baptism of desire, which consists in an act of the love of God through the action of the Holy Ghost, can both take the place of the Baptism of water; but in this sense, that the grace of Baptism can be obtained without the reception of the sacrament itself when this reception is impossible; but not in the sense that the character of the sacrament can be received apart from the sacrament itself (LXVI. n).

Here is what Pope Urban V (Head of the Catholic Church to whom obedience by all is required) had to say of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ teachings:

"We command you to follow the doctrine of St. Thomas as the Catholic doctrine, and study to embrace it with all your power."

If that is not enough, there’s more. Try Pope Leo for size:

"Those who are threatened by death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized at any time." Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed by the Church, he is saved, yet “so as by fire,”

and
Pope St. Leo the Great on Baptism by Blood:

Those whom the wicked king removed from this world were brought to heaven by Christ, and He conferred the dignity of martyrdom on those upon whom He had not yet bestowed the redemption of his blood

Then we have the Holy Pope St Pius X:

Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
**A. **The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Further, you like to quote from Trent (generally out of context), so try this one out:

In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our saviour; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)

Of course you probably know better than all these as well also. Further, you claim the Catholic Church ceased to exist post Vatican II and the Holy Ghost jumped over to your schismatic Church since then, you will have to adjust your belief a bit. You will have to now argue that the Church ended long before that in order to support your assertions, since it has always taught contrary to what you claim.

 

[LindaSK]

kage_ar,

Thanks for the links on Limbo. I trust in God’s mercy. Since He is the only one who really knows, I will continue to pray for the little ones. Is there such a thing as too many prayers? I do admit that when I first heard that the Church thought the unbaptized - even babies - went to Limbo, I found it a little unsettling. As a Protestant, I presumed God would take babies right to heaven. Actually, I was taught that. I also ask them to pray for us. Nothing like the faith of a child - trust and innocence. We are all called to that kind of faith.

I feel this war against abortion will be won with future generations. Those born after 1973 are all survivors of this holocaust. It is for us to continue to teach them, by our witness and example, the truths of the Faith and the desire and need to persevere.

God bless.

 

[libbybeth]

libbybeth;5204641:

I used to believe this too, as I was taught it in Catholic school. However I have since learned that it is NOT a dogma defined by the Church (blood or desire). Vatican II excluded, I mean it is so ambiguous (Vatican II) in saying all religions, even atheism, may in some way be a path to God, who knows what it said. But even Vatican II, did not speak to these two supposed forms of baptism. They are really just made up, like urban legends.

For certain, prior to the 1960s, (and you cite early Fathers), there is no magisterial definition of the Baptism of desire or Blood notions. In fact the opposite can easily be proven from Trent and Florence before it.

This is why I believe the left (inspired by the Devil) is so in love with abortion, it is truly their Sacred Cow political issue. It is in essence why Sarah Palin is mocked while Hillary is idolozed.

What we need to remember is that Our Blessed Lord himself took human form within the womb at the start of his life on earth. He did this we are told, because he loves us and so that “none may perish”. We need to trust God’s love for these aborted babies who had no opportunity to say yes or no to baptism.

 

[jean8]

kage_ar,

Thanks for the links on Limbo. I trust in God’s mercy. Since He is the only one who really knows, I will continue to pray for the little ones. Is there such a thing as too many prayers? I do admit that when I first heard that the Church thought the unbaptized - even babies - went to Limbo, I found it a little unsettling. As a Protestant, I presumed God would take babies right to heaven. Actually, I was taught that. I also ask them to pray for us. Nothing like the faith of a child - trust and innocence. We are all called to that kind of faith.

I feel this war against abortion will be won with future generations. Those born after 1973 are all survivors of this holocaust. It is for us to continue to teach them, by our witness and example, the truths of the Faith and the desire and need to persevere.

God bless.

Reading Ps.139:13-16 Verse 16.
“All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
God knows our coming in and our going out.We are saved by grace through faith. God chose us before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In Love.

God bless,
jean

 

[elts1956]

Well, I as a liberal Episcopalian believe that sex before marriage is not sinful. I also believe that abortion is not sinful and neither is artificial birth control. I would like to see a reduction in the amount of abortions performed but I also believe that an increased awareness and usage of artificial birth control is one way to help get the numbers down.

Holly, since I know nothing about the Episcopal Church, would you please give a source of teaching in your Church which gives Christians and members of your faith the right to sex before marriage, abortion being ok and artificial birth control being okay. Thanks.

 

[elts1956]

Well, I as a liberal Episcopalian believe that sex before marriage is not sinful. I also believe that abortion is not sinful and neither is artificial birth control. I would like to see a reduction in the amount of abortions performed but I also believe that an increased awareness and usage of artificial birth control is one way to help get the numbers down.

mapleoak;5210850:

And once again, I point out to you that water is necessary for the sacrament of baptism to be valid, as was indicated by the Council of Trent.

Because there is none. The Church has never condemned, rather has always taught, that Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are as efficacious as the sacrament of Baptism in removing the stain of original sin and making eternal life possible. You are much confused in that it seems you believe that baptism of desire and of blood would then preclude the necessity of availing one the sacrament of baptism, and therefore they must be false. To assert such would be incorrect.

Yes baptism is necessary.

Interesting, but wrong conclusion. You are now claiming that since baptism without water is not a sacrament, therefore because baptism of desire does not involve water, the required baptism must be a sacrament. Strange indeed. Note that the Church has also always taught that if one is baptized through desire, it does not relinquish the necessity of availing oneself to sacramental baptism. It most certainly removes the stain of original sin and makes eternal life possible, just as does sacramental baptism.

btw, none of the above proves your silly notion that the Catholic Church has no Pope, though it may well prove that your personal Church has no pope.

Yes. From the confetior, “thought word and deed”, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault (strike breast three times)

This is actually the first real argument you have made in this entire ongoing discussion between us. It is logical and I like the logic. But it doesn’t matter what I like. You have rejected my argument which was based on two Papal citations that establish three things: Baptism is necassary, it must be a Sacrament, and it requires water, You reject it with a claim, that would be valid, were it true, that “desire” was the early teaching of the Church. Well actually, that is too vague, but had you phrased it correctly as say “the unaimous teaching of the fathers and of recieved tradtion”, it would be a good argument were it true.
But you have given me nothing. Give me one reliable citation.

But there has to be that one. Where?

But here are a few more. I think you sincerely don’t know this, and I just didn’t feel like pulling out the books.

Saint Cyril of Jeruselem, 350AD, “…if a man is virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of water, he cannot enter the kingdom of God, a bold saying, but not mine, for it is Jesus who has delcared it”. (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1)

Saint Ambrose, 387 AD - " Unless a man be born again of water…No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity." (Jurgens… Volume 2)

Pope Saint Innocent - 414 AD “…But that which your fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism, infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic” (Jurgens …Volume 3)

Tertullia, - 203 AD “…nor can we otherwise be saved, except by permanently abiding in the water”. (Jurgens…volume 1)

Saint Ambrose - 391 AD "…even a Catechumen…unless he is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot recieve the remission of sins. (De Myterius)

These probably aren’t even the best. It is tedious to extract these. But they certainly give an indication of where the early fathers were. Find me one indicating that Desire suffices. Why do I have to do all of the work?

I thought everybody knew this. But apparently there is quite a lot that I have taken for granted. This is old news, but of course it is totally consistent with the spirit of V II. C’mon, don’t you think that Jews and Moslems and Hindus like Ghandi go to Heaven? John Paul II prayed at Ghandi’s grave, kissed the Koran, prayed in the Synagogue.
//http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1404663/Catholic-U-turn-on-conversion-of-Jews-divides-Americas-Christians.html

I don’t think I did the link correctly, but the story is very discoverable from many sources.

Mulligan, I have heard of Baptism of Desire and/or of blood from my teachers in a Catholic School. With my own ears I heard this, either in grade School, Catholic, or during the time I attended an all girl’s High Catholic school run by the Notre Dame sisters. I graduated from Notre Dame in 1956. Do you mean these good women were spreading heresy even before Vatican II.?

 

[budgie2]

No sugar coating… What does it say of the morality of “Catholics” who believe more in the right to choose than in abstinence? Catholics who will stand up and walk out in the middle of a mass worshiping our God because they do not want to here a homily on the wrongs of abortion. After all, is that not what it comes down too? That it is today morally more acceptable to have an abortion than to have a child resulting from the failure to merely abstain?

There are all sorts of people that attend the Catholic Church. I know women in mass that have had abortions, and there may be people working in a medical capacity referring them. There may also be people with relatives and friends that have had abortions. Certainly the Church needs to guide on these issues although we also have to help people understand Christ’s message of forgiveness and that Confession is a sacrament specifically for the forgiveness of mortal sin although we also use it for venial sins.