N
Namesake
Guest
I have pondered and studied that for years and I haven’t come up with a satisfactory answer.
You are correct that some great minds have been devout Catholics and I can’t understand why. It boggles my mind!
- Status
You are correct that some great minds have been devout Catholics and I can’t understand why. It boggles my mind!
R
reen12
Guest
Question/Answer #632 Baltimore Catechism # 3
ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-14.htm
If my post is read, carefully, one will note that I state
that ‘speculation’ was taught…as something to believe.
That this was an ‘unoffical’ teaching, that was taught -
as if it were ‘official’ teaching.
quote: reen12 - highlighting my own
The point is not:
-whether the CC ever ‘taught’ this as official doctrine
The point is - here we have an institution, claiming to be
God’s voice on earth, who cannot state - *outright *-
that an unbapitzed infant goes directly into the arms of God.
I leave it to others to make their own assessment of the
matter.
reen12
M
mercygate
Guest
Exactly whose writings have you “pondered and studied”?
N
Namesake
Guest
A complete bibliography would be ridiculously long to provide. Would you be willing to accept that I have studied most of the pertinent literature?
I am still perplexed by the devotion to the RCC of W. F Buckley who I regard as one of the great minds of our time. Kenneth Miller comes to mind.
Of course there are the great minds such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Do you require a complete bibliography? I can provide that if necessary.
M
mercygate
Guest
That would be quite helpful.
N
Namesake
Guest
So it isn’t enough for you that I assert that I have read most all of the pertinent literature even if I assert that my college studies included most of the relevant literature (including graduate work)? You still want a complete bibliography? That would take some time as the book case is quite large.
Would you be willing to match me? I don’t think it’s necessary.
How about…
Marx, Freud, Huxley, Orwell, Rushdie, Joyce, Anscombe, Belloc , Chesterton, Lewis, Dawson, Moore, Pope, Tolkien, Wilde…
Want more?
R
redrosetea
Guest
I am reporting you for that lie and slanderAhhh … should have gave the Presbyterian church a shot??? Anyway glad you’re back in a Christian church
M
mercygate
Guest
Why, yes. This is scattershot.
N
Namesake
Guest
So, what do you want?
E
estesbob
Guest
R
reen12
Guest
Boggles mine, as well. One supposes that Galileo and
Copernicus were boggled, also - speaking of ‘great minds.’
The sole religious faith that has any credibility, is Judaism.
Christianity is redundant. Christianity offers what the
God of Israel had already granted.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
[Note the words of the prayer of Solomon, at the dedication of the first Temple: 1 Kings 8: 22-30]
usccb.org/nab/bible/1kings/1kings8.htm
True monotheism, is Judaism. No one needs to convert.
Judaism does not seek converts, yet will accept same.
Gentiles who acknowledge the God of Israel, and who
keep that which Catholicism would describe as the ‘natural law,’
are welcome in the world to come.
Each is considered a ‘righteous Gentile,’ or an ‘Hasidic Gentile.’
The fact that Catholicism can find no way to state -outright-
that an unbaptized infant, who passes away, goes straight to
the heart of God, is all I need know… about the teachings of
Catholicism.
Judaism is not similarly hampered - by a triune deity who
might turn an infant soul away. We are told, by Catholicism,
“We can’t say, for sure.”
Can’t you? Astounding.
In Judaism, man is born in innocence. Right away,
we know where we are,* vis a vis* Godhead, at the outset of life.
reen12
Catechism of the Catholic Church, from the Vatican website:
quote: reen12
They’re still at it, as far as I can note.
The CC still seems unsure - of the fate and eternal destination of unbaptized infants, who have passed away.
Note the word ‘urgent.’ Why urgent? Is there an actual concern
that God might turn away the soul of an unbaptized infant,
who passed away? The mind boggles. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif
At least mine does.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
You’ll really love Calvinism
My understanding is that Judaism believes anyone who adheres to the Noahide laws will be saved (one of the seven Noahide laws is faith in God). I also understand the typical Rabbinical view is that the idea of the Trinity (since it represents manifestations of the one God) does not offend the Noahide laws and thus Christians (who adhere to those laws) will be saved.
Obviously we view it differently (although as a protestant I could not say an infant is doomed to hell because they were not baptized). Particular as a Calvinist (Presbyterian) we have a view of predestination viewed as harsh by most … though of course we disagree.
Anyways, I’m glad there’s diversity in this forum. Shalom!
Blessings
J
jmcrae
Guest
If Copernicus had not gone public with his findings, you and I would never have heard of him.
You have it backwards. The Vatican was the world’s first scientific laboratory/observatory. Catholics were doing science long before anyone else was.
U
uglygal
Guest
…
U
uglygal
Guest
hello reen. I am doing fineHello, uglygal. How are you?
I read your post, and I could sure understand
what you are saying.
Christians debate matters of authority:
Magisterium of the CC, sola scriptura.
One church will hold that righteouness is
‘imputed’ righteouness, while the CC asserts
that an ontological change takes place, with baptism.
A change in the very being of man, not a mere ‘imputed’ righteousness.
The claim itself ----> that original sin is a reality,
is simply accepted as true.
Now things get really complex.
For 700 years, there was the teaching on limbo.
Declared not to have been an ‘official’ teaching of the Church,
it was a thing to be memorized, as late as the 1950’s,
[Baltimore Catechism.] A very official ‘unofficial’ teaching.
Since an infant cannot express baptism of desire, what of
the eternal fate of this infant?
The CC is still addressing this issue. I can’t believe that it takes
a great deal of thought, considering the eternal fate of an
unbaptized infant. An example of the continued complexity -
with regard to this matter? From the Vatican website:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Grace is now treated as commodity.
[the ‘economy’ of salvation.] Indulgences. Treasury of Merit.
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
Viewing all of this, from the perspective of Judaic monotheism,
one is amazed, at the now complex route to salvation.
In the Hebrew scriptures, there is peace to be found in His pasture.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a106/reen12/sheepandrestfulwaters.jpg
The God of Israel welcomes all, forgives sin, and offers eternal life.
Come now, let us set things right, says the Lord. Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow…[Isaiah 1: 18]
Can a mother forget her infant? Be without tenderness for the child of her womb?
Even should she forget, I will never forget you.
See? I have written your name on the palm of My hand.
[Isaiah 49: 25-16]
A far cry from Jesus of Nazereth saying:
How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few. Matt. 7:14
God walk with you, uglygal.
reen
by God’s grace everything is joy. To rest in the arms of the Father and finally breathe with relief “it’s over”.
It strikes me and humbles me that you say God walk WITH you. He does because He is faithful and He is the most wonderful of Father’s. NOT because i deserve it.
I so love your reference to the pastures of the Father. I find it a beautiful image of heaven, a haven of rest and peace in His company and presence. Unlike the heaven presented in the writings of the saints - a kingdom full of thrones and crowns where one must vie with the other to “win”, where one gets a larger crown and larger throne than the other. Where one is closer to God than the other. I found no peace because I can’t run the race St Paul writes of. I am not a spiritual warrior or athlete.
Rather I am a worm in God’s garden, lol not even a flower! But He created this worm for a purpose, if only so that He can take delight in her
sorry if I’ve offended anyone. I’m not trolling or at least that’s not my intent.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Ah…you got me…good oneHa ha fooled you…
But seriously, what i want to know is, why do people leave the Catholic religion.
Please explain your reasons why you left…
Thanks
Dolphy
I
Irene72
Guest
I was’nt talking about Jesus. ROTFL
M
mercygate
Guest
Nothing, really. You challenge the theology of the Eucharist and have read a lot of stuff (To my knowledge, Karl Marx is not considered much of a contributor to the subject), and say you have ‘pondered and studied’ Catholic doctrine. Yet you say: “You eat your God? How odd.”
Perhaps it was unintentional on your part, but from this side of the table, the question seems truculent. Someone as well versed in the subject as yourself, coming to a Catholic forum, could be expected to refine and define the question at a higher level and with more respect.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
As eBob mentioned, You would be better off just letting us think you were ignorant of the Catholic Faith rather than make posts proving it.
*La Sapienza was founded in 1303 by Pope Boniface VIII who issued the bull “In supremae praeminentia dignitatis” on 20 April, 1303, as a Studium for ecclesiastical studies …The pope established it in order that Rome might become the fruitful mother of science.
In 1431, Pope Eugene IV completely reorganized the studium with the bull “In supremae”, in which he granted masters and students alike the broadest possible privileges and decreed that the university should include the four Faculties of Law, Medicine, Philosophy and Theology. He introduced a new tax on wine, in order to raise funds for the university;
The university’s days of splendor, however, came to an end during the sack of Rome in 1527 when the ‘studium’ was closed, the professors were dispersed, and some were killed. Pope Paul III restored the university shortly after his ascension to the pontificate in 1534.
In the 1650s the university became known as Sapienza meaning wisdom, which title it retained until now. Pope Clement XI purchased some land, in 1703, with his private funds on the Janiculum, where he made a botanical garden, which soon became the most celebrated in Europe through the labours of the brothers Trionfetti.*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Rome_La_Sapienza
In an ironic twist, PBXVI was to have given a speach there and cancelled because of planned protests by professors and students intolerant of the teachings of the CC.
The CC does not reject the THEORY of evolution. And what Mendel research proved was mutations within a species, not mutations from one species to another, which is what we call evolution.
Please state your source.
Here is mine:
**Gregor Mendel, who is known as the “father of modern genetics”, was inspired by both his professors at university and his colleagues at the monastery to study variation in plants, and he conducted his study in the monastery’s garden.
Elevated as abbot in 1868, his scientific work largely ended as Mendel became consumed with his increased administrative responsibilities, especially a dispute with the civil government over their attempt to impose special taxes on religious institutions.[3]
At first Mendel’s work was rejected, and it was not widely accepted until after he died. The common belief at the time was that Darwin’s theory of pangenes were responsible for inheritance. The modern synthesis uses Mendelian genetics.**
My questions to you:
-If the CC was so anti-science, why did they encourage him to do research in the monastary garden.
-If Mendel only stayed in the monastery so he could do research, why didn’t he leave when his new duties left him little time to continue his research?
-If science was so advanced by secular society, why did they reject Mendel’s theory in favor of Darwin’s, which later proved to be incorrect?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
N
Namesake
Guest
I agree as long as it’s humanistic Judaism. The OT is quite simply not true at all and thankfully so.
- Status