Posted on 01/18/2011 4:31:08 PM PST by stfassisi
I don't mean the Christological stuff, that is fairly nailed down (though there is some how have rather poorly thought positions on things that would drastically change the Incarnation, but that is another bunny trail), but things like this thread.
ooh ... ooh ... can I have a guess?
I guess ... man-made.
“”But even those are argued about. For example this thread.””
Some take this to the level of Feenyism and that has been rejected.
The faith is pretty simple to follow,red. It’s the outside world and old heresies that never seem to die resurrecting with new modern twists that leads many astray, thus theology seems to become more complex to those outside of the Church,but the basics always remain.
Personally,I have always thought someone like you and a few others here on FR are closer to the Catholic position on many issues and it would not surprise me if you became a convert.
I”m of the opinion a reunion with the EO’s would bring in many traditional protestants
Well, that and they don't hold to original sin.
I admit I am being a bit of a donkey's but on this thread, but I get hit with versions of Feeneism all the time and wanted to ask some questions.
You are in denial. Additonally you have no concept of the hierarchy of truth. You can’t use a fallible document (”THE HOPE” OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED)
to change dogma. The subject matter in duscussion is what happens to the unbaptized infant.The church has taught infallible that:
Church Teaching on Unbaptized Infants
John XXII [From the Letter “Nequaquam sine dolore” to the Armenians, Nov. 21, 1321] It (The Roman Church) teaches.... that the souls....of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell: however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places. (Denzinger 493a)
The Council of Florence, 1438 1445 Decree for the Greeks But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.(Denzinger 693)
The Council of Florence, 1438 1445 Bull of Union with the Copts With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians. (Denzinger 712)
Council of Lyons IL (1274) The Souls of those that die in mortal sin or in original sin go down into Hell, but there they receive different punishments. (Denzinger 464)
Council of Carthage, (417 418) Original Sin and Grace Canon 2 If anyone should say that newborn children need not be baptized that no original sin is derived from Adam to be washed away in the laver of regeneration, so that in their case the baptismal formula for the remission of sins is to be taken in a fictitious and not in the true sense, “let him be Anathema” (Denzinger 102)
Innocent III 1198 1216 The effect of Baptism The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God but the punishment of actual is the torments of everlasting hell ... (Denzinger 410)
Errors of the Synod of Pistoia [Condemnations in the Constitution, “Auctorem fidei, “ Aug. 28, 1794] The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin [Baptism, sec. 3] 26.The doctrine which rejects as Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions ( which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished of with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if. by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk, false, rash, injurious to Catholic teachings. (CONDEMNED) (Denzinger 1526)
Of course words mean what they say. Here is an example:
"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
The straightforward reading of this passage would be that "this rock" refers to Peter. That is the Catholic interpretation. It would be a Protestant attitude to consider oneself as having authority to teach that "this rock" refers to something else.
I would agree that the thread article is a mess, but that is because the author is asserting his own opinion even as he accuses Fr. Feeney of doing the same thing. Certainly internal Catholic debates can be confusing, but the same is true for internal debates about any extensive body of knowledge.
Church Teaching on Unbaptized Infants
John XXII [From the Letter “Nequaquam sine dolore” to the Armenians, Nov. 21, 1321] It (The Roman Church) teaches.... that the souls....of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell: however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places. (Denzinger 493a)
The Council of Florence, 1438 1445 Decree for the Greeks But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.(Denzinger 693)
The Council of Florence, 1438 1445 Bull of Union with the Copts With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians. (Denzinger 712)
Council of Lyons IL (1274) The Souls of those that die in mortal sin or in original sin go down into Hell, but there they receive different punishments. (Denzinger 464)
Council of Carthage, (417 418) Original Sin and Grace Canon 2 If anyone should say that newborn children need not be baptized that no original sin is derived from Adam to be washed away in the laver of regeneration, so that in their case the baptismal formula for the remission of sins is to be taken in a fictitious and not in the true sense, “let him be Anathema” (Denzinger 102)
Innocent III 1198 1216 The effect of Baptism The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God but the punishment of actual is the torments of everlasting hell ... (Denzinger 410)
Errors of the Synod of Pistoia [Condemnations in the Constitution, “Auctorem fidei, “ Aug. 28, 1794] The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin [Baptism, sec. 3] 26.The doctrine which rejects as Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions ( which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished of with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if. by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk, false, rash, injurious to Catholic teachings. (CONDEMNED) (Denzinger 1526)
re; There is a list of core Dogmas,red.There is no list on how these are defined through the ages
You have an evolutionary “truth”, which changes with time into something else. In short, you are not Catholic.
Stf- “”Hence he(feeny) had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell.””
Ver-””Of course this writer does not show where Fr. Feeney said this, because HE NEVER SAID IT.””
Stf- Here is what Feeny said in his book The Bread Of Life...
It would have been more accurate to say Fr. Feeney taught that unbaptized babies go to Limbo, as the Church teaches.
"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
What about the first eleven chapters of Genesis? Do they mean what they say?
Which means "become interpreted in radically new ways they never were before."
if necessary due to growing heresies
You mean like "Biblical literalism?"
What kind of religion is this?
ooh ... ooh ... can I have a guess?
I guess ... man-made.
Actually, the main thrust of my post was that by continually throwing quotes from magisterial documents back and forth, Catholics are no different from Protestants who toss Bible verses back and forth and similarly get absolutely nowhere. This is common to all religions and merely mean we all (myself included) need to be a little more modest than we are in our religious boasts.
But the idea that nothing means what it says and that reading anything and assuming it means what it says is heretical and "protestant" (which means it's best not to read anything) is indeed indicative of a man-made religion.
Thank you for the kind words. While I don’t share your religious beliefs and, in one sense, have no dog in this fight, the idea of ever changing, ever evolving religion drives me absolutely up the wall—especially when the person making the claim simultaneously that his “evolved” faith has remained absolutely unchanged.
From The Council Of Florence....
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
“those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”
Obviously an aborted fetus or stillborn child could not incur guilt,ver.
From the Council f Florence..”It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving””
Unborn Children are obviously good and not rejected by God,ver
Do you believe aborted and unborn Children are somehow bad in the eyes of God?
I believe in Genesis creation but I don't know if the Church has ruled definitively on this topic yet. Until recently everybody just took for granted that the Creation story was literal truth, so no Church ruling was needed. Currently the Church is in crisis so it is not yet able to take the steps necessary for restoring sanity. Of course modernists of all stripes take evolution as a dogma of faith.
Well, that makes you an odd duck. The vast majority of Catholics today (very much including those here on Free Republic) are loud, vociferous partisans of evolution. Not only that, but they seem to regard any skepticism about evolution as rooted in Protestant sola scriptura. Just as the Baptist doesn't drink in order to never be drunk, these people reject that the surface meaning of the Bible can be true so that they will never be tempted to "private interpretation."
I've argued with Catholic evolutionists on this board for over a decade. It's a dogma to most Catholics today.
Despite the differences in our religious beliefs, you have my respect. I wonder if you've ever been told to get out, or that you were "un-Catholic" just because you didn't go out of your way to make Genesis a collection of myths?
Fr. Most appears to say that God would be a monster if unbaptized infants attained only the natural happiness of Limbo instead of Heaven, as the Church teaches. Do you agree with Fr. Most?
I'm not a radical fundamentalist feenyite who condemns humble loving people to hell and has no concern for nobody else .I believe in the Holy Catholic Church that teaches Christ is merciful
There is a strong darkness that I feel about you,ver and I have been at Adoration praying for you to see it.
“”Fr. Most appears to say that God would be a monster if unbaptized infants attained only the natural happiness of Limbo instead of Heaven, as the Church teaches.””
Problem is that Limbo is not a Doctrine of Faith,so it seems there would be double predestination if they were to end up in hell,thus making God a monster and not pure love
From Vatican Document
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.