Posted on 06/23/2017 6:04:09 PM PDT by marshmallow
Mrs. Don-o:
A agree, a small private Mass with family in friends would have been my preference as well.
The Body of Christ was annointed as well. It’s a tradition that goes back to roots of Christianity. The sprinkling of Holy Water calls to mind that the person was baptized into the true faith of the Catholic community- The One True Church founded by Christ, and signifies the promise of eternal life lives through its teachings.
Thus only those who are baptized are entitled to a Catholic funeral.
https://www.osv.com/Article/TabId/493/ArtMID/13569/ArticleID/10323/What-Every-Catholic-needs-to-know-about-funerals.aspx
Your skills in illogic are astounding.
No (the devil can be in the details), for as said, what constitutes "repentance before death" as well as what would qualify as "public scandal of the faithful" are indeed subject to interpretation, and manifestly so.
Rather than doing what RCs insist we must do, which is to submit as docile sheep to the pope and his prelates as the interpreters of Scripture, and certainly of church teaching (and which also includes what your bishops say about Muslims), then you presume to correct them, which i do as well.
Bishops' opinions on Muslims are just that --- opinions --- some manifestly wise, some manifestly not. Correcting the erring brother is always a good thing. Even if the erring brother is your bishop. Cf Canon 212
The same thing the preacher giving the date the deceased "got saved" does.
So there is no such thing as a "day of salvation" when one passes from death unto life, by effectual faith purifying the heart, or does this only occur via the act itself of sprinkling water, even on a morally cognizant innocent soul?
Well, that is your church (not that of the NT ), and your brethren according to what it manifestly believes ("I will shew thee my faith by my works" - James 2:18). not
That attitude essentially makes you an evangelical, since rather than your one duty being to follow your pastors as docile sheep, then it is your duty to ascertain the veracity of what is taught by examination of it in the light of your supreme standard.
And which is what had led to the SSPV and SSPX divisions, yet is inconsistent with so much past historical RC teaching, while your dissent and theirs actually testifies to how Catholic teaching itself is indeed much subject to interpretation. Which, as regards Scripture being subject to the same, RCs tell us we need to submit to Rome for, which teaching and leadership they make subject to their interpretations.
Now according to your interpretation, how do you see Canon 212 as saying that your judgment on what "represents Christ" can trump the judgment of your overall leadership? How can we be sure your judgement is correct?
And that you are sanctioned to make your conflicting opinion known on a public forum (esp. as a mere peon in rank), and that this is consistent with past RC teaching? And that such teaching is not subject to interpretation?
Also, thus far, your bishops overall judgment on canon law and on Muslims is validly subject to correction by you on a public forum, but what else may be added? Papal Encyclicals (including Social Encyclicals) Bulls? V2? The CCC? Anything less than so-called "infallible teachings?" How many are there?
Your petulance and lack of ability are expected.
As you no doubt already realize, Catholics and Protestants have very different conceptions of what it means to be in a state of grace.
Or at least how to obtain that grace. But it remains that there is indeed a day of salvation, of effectual justifying God-given repentant faith purifying the heart, which is thus expressed in obedience, from baptism (immersion if possible) onward, with such true, final persevering believers being promised eternal life, and not because they were sprinkled as infants and died as Catholics, and are made good enough to be with God thru purifying torments commencing at death. Thanks be to God.
Bwahahahahahahha!!!
Team Prot fumbles again.....
Simply another poor vain substitute for an argument. Bye.
I'm sorry. There IS no arguing with someone who doesn't recognize the internal inconsistency and incoherence of what you wrote with regard the the subject matter.
You know what they say about lipstick on a pig....
Nothing new here. More avoidance in disguise.
You’re right!
But it’s not “avoidance” ;-)
...with such true, final persevering believers being promised eternal life...
...before you dismiss it as MY "smokescreen?"
I mean, that IS a pretty specific clause for me to zero in on. Don't you think?
...with such true, final persevering believers being promised eternal life...
...before you dismiss it as MY "avoidance?"
I mean, that IS a pretty specific clause for me to zero in on. Don't you think?
Are you suuuuure you don't want to reexamine what I quoted from you... ...with such true, final persevering believers being promised eternal life... ...before you dismiss it as MY "avoidance?" I mean, that IS a pretty specific clause for me to zero in on. Don't you think?
No avoidance or inconsistency by me here on what I stated, and zero in it if you care, and dare. It would be about time you actually presented an argument.
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.