Originally Posted By davewasbaloo But then how does one recognise or enjoy the positive without the comparison of the negative?
Originally Posted By jonvn You can enjoy or not enjoy. You don't need torment to know when something is good.
Originally Posted By FaMulan That's a lousy, lousy priest and I hope he receives his just reward for saying such a thing! It's priests who do things like that and hurt people who will suffer the worst in the next life, whether in hell or purgatory.<< No, that was a priest acting in proper procedure and doctrine of the time. The 1960s/1970s. When I was a child in CCD, that's I was taught precisely what the priest told Mamabaloo. It was doctrine at the time. Unbaptised babies were doomed to eternity in purgatory. My family left the Catholic church in 1975, so I can't tell you when doctrine changed.
Originally Posted By jonvn I know a few people who are "lapsed" Catholics. They can't deal with it. One family remained Christian. They are religious, just not Christian. They have 10 kids. I got him drunk one afternoon prior to a company meeting.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< >> That's a lousy, lousy priest and I hope he receives his just reward for saying such a thing! It's priests who do things like that and hurt people who will suffer the worst in the next life, whether in hell or purgatory.<< No, that was a priest acting in proper procedure and doctrine of the time. The 1960s/1970s. When I was a child in CCD, that's I was taught precisely what the priest told Mamabaloo. It was doctrine at the time. Unbaptised babies were doomed to eternity in purgatory. My family left the Catholic church in 1975, so I can't tell you when doctrine changed. >>> If true, here's another example of the "official" version of the absolute truth changing over time. But any given time, we seem to be expected to accept it without question as eternal truth. I'm still waiting for someone to explain this general issue to me.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< One more thing on that...am I incorrect or don't priests still perform the sacrament, even over a deceased person? I thought I read that somewhere (like in the case of a stillbirth, for example)... If that IS possible, then it's the PRIEST who commited the grave sin! >>> I have been to a Catholic funeral for a stillbirth. Actually, I think it was for a baby that died in utero a month or two prematurely and then the doctors induced labor (not sure where you draw the line between this sort of thing and a more traditional stillbirth). It was a very odd and somewhat creepy experience, and I think that a lot of people felt uncomfortable about it.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>I'm still waiting for someone to explain this general issue to me.<<< So, HAVE they called for flurries in hell yet SD? Didn't you understand the explaination? Jesus gave the ultimate power and truth to the POPES, and whatever the Pope says, god changes things accordingly in heaven. Simple. Actually, I wasn't talking about a funeral, but the sacrament of baptism (or last rites, whichever) which I thought they performed on already very recently deceased people "just in case". But as for stillbirths, I guess those babies are just pretty much screwed. So much for a loving, merciful god. well, at least back in THOSE days. since the church, and therefore god, have changed their collective minds, dead babies have a MUCH better chance of making the grade THESE days (lucky brats!). I just can't believe I read something from the Catholic church that says "we don't know, but we HOPE...". Heck, Jesus GAVE them the power of god there. Why don't they just CHANGE it and help those poor babies out...we all know that god will go ahead and adjust heaven records to compensate for any vatican flip flopping!! I agree with Jon, this just gets dumber and dumber.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>That's a lousy, lousy priest and I hope he receives his just reward for saying such a thing! It's priests who do things like that and hurt people who will suffer the worst in the next life, whether in hell or purgatory.<< No, that was a priest acting in proper procedure and doctrine of the time. The 1960s/1970s. When I was a child in CCD, that's I was taught precisely what the priest told Mamabaloo. It was doctrine at the time. Unbaptised babies were doomed to eternity in purgatory. My family left the Catholic church in 1975, so I can't tell you when doctrine changed.<< Please provide some proof of this absurd claim. I just did a seach through the text you were most likely taught from, the Baltimore Catechism. Check out Question 632 in this 1891 version of the Baltimore Catechism - <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/balt/balt3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sacred-texts.com/ch r/balt/balt3.htm</a>): Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism? A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven." Now bear in mind that the Baltimore Catehicm was a teaching tool for use in the United States in the past. It can still be used (the Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats are still valid, as far as I know). Those approvals merely say that the documents contain no errors but it doesn't mean that everything contained in them are true. On the other hand, "Fidei Depositum," the Apostolic Constitution by John Paul II promulgating the Catechism of the Catholic Church called the newer Catechism a "sure norm for teaching the faith." The recently released Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in Question 263: 262. Is it possible to be saved without Baptism? Since Christ died for the salvation of all, those can be saved without Baptism who die for the faith (Baptism of blood). Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire). The Church in her liturgy entrusts children who die without Baptism to the mercy of God.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>If true, here's another example of the "official" version of the absolute truth changing over time. But any given time, we seem to be expected to accept it without question as eternal truth. I'm still waiting for someone to explain this general issue to me.<< But it's not. The underlying TRUTH never changes and it cannot change. How people understand it and how we act in response to it DOES change.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Didn't you understand the explaination? Jesus gave the ultimate power and truth to the POPES, and whatever the Pope says, god changes things accordingly in heaven. Simple.<< Nope. Here's now it works: Papal infallibility is the doctrine that the Pope is incapable teaching error as it pertains to Faith and Morals when speaking "From the Chair." This is an example of the Extraordinary Magisterium. For example, Pope Benedict XVI cannot make a declaration that the Church no longer believes in the Deity of Christ or the Blessed Trinity. God will not allow that to happen. As to things pertaining to disciplines and such, that's different. Catholics are obliged to obey the Church on items where the Church has spoken and are free where the Church has not spoken. Believe it or not, there is a LOT of leeway there. >>Actually, I wasn't talking about a funeral, but the sacrament of baptism (or last rites, whichever) which I thought they performed on already very recently deceased people "just in case".<< Baptism is not one of the sacraments ordianarilly celebrated in the Last Rites. A baptized Catholic receives, at the very least, Extreme Unction (or the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick) and, if conscious, Reconciliation (Confession or Penance) and Viaticum (literally "On the way with you," meaning Food for the Way - or Last Holy Communion). >>But as for stillbirths, I guess those babies are just pretty much screwed.<< Once again, we don't KNOW. We entrust them to the mercy of God. >>So much for a loving, merciful god. well, at least back in THOSE days. since the church, and therefore god, have changed their collective minds, dead babies have a MUCH better chance of making the grade THESE days (lucky brats!). I just can't believe I read something from the Catholic church that says "we don't know, but we HOPE...".<< That's the actual teaching of the Church. Limbo was a theological construct but never a dogma of the Church. It was a theory which has fallen WAY out of favor. >>Heck, Jesus GAVE them the power of god there. Why don't they just CHANGE it and help those poor babies out...we all know that god will go ahead and adjust heaven records to compensate for any vatican flip flopping!!<< Because what happens to unbaptized babies is not part of the Deposit of Faith (the teaching handed down from Christ through the Apostles), so it's a question that we cannot answer. Based on what we DO know, we can speculate. We know that God is merciful and that He desires the salvation of all. We know that God has given us the Sacraments but we also know that He is not bound by them. That leaves the question of what happens to unbaptized babies an open question.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip This thread just amazes me on all sides. I believe there is a God, but how could ANY human have complete knowledge of God's plan. Expecting a human to interpret God's plan is rather like expecting a hamster to explain the theory of relativity. It just ain't going to happen. The Catholic Church is a wonderful church with a great tradition of teaching and ceremony going all the way back to the time of Christ. I have no problem considering myself Catholic even though I disagree with many of the Church's teachings (though cmpaley would probably have problems with that). If there is such a thing as an afterlife or heaven it is so far beyond human comprehension that none of us really have a clue as to what it is like. I'm very certain that God exists. I think I have some idea of what it is he might want from us humans. I doubt it has much to do with eating fish on Friday, going to confession, getting divorced, or using a rubber. But it doesn't bother me that the Catholic Church occasionally doesn't make much sense. Why should it? It is an institution created by humans, flawed by all the inconsistencies and failings that any other creation of man exhibits. What else would you expect?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>This thread just amazes me on all sides. I believe there is a God, but how could ANY human have complete knowledge of God's plan. Expecting a human to interpret God's plan is rather like expecting a hamster to explain the theory of relativity. It just ain't going to happen.<< Oh, I agree. Anyone who says that they know how everything works is either lying or deluded. We can only go based on what has actually been made known to us. >>The Catholic Church is a wonderful church with a great tradition of teaching and ceremony going all the way back to the time of Christ. I have no problem considering myself Catholic even though I disagree with many of the Church's teachings (though cmpaley would probably have problems with that).<< I would but I can only advise you to honestly examine the issues you have trouble with and look at them from the framework of the Church's 2000 years of history, teaching and Tradition. >>If there is such a thing as an afterlife or heaven it is so far beyond human comprehension that none of us really have a clue as to what it is like.<< Agreed! St. Paul tells us as much in his second letter to the Corinthians (2:9) “ Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.†>>I'm very certain that God exists. I think I have some idea of what it is he might want from us humans. I doubt it has much to do with eating fish on Friday, going to confession, getting divorced, or using a rubber. But it doesn't bother me that the Catholic Church occasionally doesn't make much sense. Why should it? It is an institution created by humans, flawed by all the inconsistencies and failings that any other creation of man exhibits.<< Actually, BUZZZZZZZ!!!! The Catholic Church was founded by Christ Himself and has been given authority to teach and to oblige the conscience of her members. There are reasons for each of the items you brought up above and it all does make sense within the framework of the Church.
Originally Posted By DAR Getting back to the original topic at hand. I saw the cell phone video that's going around on the net. Look I'm glad the sob is gone, but I'll admit it's very chilling to watch.
Originally Posted By jonvn Leave it to the ineptitude of our leadership to make Saddam Hussein an object of sympathy.
Originally Posted By DAR I'm not sympathetic to what happened to him at all. Especially after catching a program on the history channel about the gassing of the Kurd village. But seeing the video definitely brought a chill.
Originally Posted By jonvn You should go watch the video of the dead babies he murdered. That is what he got this for.
Originally Posted By gadzuux AFTER saddam gassed the kurds, rumsfeld was dispatched as an emmisary of the reagan administration to shake his hand, pose for photos, and cozy up to the murderous dictator. Where was the outrage then?
