Spirituality
07 Oct 06
09 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYou've now posted the exact same thing 4 times. You're supposed to actually discuss it (FORUM you know). Please reconcile this with the necessity for Baptism which is undoubtedly a tenet of the RCC.
I'm the stubborn jerk? Now that's comedy.
Again:
[i/]As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the ch ptism, although they claim such a salvation appears to be in the perceived nature of God.
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI see you continue to ignore the point. A theology, like any system of rational human thought, is supposed to be at least internally consistent. This one isn't IF unbaptized children can somehow gain salvation yet Baptism is a necessity for salvation. See?
Your repeated mistake is in interpreting religion as a code of laws.
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm still waiting for you to read and comment that 'same thing' which directly quotes how the Vatican reconciles it. It's with a 'we don't know what happens'.
You've now posted the exact same thing 4 times. You're supposed to actually discuss it (FORUM you know). Please reconcile this with the necessity for Baptism which is undoubtedly a tenet of the RCC.
There's really no ambiguity. The Vatican claims that the Church has no official doctrine regarding the salvation of unbaptized infants and you claim that the RCC has an official doctrine.
Bravo.
09 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFor people who are born and had the opportunity to be baptized, yes. For children (which includes fetus according to the RCC) who died before having the chance to be baptized, no.
I see you continue to ignore the point. A theology, like any system of rational human thought, is supposed to be at least internally consistent. This one isn't IF unbaptized children can somehow gain salvation yet Baptism is a necessity for salvation. See?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#1257
I quote (again, from the Vatican):
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaThat does not "reconcile"; it merely kicks the can down the road.
I'm still waiting for you to read and comment that 'same thing' which directly quotes how the Vatican reconciles it. It's with a 'we don't know what happens'.
There's really no ambiguity. The [b]Vatican claims that the Church has no official doctrine regarding the salvation of unbaptized infants and you claim that the RCC has an official doctrine.
Bravo.[/b]
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by Palynka1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.
For people who are born and had the opportunity to be baptized, yes. For children (which includes fetus according to the RCC) who died before having the chance to be baptized, no.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#1257
I quote (again, from the Vatican):
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salv ...[text shortened]... ospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[/b]
You were saying?
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, unlike you apparently. Look at what I've quoted in bold.
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.
You were saying?
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaMaybe you should read the NEXT SENTENCE which I've already quoted:
Yes, unlike you apparently. Look at what I've quoted in bold.
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."
09 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSo what? The Church 'DOES NOT KNOW'. That's what I've been saying. You're implying that this means that it doesn't exist, which is clearly false.
Maybe you should read the NEXT SENTENCE which I've already quoted:
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."
On this text you're quoting, the Vatican has an entry SPECIFICALLY on unbaptized children (that I've quoted repeatedly). That claims they have no position on the issue and leave it to the good judgment of their God.
What's the point in denying that their position is such, if it's in the site of the Vatican on the issue of Baptism?
09 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't get your problem. Let's see if I can put this simply:
WTF????
The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published.
An imprimatur is simply a certificate that the work is free of doctrinal error.
1. The Church teaches P.
2. A book contains position Q that is not in conflict with P.
3. Hence, the relevant bishop gives the book the imprimatur.
4. The imprimatur simply means that Q is not in conflict with P; not that the book contains P nor that Q is the same as P.
Do you get it now?