I’m sure that’s a question many folks would like the answer to.
It seems that the cause is still at a very early stage of development, but there is some news available on it.
HERE’S AN INTERVIEW WITH THE POLISH PRIEST ASSIGNED TO SERVE AS THE POSTULATOR FOR THE CAUSE.
I’m afraid that the Zenit interviewer asked him a number of dopey questions (e.g., about the late pontiff performing "social" miracles–some of those Italian Zenit reporters seem to be from outer space in some of the questions they ask), but he did a good job handling them and it’s nice to get a feel for what’s going on now.
One thing I had not been aware of is that there is an official Internet site for the cause.
Much of it isn’t in English, but look for the little British flags to see the English parts.
“Social Miracles”?
That MUST be what people mean when they talk about the Loaves and Fishes Miracle of Caring and Sharing!
Anyone in Heaven is a Saint. One assumes there is no gradient of happiness or levels of importance in Heaven based on the fact that most saintly souls never had the chance to be an earthly saint (e.g. unborn children, soldiers killed in action and the disabled). John Paul II therefore is already a saint. No causes or miracles required!!!
Canonization benefits the Church on earth.
It is a crypto-dogmatic rule of faith today that all you need to do to get into heaven is to…die.
Of course, that is one of the great heresies of today, but everybody I know of who has died and been given a funeral service has been
admitted to heaven, no questions asked.
Even Ronald Reagan, ( who denied belief in Jesus) , Rosa Parks, a ardent supporter of planned parenthood and I am sure Billy Graham we will find out, did not have his credentials checked at Peter’s gate.
But , in this world men say and do foolish things.
As to JP II, his canonization is on hold, perhaps forever. Benedict XVI’s successor will be the one to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, and hopefully abbrogate the confusion of Vatican II by abbrogating everything it produced.
Of course, that is one of the great heresies of today, but everybody I know of who has died and been given a funeral service has been
admitted to heaven, no questions asked.
And exactly how do you know this?
Kristy– Don’t worry about it. NeoCon is not someone to be taken seriously.
While I agree that “social miracles” is a rather odd phrase, I think the point that the interviewer is trying to make is the importance that John Paul had to the world at large, not just as a great Catholic pope.
–arthur
Just curious: is there anyone here who feels like JP2 was charismatic, likeable but ultimately a dramatic failure from a Christian perspective?
If not, I’ll just shut up and go back to lurking.
Viva Christo Rey,
Orthros
One assumes there is no gradient of happiness or levels of importance in Heaven
Actually, many speculate that there are. Look at Dante’s view of Heaven, for example. I’ve also heard it explained in terms of cups or vessels. Vessels (souls) which are larger (greater) will be able to hold more water (grace) and will therefore be “happier”. Although every soul is perfectly full (perfectly happy), some can hold more than others.
Of course it is true, as you say, that just because one is not canonized does not mean he is necessarily not a “saint”, if that term is defined as being in Heaven.
Oh, brother. If either Paul VI or JP II get canonized… well, I just hope God intervenes and does not allow that to happen. I would rather see Alexander VI canonized. There was nothing particularly saintly about the post-VII popes. The agenda here is simply to force the supposed correctness of VII down all our throats.
“I would rather see Alexander VI canonized.”
To prefer to have a power-hungry, manipulating, murderer and adulterous Pope like Alexander VI canonized instead of a saintly man like JPII… man, that has to be the most ridiculous and misguided thing I’ve heard in a LONG time.
Personally, I’m more interested in how the canonization process is going for Bishop Frederick Baraga, the Snowshoe Priest.
But as to John Paul II being a “dramatic failure from a Christian perspective” – well, that’s intriguing in that it implies that one can easily find dramatic successes from a Christian perspective. The more I study the lives of the saints, the more I realize that they were seriously sinful and flawed people despite their devotion to Our Lord. Plus, much of the criticism of John Paul II does not take into account the fact that he was a sick old man for much of the last 20 years. I don’t mean to be disrespectful to his memory, but I grow weary of the implication that somehow a pope should have superpowers or an omniscience to see through the lies of, say, American bishops.
As an aside, I am hoping that the Church will return to the pre-Vatican II emphasis on the teaching and learning of Latin so that phrases like “crypto-dogmatic” die away. It’s tremendously sad that the persecuted Chinese Catholic priests and bishops have taken pains to learn Latin in order to communicate with their counterparts at the conferences, only to have colleagues make jokes about them not realizing Latin is no longer a practical language.
BINGO.
“Saint” ≠ “beyond-criticism ascended master with a direct line from God who never did anything wrong except maybe a couple of little things.”
“Saint” = “By the grace of Jesus Christ this person was saved and went to Heaven.” In general, it also implies that the person’s efforts to follow God in this life are worthy of emulation. It does not imply endorsement of everything that person said, did, or believed in. To think otherwise is either to underestimate the effects of original sin or to overestimate the completeness of the workings of grace in this life.
I don’t think JP2 is beyond criticism. I do have a great deal of admiration for him, and I think that he did a great deal of good in the Church and in the world, some of it above and beyond the call of duty. Whether he did all the good he could have and should have done is a question regarding which Catholics can fairly have different opinions.
Scripture hints at there being “levels” in Heaven: “I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven.”
– 2 Cor 12:2
The hyperbole in the cannonization of Alex VI is not a good comparison to JP2. JP2 did many wonderful things: Divine Mercy, the collapse of Communism (ask Gorbachev,) standing up for life, etc…He also made what many believe were mistakes: Assisi 1 & 2, consecrating many of the ambiguous statements, not cracking down on heresy, etc… It is not our place to judge him. The Church (Matt 16:18) will judge the true legacy of JP2. We are too close to him to make objective assessments of his papacy.
BTW, Today we celebrate a true Great in the Church, St. Leo the Great. (Look him up, he is Great!!!) There are only two other Great Popes at this time, Gregory and Nicholas. -“Dictionary of the Saints,” Delany; Doubleday
Neoconspy simply doesn’t understand Catholic doctrine. Neither pre-Vatican II or Post-Vatican II (assuming one makes such novel distinctions).
He is a broken record & uncorrectable.
Granted, the Saints are not above criticism; but I believe that they’d better be close to it! After all, canonization is not simply a declaration that so-and-so is in heaven, but a declaration on the part of the Church that an individual ought to be publicly venerated at our altars.
I simply don’t see why this is so with John Paul II. He was an awful Pope. A good man, yes, even a holy one; a teacher of Truth, maybe. But we have to keep in mind that the duty of a bishop is to preach, sancitfy, and *govern*. John Paul was very negligent on this last point, even if he did feel he was doing the right thing.
What NeConSpy says is essentially correct. All the love the world has for John Paul is not based on any merit of his, but simply on the fact that he was Pope for so long, and so he is de facto given love and devotion by millions around the world, even those that disagree with him. It’s the same kind of lip-service to love that we give to family, or extended family, who we do not know very well. We love them because they are family. Just so, we love John Paul because he was Pope, no matter how miserably he governed the Church, no matter how soft he was on dissenters, no matter how ambiguous he made the Church’s stance against non-Catholic religions, on matters of liturgy, etc.
All this call for his canonization is just pure emotionalism, in my humble opinion, and has very little merit to it. We even have Vatican morons trying to get him passed off as a martyr. Are we done here?!
My great-grandmother was a nice lady and a pious Catholic, but you don’t see me rushing to get her canonized!
It seems to me that a canonized Pope ought to have excelled both as priest, prophet, and king. This is not to say that, years down the line, a canonized saint might not be put under high scrutiny by people with historical hindsight. But when one’s failures are so obviously manifest to anyone not blinded by a blanket desire to defend anything having to do with the Church, I believe canonization is just pointless.
And to call him John Paul “the Great” is just ludicrous . . .
May I suggest we all prayerfully meditate on the 7th chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew.
We should be thankful that the Lord founded His Church upon the Rock and that we will never bear the weight of being the Vicar of Christ (no matter how much we think we deserve that title and authority).
I have said this before “the faithful get the clergy they deserve”.
With that in mind we should strive to be as holy (Matt. 5:48), humble (Luke 1:38) and obedient (Luke 10:16) as possible for the greater glory of God.
J+M+J
Eric is 100% correct, and thank you for affirming my comments.
As to James scott aka benyachov, his use of the ad hominem attack to refute those Catholic Doctrines I have posted, highlight the fact he does not understand the basic priciples of debate.
I am guessing he is a recent convert.
Often times protestants and newly minted
Neo-Catholics, love to bring St. Dismas to the forefront as a way to prove water baptism is not needed to be saved. It is hard for me to figure out how a…. CATHOLIC could make this mistake.
Of course, there are many Neo Catholics who also find it fair to attack anyone who dare question the holiness JP II.
Catholics need to recall that JP II called the god of the Jews the same one Catholics worship. This is not true. JP II believed it as a child and did not let the office of Pope, change his mind.
For a Pope to write this, preach it, and fill the church with bishops who also believe it,
is beyond explanation.
John Paul II will be canonized and I pray each day for this.
I was evangelical and I’m catholic now because John Paul II was a great teacher.
Maybe we’re rushing to judgment a little but on the historical impact of JPII’s papacy. How do we now that 200 years from now the Church won’t be more unified than ever, and people will look back to the late 20th century as a time when the chances Christian unity were in terrible danger, only to be preserved by the careful policies of our late Papa, and strengthened by his legacy?
Let me state emphatically that I do not in any endorse NEOCONSPY’s radical traditionalism, especially his belief in the novel, untraditional doctrine of Feenyism. I myself hold to the Catholic belief in this as in all things.
Granted, the Saints are not above criticism; but I believe that they’d better be close to it!
You’re well over a millennium too late to be giving the Church this advice. 🙂
Neoconspy simply doesn’t understand Catholic doctrine.
This has been proven more than once. Hence my statement about not taking him seriously.
This is what Roman Catholics believe:
Gospel of John:
I tell you the truth, no one can enter the Kingdom of God, unless he is born of water and the Holy Spirit.
( sorry, I did not see the reference to desire in this passage from Jesus. ?
My understanding is that canonizations are infallible.
If so, then why all the worry? The Holy Spirit will only let JP the Great be canonized if He wants him to be canonized. The folks at the Vatican who are in charge of this will do their usual thorough job, and God’s Will will be done.
Dear bear,
in all seriousness, rethink your post.
the devils advocate position has been removed.
hence , there is no testimony offered that can cast a shadow over the candidate.
hugh hefner could be a saint inthose circumstances.
the fact is: the saint of the opus dei followers,(a cult)had plenty in his background to derail a canonization process.
Because this cult is so powerful, they used their influence to block all negative information on the life of this man.
So, it is very doubtful TODAY,that canonizations are infallible because all the safeguards are removed to weed out frauds.
Obviously faith in the Holy Spirit is not among NeoConSpy’s limited tenets.
JPII kissed the Koran.
I will pass over the calumny and detraction because ” they know not what they do”. But wouldn’t it be a neat idea if people who call themselves Catholic posted the number of converts they had brought into the faith after
their name.
I think that is a good sign of a saintly Catholic
All Catholics should be spending a few hours each week telling their non Catholic neighbor about the gift of Jesus.
Our best prospects are fallen away Catholics.
Next is mainline protestant groups like Lutheran or Episcopal. Because they agree on many Catholic doctrines, and are only heretics as opposed to the more cultist groups such as Seventh day Adventist or Mormon.
How can any Catholic with two feet, and the ability to talk to others, stand before the Tribunal of God one day and tell Jesus, I was not able to convert one soul to the One True Faith. Our good works will bring in converts.
St. Vincent Ferrer converted more than 700,000
while St. John Capitrano also converted more than 100,000.
We should make conversion the priority since the salvation of the non Catholic depends on it.
“JPII kissed the Koran.”
That is not everything JPII did in his life, in case you don’t remember. I think that all the good things he did (and he did way too many for me to count) far exceeds whatever mistakes he made.
Veronica, – he fired one bishop out of 20,000
over a 26 year term.
The only one who sought to uphold traditional
teachings, to some extent.
He appointed dissenters and heretics as bishops.
He was elected to defend the Faith, promote it and strengthen the church. Instead we got someone who wanted to play Santa Claus and make everybody happy. But that was not his job.
The discipline has fallen so low in the church few seek the priesthood today.
Moral in the church is far lower than when he
was named Pope in 1978, and the entire time he kept shaking hands and visiting people.
The freemasons ran the ship and these pirates have done incredible damage.
I will pass over the calumny and detraction because ” they know not what they do”.
Forgive me, but I can’t help but be reminded of this post, and this.
wouldn’t it be a neat idea if people who call themselves Catholic posted the number of converts they had brought into the faith after
their name.
“God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.”
many know the work that needs doing but say, let him plow the fields and we will share in the reward.
I don’t think there is any doubt that if Bishop Wojtla imposed on his diocese what JP2 imposed on the church he would have been seen as a radical.
“I don’t think there is any doubt that if Bishop Wojtla imposed on his diocese what JP2 imposed on the church he would have been seen as a radical.”
The saints are always radical.
When Pope Pius X was asked by the zionist leader Hertzl if the Vatican Would recognize a state of Israel,he said , The Jews do not recognize Christ, thus we cannot recognize Israel.
JP II not only recognized the illegitimate
state of Israel,according to perenial Catholic teaching, he has allowed them a free hand to remake the Holy Land into their own compound at the expense of driving out the arabs and Catholics, and violating international law.
and he continued to provide concession after concession to them and finally, in a break with his 263 predessors, visited their Temple, creating nothing short of a global scandal and affront to Catholics everywhere.
to call this radical is correct, to praise it is wrong. Very wrong.
Reading this thread is like inching slowly past a bad accident on the freeway. So gruesome, yet I can’t but help take a look…
Like a house that was not cleaned or maintained for 26 years, while strangers filled it with bizarre furniture, and odd looking folk moved in, normal people might wonder of the House of the Lord, what have they done to it?
The tour bus operators, sometimes called converts, assure us it is better than ever.
And if you object, than you are just a crank or twit or a this or a that.
>When Pope Pius X was asked by the zionist leader Hertzl if the Vatican Would recognize a state of Israel,he said , The Jews do not recognize Christ, thus we cannot recognize Israel.
I reply: Neoconspy is quite mentally incapible of giving us a direct quote. The above statement is strange considering there was no State of Israel.
Actually St Pius said he couldn’t stop Jews from going to Israel but assured some Zionists who asked for his views that if they founded a State he would send Priests there to preach the Gospel to them & convert them.
St Pius X simply DID NOT create a Catholic Dogma against political recognition of a future State of Israel.
Neoconspy is just making up Catholic doctrine off the top of his head again. Like he did with his novelties regarding BOD.
One MUST receive water baptism in order to be saved? I guess St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist, the Holy Innocents, and the Seven Brothers mentioned in 2Maccabees aren’t saints.
“…wouldn’t it be a neat idea if people who call themselves Catholic posted the number of converts they had brought into the faith after their name?”
“Pius XII once asked me: ‘How many converts have you made in your life?’ I answered: ‘Your Holiness, I have never counted them. I am always afraid if I did count them, I might think I made them, instead of the Lord’.”–Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, “Treasure In Clay”, pages 251-252.
Great quote bill912!
wouldn’t it be a neat idea if people who call themselves Catholic posted the number of converts they had brought into the faith after their name.
Wouldn’t it be neat if they knew the number?
How can one tell? Who knows how many lurkers have been affected by one posting or another? And who knows whether a given convert did not need the particular aid a person gave him?
When Mordechai urged Esther to speak to her husband the king, he didn’t tell her that she was their only hope; he told her that God would find other ways.
bill912: You make a interesting point, allow me to clarify.
draw a vertical line on a piece of paper. On the left side write Pre Pentecost and on the right, Post pentecost.
Those who died on the left side, before Pentecost died under the old law or covenant and DID NOT REQUIRE BAPTISM. It is circumcision that was required. Even Abraham, our elder brother in the faith, had to undergo the procedure.
St. Joseph is one example. The good thief is a second. There is nothing that tells us whether they were baptized or not, but it is not important. They were not bound, when they died, to receive it.
Now, if you look at the Apostles, each was required to be Baptized.
Baptism is the sacrament that washes away original sin in man. And if a person were to die with original sin on their soul, they cannot enter heaven.
This is very upsetting to many Americans and they believe in the idea, that with a real desire, the desire alone is a replacement for the water and the desire washes away the original sin.
Ask yourself this. Is a person who has not been Baptized( a pagan) allowed to receive Holy Communion ?
The answer is no.
But if you believe in Baptism of Desire, it should then be sufficient for the pagan to approach the Altar and tell the priest, I have Desired Baptism Father, therefore I may receive Holy Communion.
And the priest would say what. ?
He is bound to deny such person Holy Communion.
Now, is that fair? If a person really desires something like Baptism why would he be refused
Holy Communion.
Because there is water present in the church ?
No.
Because a person over the age of reason , must first know the faith, and profess the faith before receiving Baptism in normal circumstances.
Ahh, but our friend in the bush of South america, could not get the waters to his head before a boulder crushed him. Yet, he did desire
it.
But if the friend in the bush did not know the faith and did not profess the faith, what reason is there to say he desired Baptism ?
The more you examine the silly idea of desire somehow replacing the real element of water,
for those who just cannot get a little water poured over their head, the further and further must one stretch not only to find this ignorant native , but to find a ignorant native who is seeking Baptism, and knows the faith to boot.
With regards to Bishop Sheen, I would agree he made many converts. I wonder how many left the faith based on his TV program that presented a faith message that let people know the faith they had was not the issue, but rather their faith in God was the issue. Sheen’s admiration and close friendship with Fr. Teilhard De Chardin , a man who tried to falsify every Christian doctrine, shows that even smart people like Sheen can err and transmit heresy to their followers.
Mr Hertzl, did ask Pope St. Pius X in or around 1905-1907 if he would recognixe the Jews in the region of Palestine. I do not know what he was trying to extract from the pope, since this was 40 years before the state was established. But the Pope told him recognition cuts both ways. If yu do not recognine jesus, we do not recognize you or your assembly in the holy Land. The pope did not tell Mr Hertzl he could not come tothe Holy Land, it had to do with some formal recogniztion.
Neocon, once again I request that you post a picture of your hands so we can see the marks of the nails.
bill912 if that is your best reply I can only conclude you do not know the Catholic faith, and prefer to not learn it. some might call that bad will. Every Catholic knows the point at which baptism was required under the new law. What is your denomination?
>>bill912 if that is your best reply I can only conclude you do not know the Catholic faith, and prefer to not learn it. some might call that bad will.
I reply: This coming from a person who refers to a PAPAL ENCYCLICAL of Pope Pius IX as a mere “private letter”.:-)
Never the less I was correct Pope St. Pius X did NOT declare it a dogma that we could not give political reconition to a future secular Jewish state.
Now the pre-WWII Popes did condemn the idea of restoring the Old Testament Israeli Church because it’s existance would be an effront to the New Testament Catholic Church. Some early religious Zionist had this in mind. However the state of Israel (though predisposed to the religion of Judaism) is a secular state. Not a restoration of the Old Testament Biblical Commonwealth.
Neoconspy is too proud to admit he just doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Calling a papal Encyclical a mere “private letter” just because it contradicts the novelties of one Priest?
Silly.
>But if you believe in Baptism of Desire, it should then be sufficient for the pagan to approach the Altar and tell the priest, I have Desired Baptism Father, therefore I may receive Holy Communion.
I reply: I don’t know how many times I’ve answered this. You CAN’T SEEK Baptism by desire. You can only seek water Baptism. A person knowing they MUST recieve water Baptism & refuses to try to obtain it will go to Hell. Baptism of desire IS ONLY & CAN ONLY be for those who CAN’T be water baptised through no fault of their own.
However we should not be suprised Neoconspy is this thick. He can’t tell “private letters” from obvious Papal Encyclicals you know.
Ben Yachov, thanks for the support. But I wish to apologize for my previous post. It was uncharitable. Neocon needs our prayers, not my sarcasm.
bill912,
Neoconspy liberally employs an argumentative fallacy called “the false either/or”.
Some general examples: A Jehovah’s Witness who says Jesus is EITHER God or he is man. If he is God then he is not man. If he is man then he is not God.
Of course Jesus is God & man.
Neoconspy’s error is confusing the normative need for water baptism (as taught by the Popes, Saints, Church Fathers, Council of Trent and Roman Catacheism & the Catacheism of St. Pius X) with the Feeneyite Protestant error of absolute need. Water baptism is normatively needed for salvation but not absolutly needed.
Thus he uses a false either/or you either you believe in feeneyism & his novelty that water is absolutely needed OR you reject the need for water baptism in general.
This is of course nonsense.
BTW Pope Urban whom Neoconspy once quoted said you must submit to the Pope in order to be saved. Neoconspy won’t submit to the teachings of the Roman Catacheism authorized by St. Pius V, the clear teaching of Pius IX, and all the other Popes whose clear teachings contradict the Priest from Boston. So what does that tell us about the state of his soul?
God please be merciful to Neoconspy. Give him the grace to submit his mind, heart & will to the Vicars of Christ on Earth! Amen!!!
John 3:5 is very clear. And if Jesus allowed there to be loopholes in the doctrine of Baptism, he left it out of the Scriptures.
By the way, if you read the writing of the Jesuit saints and some who are not yet saints, they all held that those who died without water Baptism, went to hell.
St. Francis Xavier taught those who die without water Baptism go to hell. While splicing the words normative and absolute into two different camps, the path is cleared for any and all to go to heaven.
By the way, the Baptism of Desire speculation was held by a minority of Church Fathers. They gave consideration to a small small small group. Who ? Those Catechumens who knew the faith and enroute to Baptism or shortly before they were to receive it, were killed.
Could there be a smaller sample?
This idea is again a grave insult to God, as it suggests God cannot or will not intervene in such cases to preserve a life, to get the waters of Baptism to a deserving soul.
But this speculation has now expanded itself into universal speculation, and BOD is now applied to pagans, and every soul in existence.
every non catholic is afforded the space for Baptism of Desire no matter what they did or believed in life.
As to Pope Piux IX, ( Blessed) he also wrote the EXACT opposite of his speculation on BOD in other documents which no person here will post because it is embarassing to your position.
I dare say, if someone will not admit here, after being corrected, that those who died before the day of Pentecost DID NOT NEED WATER BAPTISM, then they are being obstinate in their error.
Let me address the issue of those who can’t be baptized becasue of NO fault of thier own.
Who exactly is this person who can’t be Baptized because of no fault of their own.
Is it someone who does not know about Baptism?
Is it someone who knows about Baptism but decides to skip it?
Is it someone who knows about Baptism but put it off and died in a accident?
Is it someone who doubts it is needed ?
How can a person really construct scenario that says a person of good will,( over the age of reason) with the Catholic faith died before he could be baptized.
As we all know, if such a person did not have the Catholic faith , they cannot be saved.
As we read in Scripture, without Faith ,it is impossible to please God.
We are reduced to believing in a ignorant native,
who did not know he needed Baptism, on a island with no way to get Baptized.
How can such a person get Baptism of Desire of they do not know what it is.
Is this a person who can be saved?
Someone who dies with original sin ?
To those who say his soul be be entrusted to the mercy of God, that is another way of saying what Jesus said in the Scriptures he did not mean.
Because if Jesus says one thing and acts a different way, then he is deceiving people.
And because God cannot deceive, we must believe God is faithful to His Word.
There is no Scripture passage that can be shown to prove God does not keep His Word.
there is no Scripture passage that tells us Baptism is the normative means of Baptism and then shows examples of those who were saved by another means, post Pentecost.
Jim Scott uses the local encyclical of Pius IX , Quanto Conficiamur, to offer proof that a non Baptized can be saved.
Pius Ix is referring to someone who did not know about Baptism but kept the natural law, will not suffer eternal torment. Not all who go to hell suffer torment, only those who are guilty of deliberate sin.
However, it need be kept in mind a local encyclical ( to the Italian bishops) carries no weight in propounding innovations contrary to the received teaching, which this was not.
the syllabus of errors, 9 Pius IX) which are infallible refute any idea of Baptism of Desire.
17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal Salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the One True Church of Christ. ERROR !
What was the personal view of Pius IX towards
those outside the Catholic church?
This story from his biography by Fr. Francis Thornton tells it:
a group of Church of England clerics insisted to the pope there msut be some blessing he could give them. This is what the poe said: ” May you be blessed by Him in whose honor you will be burned”. Cross upon Cross p.214.
There is no such thing as a local Encyclical this is yet another novelty Neoconspy made up off the top of his head.
>Pius Ix is referring to someone who did not know about Baptism but kept the natural law, will not suffer eternal torment. Not all who go to hell suffer torment, only those who are guilty of deliberate sin.
I reply: I will just respond to this bizzare claim about Pius IX by quoting Pius IX’s own words “Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. _____There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives AND ARE ABLE TO ATTAIN ETERNAL LIFE by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.
Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”END QUOTE
It says under the conditions listed above the invinciblty ignorant non-Catholics ARE ARE ABLE TO ATTAIN ETERNAL LIFE. Limbo is not eternal life it is a form of damnation. Granted a form of damnation that involves no punishment or torment but damnation just the same.
Neoconspy you are simply ignoring what is plainly written because you would rather submit to a mere Priest than the Vicar of Christ on Earth. We all know what Pope Urban said about that! What you are doing Neoconspy is not good for your soul.
Since you CAN’T even read Pius IX correctly I don’t even want to bother trying to find out how you misrepresented St. Francis Xavier but if your misreading of him is anything like you CLEAR misreading of Pius IX then I’m not impressed.
BTW ALL of the Fathers & Saints believed in BOB & BOD (accept for maybe one 6th century Saint who denied BOD but accepted BOB).
Fr. Feeney’s teaching that BOD is a heresy was a pure novelty. Feeney was the first to call BOD & BOB a heresy. No Pope, Council, Church Father, Saint or Doctor of the Church called BOD & BOB a heresy. Not even the one Saint who denied BOD.
Novelty.
In the end Neoconspy I can’t help you. I can only pray the Holy Spirit softens your heart to submit to the Vicar of Christ. Otherwise the words of Pope Urban WILL in the end come back to haunt you.
‘
Like I said, One encyclical does not overturn the Ancient, Apostolic teachings of the Catholic church. Can one assume each and every encyclical of every Pope is infallible? Of course not.
When popes introduce new doctrine that may send a message that contradicts the infallible traditional teachings, one is to understand it in light of the traditional teachings.
A fallible document cannot overturn a infallible one.
This encyclical , which Jim deliberately
choses to avoid saying, was to the local bishops. It was not a encyclical that was for the church universal.
as to the idea all but one church father believed in Bap of desire, this is pure bunk.
Very few did.
Father feeney never called BOD a heresy, But rather a speculation.and that is true.
We have no defined definition that spells it out.
Nothing in scripture.
Rather the defined dogmas and Scripture refute it.
>Like I said, One encyclical does not overturn the Ancient, Apostolic teachings of the Catholic church.
I reply: First you called it a “private letter”, then a “local Encyclical” now backed into a corner you make the desperate special pleading that it is only one Encyclical. You can’t make up your mind or even ADMIT you just don’t know what your talking about in general.
BTW Feeney’s private novelty IS NOT Ancient, Apostolic teaching. BOD, BOB, the potental salvation of the Invincibley Ignorant & EENS are Ancient Apostolic teaching. Not Feeney.
>Can one assume each and every encyclical of every Pope is infallible? Of course not.
I reply: But Vatican One & Two said Catholics must give assent to even the ordinary teachings of the Pope even when he is not speaking Infallibly. You implied novelty here is that we may reject the non-infallible ordinary magesterium. St Pius X condemned that error of Modernism.
>When popes introduce new doctrine that may send a message that contradicts the infallible traditional teachings, one is to understand it in light of the traditional teachings.
I reply: This is not a “new doctrine” Feeneyism is.
Look at what the Pope before Pius IX taught
Pope Innocent II – To your inquiry we respond thus, we assert without hesitation on the authority of the Holy Father’s Augustine and Ambrose, that the priest whom you indicated in your letter had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the church and the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly father land… Question concerning the dead, you should hold the opinion of the learned fathers, and in your church, you should join in prayers, you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.
Pope St. Innocent III – A certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water, while saying I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.. We respond that since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as clearly gathered from the words of the Lord when said “Go baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The Jew must be baptized again by another. If however such a one had died immediately he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament although not because of the sacrament of faith.”
Sorry but history does not back your novelty.
>A fallible document cannot overturn a infallible one.
I reply: It no more overturns it than the words of our Lord “The Father is Greater than I” overturn “I and the Father are One” as the Jehovah’s Witnesses would have us believe. It give the CORRECT interpretation of EENS. Your interpretation simply is not correct.
>This encyclical , which Jim deliberately
choses to avoid saying, was to the local bishops. It was not a encyclical that was for the church universal.
I reply: The Burden of proof is on you to show me where the Pope said his teachings to the AUSTRIAN bishops (not Italian BTW my God you just can’t read) are ONLY binding on Austrian bishops?
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ we owe him assent to his ordinary teachings. Vatican One says so & so does Vatican Two. Fr. Feeney was NOT the Vicar of Christ so if he contradicts the Pope one should no more believe him than if Fr. Martin Luther contradicts the Pope.
That’s the Catholic way. I don’t know how you can call youself Catholic I not see that.
>as to the idea all but one church father believed in Bap of desire, this is pure bunk.
I reply: It is the truth since you have Failed to produce One Father that said BOD was heresy.
>Very few did.
I reply: Yet Feeneyites can’t produce one Father in support of their novelty.
>Father feeney never called BOD a heresy, But rather a speculation.and that is true.
I reply: You called it a heresy. You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth & you won’t own up to your mistakes like a man.
>We have no defined definition that spells it out.
I reply: The CCC, the ROMAN CATACHESISM, TRENT, Pope Innocence II, Pope Innocence III, Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XII, Vatican II.
And you got the guy from Boston.
I’m still not impressed.
>Nothing in scripture.
Rather the defined dogmas and Scripture refute it.
I reply: According to YOUR private interpretation of Scripture (there is a word to discribe misinterpreting Scripture to suit your private doctrinal novelties it’s calle dProtestantism).
Sorry as Pope Urban Commanded I’ll submit to him & Pius IX & the rest of the Popes AND NOT YOU AND certainly not Fr. Feeney.
Your obstanate & deluded. May God give you the Grace to submit to his Church outside of which there is no Salvation & not the novelties of a mere Boston Priest.
that last one was me BTW.
So long Neoconspy I shant read your next reply since it’s not really a challenge & you keep changing your views with every wind that blows.
Get some common sense & brush up on your reading comprehention skills.
I’ve filled Jimmy’s comments boxes trying to knock some sence into that thick hea dof yours long enough.
that last one was me BTW.
So long Neoconspy I shant read your next reply since it’s not really a challenge & you keep changing your views with every wind that blows.
Get some common sense & brush up on your reading comprehention skills.
I’ve filled Jimmy’s comments boxes trying to knock some sence into that thick hea dof yours long enough.
Oh, Jim ,you forgot one little footnote. It is in the Gospel of John and says Those who seek the Kingdom of God must be Baptized with Water and Holy Spirit.
Can you deconstruct that doctrine as well ?
In your version of salvation history, Water Baptism applies to who ?
Some folk, but not all.
I was never taught Baptism was a option that folks could live without.
NeoConspy,
It is not an option for us.
“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”-ccc 1257
Also what is your understanding of John 3:22?
Our Blessed Lord had His disciples baptizing pre-Pentecost. You said “Those who died on the left side, before Pentecost died under the old law or covenant and DID NOT REQUIRE BAPTISM.”
John 3:22-What about it ? Tradition holds that Jesus Baptized the 12 Apostles and that was it.
God has bound his creatures to the Sacraments and his commands, but he is not bound, this is true.
However, there is no evidence in Scripture or Tradition that shows that God does not follow through in his commands.
The fact is people were being Baptized before Pentecost. It was after Pentecost that is became the royal requirement for Heaven that one must be Baptized. Those who were baptized during the ministry of Jesus received valid Baptism, and did not need to be baptized after Pentecost.
Baptism of desire is clearly refuted in John 1:13.
Baptism by Water is made clear in John 3:5.
NeoConspy,
John 4:2 says Our Blessed Lord did not baptize only His disciples? Any thoughts?
John 1:13 does not refute BOD but says those born of God. Again God is not bound by the Sacraments, we are.
John 4:1 says clearly that Jesus baptized more than John. The Church has always taught that Jesus Baptized the 12 apostles
4:2 refers to the fact Jesus was not the one who then continued to Baptize. That was reserved to the apostles
John 1:13 refers to that fact we are not born of blood or desire ( will) but of God. and how is one born of God.
John 3:6 clearly tells us.
God is not bound by His Sacraments, but every creature is.
And there is every reason to believe that God does not void his commands or fail to follow through. To even think it is possible to get to Heaven by some route other than what God has prosribed would be considered a mortal sin.
NeoConspy,
Can you point to where the Church teaches Our Blessed Lord baptized the 12 Apostles.
And does the Church have the authority to teach this only because you agree with it or does the Church’s authority to teach come from God?
If you compare John 1:13 with Wisdom 7:1-2 you see the same reference of blood, flesh and man all pointing to natural birth. We come into a supernatural relationship with God by the will of God.
I know I MUST have my children baptized, but I also know that I or you can not limit God who is infinite. Twice you have agreed that God is not bound by the Sacraments. I am only suggesting that you consider it possible that if Our Heavenly Father who knows the heart of men chose to save someone who has not been baptized (like He did pre-pentecost) you or I cannot limit His generosity. I am not saying to presume on His mercy and tell people not to be baptized. I am saying, as we both agree, that God is not bound by His Sacraments.
Dear Queston 1:
I will try to find a source for the baptizing of the 12 apostles by Jesus, and post it.
As to the possibilty of What God can or cannot do, I think our differnce comes down to you saying God can do anything, and myself saying we need to do what God says.
As to pre Pentecost salvation, the old form of Baptism was Circumcision. So, if a person did not have that, they were not saved.
Let us put that issue to rest.
Now , the reason I oppose your thinking on this matter of what God can do with regard to possibilites is becasue 1.) we must obey God, and 2.) there is no evidence to suggest God will or has ever acted contrary to His commands.
It would be like saying a person can skip Mass each Sunday, and violate half of the commandments, get married outside the Catholic Church, but do not worry about their salvation becasue with God, he can save that person if He wants to.
I take the position that if God were to do that, He would deceive the people.
We should NOT place our trust in what God COULD Theoretically DO, but place our trust in what HE PROMISED he wuld do.
Why?
Because one is a certitude and the other a speculation with no basis in historical reality.
Sort of like telling your parents I intend to be a CEO one day but am skipping college and law school and grad school because my personlaity is so good, I will be accepted as a CEO on that basis alone.
This may not be the perfect example,but most people would agree that attitude is not connected to reality, but rather a recipe for employment disaster.
We should not place hope in God’s Mercy, that by His own words contradict His Justice.
NeoConspy,
We cannot put the issue to circumcision in the Old Testamaent to rest because Job was not a Jew.
Also you can not even pretend to know the mind of God which is as far above us as the heavens.
I repeat my question “does the Church have the authority to teach this only because you agree with it or does the Church’s authority to teach come from God?”
Dear question 1:
The issue with respect to Justification before Baptism became the law was simple; those who were circumcised were made justified.
Keep in mind this did not equal salvation, since Heaven was not opened until the Ascension.
Now, as to ‘knowing the mind of God’, I think you have taken this one step further than needed.
The issue is that we are required to follow the commands of God. Speculating on how God might or might not treat a person is venturing into the arena of presumption.
The teaching of the Catholic church has always been that we should not have good hope for the salvation of those who have died outside the unity of the Church. This is spelled out in the Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX.
Privately we can pray for such persons, but they are not to be publicly prayed for, such as having Masses said for non Catholics.
Salvation is not to be deconstructed to a spin of a craps wheel. We should not take the attitude, who really knows, but clearly follow the law of the Church.
I genuinly understand this is far more of a challenge post Vatican II, hich has tried to turn the Vertical Church structure into a Horizontal community of friends sharing fellowship with each other. Sin is out and community is in.
When was the last time you hard your pastor mention the steps to gain a Plenary Indulgence.
Better yet, how many Catholics today even know what they is ? and if they know , how many work daily to take advantage of this grace ?
NeoConspy,
I rephrase and repeat my question. Does the Church have the authority to teach or can you personally decide that the Church has lost the authority to teach?