RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?)

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 6:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 Interesting, thanks. It doesn't, though, specify exactly when this has to happen. I'm dwelling on this not to be a pain but because one of my most vivid memories from years of Catholic education was a discussion on this point. Fr. Anderson, who held a doctorate in theology and chaired the department at my prep. seminary, stressed that we have no idea what goes on in the throes of death or how how many people God/Christ reaches out to then. And Fr. Anderson is correct. We (people) have no idea what goes on in the throes of death or how how many people God/Christ reaches out to then. BUT, current Catholic doctrine still requires faith in Christ before death.

dcnovice -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 6:33:57 PM)
quote: BUT, current Catholic doctrine still requires faith in Christ before death. That I'm not so sure about.

Kaliko -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 6:38:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 Interesting, thanks. It doesn't, though, specify exactly when this has to happen. I'm dwelling on this not to be a pain but because one of my most vivid memories from years of Catholic education was a discussion on this point. Fr. Anderson, who held a doctorate in theology and chaired the department at my prep. seminary, stressed that we have no idea what goes on in the throes of death or how how many people God/Christ reaches out to then. I will dwell on it because I am a pain. :) If we want to get down to nitty gritty analysis, wouldn't the bolded mean the entrance to salvation, the church, is on earth? And therefore, one must be alive...on earth...to enter the doorway to the church? It even states that Christ affirmed the necessity of the church which men enter through Baptism, the Church that is a pilgrim on earth. I don't know...I don't see an addendum for those that have died and then want to profess their belief. I certainly do agree, though, that we have no idea what goes on up there. (That would be why I no longer belong to a church.) But if we remove assumptions about one thing, then we have to remove all of our assumptions. What makes this one thing so different than, say, "Thou shalt not steal?" Yes, it's a commandment, but using Fr. Anderson's logic, we have no idea what goes on in the throes of death or how many people God/Christ reaches out to then. So does that mean we can go ahead and steal? Because God might take mercy on us, even though we knowingly turned our back on his teachings? It's a nice thought, but I think it invalidates the reason for church doctrine in the first place.

Owner59 -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 6:39:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I should just add - that the corollary to not going to heaven is going to hell. One could always hope for purgatory. Fingers crossed! I stand corrected - but unless one denounces one's beliefs and accepts Christ - one is still looking at an eternity in purgatory....(!) An eternity is such a terribly....long.....time...... If one goes to purgatory, then they will end up in heaven. Purgatory is like a shower before going to a big event. The goal of it is to "burn away" any impurities before you enter heaven. And how long is this imaginary shower take........? A thousand to ten thousand years......I heard that......guess that`s why it`s called dogma. This Catholic thing is a pretty good con...... On one hand,if one accepts Jesus as their lord and savior,they will be "saved"..... And on the other,if one doesn`t.....the burn in hell for FOREVER....... Not much free will or free choice there, is there? I mean......who the hell is going to pick door # 2?

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 6:39:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: BUT, current Catholic doctrine still requires faith in Christ before death. That I'm not so sure about. Why? How is someone supposed to exercise free will after death. In any event, current Catholic doctrine does not allow for such a thing to happen. Again, if you have Catholic sources for a different interpretation (and by Catholic I don't mean someone who is Catholic said something to you), I mean Catholic doctrine. At least one other person has quoted you the relevant doctrine. If you are aware of another doctrinal exposition please point us to the source. You and others may disagree with the doctrine - but that is really a very different discussion. I am only describing what the Vatican considers "salvation". (I am sure many people, Catholic or otherwise, disagree with the Vatican's doctrine, but that does not change the official stance of this particular religion).

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 6:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 And how long is this imaginary shower take........? A thousand to ten thousand years......I heard that......guess that`s why it`s called dogma. This Catholic thing is a pretty good con...... On one hand,if one accepts Jesus as their lord and savior,they will be "saved"..... And on the other,if one doesn`t.....the burn in hell for FOREVER....... Not much free will or free choice there, is there? I mean......who the hell is going to pick door # 2? I've picked door # 2. All my favorite people will be there.....[sm=trident.gif]

Owner59 -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 6:45:31 PM)
I heard they hace cookies.....[;)]

Kirata -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 6:45:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess How is someone supposed to exercise free will after death. Although you posed that as a rhetorical question, it embeds the assumption that when our body dies we are dead in all respects, i.e., that death is the end and there is no continuation of experience. K.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 6:59:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess How is someone supposed to exercise free will after death. Although you posed that as a rhetorical question, it embeds the assumption that when our body dies we are dead in all respects, i.e., that death is the end and there is no continuation of experience. K. No, I'm suggesting that even if there is something that happens afterwards, Catholic doctrine makes no account for this in their definition of salvation. In other words, the doctrine, as it currently stands, assumes free will can only be exercised before death. If a Buddhist dies without accepting Christ, according to Catholic doctrine, they are going to hell (this is what the quoted doctrine states). I'm not defending the Catholic doctrine. I'm simply trying to get people here to see that salvation according to Catholics has a very particular meaning. And that meaning does not take into account good deeds without faith. If Catholics believed something happened after death, they would posthumously baptize like the Mormons - but this is most definitely not part of Catholic doctrine. And acknowledging officially that they don't know what actually happens after death undermines the faith. (Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation - so they already believe something happens afterwards. Trust me, I'm not necessarily suggesting that when we die we are dead in all respects.)

dcnovice -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:00:08 PM)
quote: Why? Well honestly, I put more stock in Fr. Anderson's grasp of Catholic doctrine (he was, after all, certified to teach it to aspiring priests) than in strangers' posts on the Internet. And both you and Kaliko had to make assumptions of your own--particularly, as Kirata points out, the very un-Catholic assumption that everything ends at death--to add a time-specificity that isn't in the text of the sources you cited. I'm also struck by the fact that this "central tenet" is nowhere in the Nicene Creed, the affirmation of faith said by millions of Catholics each Sunday. In contrast, the creed mentions the judgment of the "living and the dead," which would seem to buttress Kirata's wise wariness of taking death as an end point.

dcnovice -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:01:30 PM)
quote: In other words, the doctrine, as it currently stands, assumes free will can only be exercised before death. Is that the doctrine's assumption or yours?

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:05:21 PM)
Part of my family is Catholic. You are wrong in your interpretation. You might want to go speak to a Catholic priest about what the Church doctrine is on this issue (not what the priest's personal beliefs are but what the Church doctrine is). Fr. Anderson is entitled to his own beliefs. Free will. But that doesn't mean his statement is a reflection of doctrine. I really think you are confusing two different things. Most Catholics I know use birth control. And I know plenty of divorced Catholics. What does that have to do with Catholic doctrine?

dcnovice -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:08:02 PM)
quote: What makes this one thing so different than, say, "Thou shalt not steal?" Yes, it's a commandment, but using Fr. Anderson's logic, we have no idea what goes on in the throes of death or how many people God/Christ reaches out to then. So does that mean we can go ahead and steal? Because God might take mercy on us, even though we knowingly turned our back on his teachings? Two thoughts: (a) Your scenario isn't all that different from someone's stealing (or worse) and making a deathbed confession while still clinically alive. Does that give folks a license to steal or whatever? And what do you make of the parable of the Prodigal Son? (b) The Catholics I know (and that's a big crowd) strive to follow the commandments because they believe they're guides to a good life and deeper relationship with God. No doubt there are those who try to work the angles on how much sinning they can do and how late they can repent, but I don't know anyone like that.

Kaliko -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:11:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Why? Well honestly, I put more stock in Fr. Anderson's grasp of Catholic doctrine (he was, after all, certified to teach it to aspiring priests) than in strangers' posts on the Internet. And both you and Kaliko had to make assumptions of your own--particularly, as Kirata points out, the very un-Catholic assumption that everything ends at death--to add a time-specificity that isn't in the text of the sources you cited. I'm also struck by the fact that this "central tenet" is nowhere in the Nicene Creed, the affirmation of faith said by millions of Catholics each Sunday. In contrast, the creed mentions the judgment of the "living and the dead," which would seem to buttress Kirata's wise wariness of taking death as an end point. I personally agree that death is not an endpoint. But I read "the earth" part of what I quoted you to mean...dirt. Not heaven. Not the afterlife. I'm open to hearing if I'm reading that incorrectly.

Kaliko -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:14:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: What makes this one thing so different than, say, "Thou shalt not steal?" Yes, it's a commandment, but using Fr. Anderson's logic, we have no idea what goes on in the throes of death or how many people God/Christ reaches out to then. So does that mean we can go ahead and steal? Because God might take mercy on us, even though we knowingly turned our back on his teachings? Two thoughts: (a) Your scenario isn't all that different from someone's stealing (or worse) and making a deathbed confession while still clinically alive. Does that give folks a license to steal or whatever? And what do you make of the parable of the Prodigal Son? (b) The Catholics I know (and that's a big crowd) strive to follow the commandments because they believe they're guides to a good life and deeper relationship with God. No doubt there are those who try to work the angles on how much sinning they can do and how late they can repent, but I don't know anyone like that. I meant God might take mercy in the way that Fr. Anderson was referencing (presumably) - after death, not before.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:17:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: In other words, the doctrine, as it currently stands, assumes free will can only be exercised before death. Is that the doctrine's assumption or yours? The doctrine's. Do Catholics believe in posthumous baptism? Do Catholics believe in Catholic burial and funeral rites for an adult non-believer based on a third party's request? I'm not saying anything very complicated here. And the Vatican agrees with my interpretation. You are entitled to not accept the Vatican's doctrine. If your interpretation is correct, then the current Vatican stance makes no sense. Because the Vatican would have to say it does not know (at all) who might be accepted into heaven or hell because it cannot know what happens after death (someone could just as easily renounce their belief in Christ as accept it). Even taking your interpretation, it STILL means that Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, atheists who spend their entire life doing good deeds, while redeemed, cannot go to heaven unless they denounce their beliefs and profess faith in the Christian god before or after death. In other words, faith in Christ is STILL necessary. Good deeds alone are not enough. But based on everything I've quoted, my discussions with priests, and my reading of the current news articles about the Pope's statements on atheism, and the clarification, I stand by by statement. And if you are right, then I challenge you to find a Catholic priest to bury my atheist body in a Catholic cemetery with full Catholic rites.....trust me, it's not happening....even though we don't know what will happen after I die.....

dcnovice -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:19:55 PM)
quote: You are wrong in your interpretation. And your qualifications for making that pronouncement are...? quote: Fr. Anderson is entitled to his own beliefs. Free will. But that doesn't mean his statement is a reflection of doctrine. Except that he was a devoted, learned priest teaching theology in a Catholic seminary, trying to impart the magisterium he loved to a new generation. So I doubt he was taking many liberties. And I trust his lifetime of wisdom and learning more than cut-and-paste posts on the Internet. You too, of course, are entitled to your own beliefs, but that doesn't make them reflections of Catholic doctrine either. quote: I really think you are confusing two different things. Namely?

FrostedFlake -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:22:29 PM)
Vatican Confirms Atheists Still Going To Hell, Despite Pope Francis Remarks Well, thank God for that!

Kaliko -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:23:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You are wrong in your interpretation. And your qualifications for making that pronouncement are...? quote: Fr. Anderson is entitled to his own beliefs. Free will. But that doesn't mean his statement is a reflection of doctrine. Except that he was a devoted, learned priest teaching theology in a Catholic seminary, trying to impart the magisterium he loved to a new generation. So I doubt he was taking many liberties. And I trust his lifetime of wisdom and learning more than cut-and-paste posts on the Internet. You too, of course, are entitled to your own beliefs, but that doesn't make them reflections of Catholic doctrine either. quote: I really think you are confusing two different things. Namely? What? You doubt the Vatican website?? But....there's a link on there for "The Pope App!" You need further proof that it's legit? :)

dcnovice -> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) (5/29/2013 7:24:50 PM)
quote: meant God might take mercy in the way that Fr. Anderson was referencing (presumably) - after death, not before. I know. But how does that differ--in terms of the gaming-the-system scenario you outlined--from someone's being forgiven via a deathbed confession?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125