Canberra ACT - Archbishop refuses to allow breaking the seal

[Guest]

Again, Gary, you are gracious and kind, for which I am grateful.  Thank you.

I have never seen the movie. I am starting to watch it now.  Thank you for posting it

3 hours ago, Gary david said:

. assuming is also a part of our lives and we do this often only to find out that we were wrong. Again!

...........yep.........again and again!

[Guest]

Watched the movie - it was a beautiful little story..........and that little boy had the face of angel.

Thank you for sharing.

[Gary david]

Your most welcome Barbara. I am pleased to know you enjoyed it, as I hoped you would. I know this movie made one strong impression on me when I saw it as a very young boy. I remember well crying because he wanted his mother so much. Then I cryed when Jesus came alive from the cross and then cryed some more when Jesus took.him to heaven. What a wonderful  movie. You know its a shame that today theres nothing like that to watch for the kids of today. Kind of sad with everything their stuck with today.

  Ok. Glad you enjoyed it and God bless....

 

[Guest]

I can understand a very strong impression and tears when very young.  I almost cried, the little boy's expressions on that angelic face moved me.  The movie comes from a wonderful time when movies were innocent.  No graphic sex nor violence.  Uplifting themes.  I still very much enjoy films which do retain a quality of innocence.

When we were children, we were able to be children.  I feel very sad too for the children of today.  As a child, I used to feel very sad because the Indians always lost in cowboy films.   If memory serves, I had to wait a long time before I saw a movie where they were victorious.

Thank you again for posting the movie.

---o0o---

I am posting a lovely little movie and a favourite of mine: "The Staircase" - have you seen it?  It is apparently based loosely on a true story. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/tv/1998/04/12/faith-and-lessons/f1ea689e-59a3-4303-8dd2-637079cba15c/?utm_term=.c79b2db2c492

It is a shame that the Washington Post wrote the above story without paragraphs.  I find it difficult to read without paragraph breaks.

And I am right off the subject!  Not to worry, The Holy Spirit leads wherever He May and is not one for confining rules   (spiritual straightjackets?  )

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by BarbaraTherese

[Gary david]

No I havent seen this one. It looks good! I will save watching it untill tomorrow. Your also right about the holy spirit not confining rules. Thats for man. Alright Barbara, thank you for sending this movie and pleased you enjoyed the one I sent.

  God bless.....

 

[Guest]

 

Original staircase which still stands and is still a mystery

 

At a later point, handrail was added

 

 

[Guest]

SPIRITUAL WARFARE

http://cathnews.com/cathnews/34627-we-will-do-everything-to-end-this-scourge-pope

Pope Francis addresses journalists on the papal plane from Morocco to Rome on Sunday (Vatican News/Andrea Tornielli)

Quote

 

Excerpt: To fight clerical sexual abuse, the Church must have clear laws and procedures, but it also must engage in “spiritual combat” because it is obvious the devil is at work, Pope Francis said. Source: CNS.

In his address at the end of the summit, he said, he offered concrete measures to be followed, but he also recognised that there is a danger the Church would focus exclusively on laws and norms and would forget the spiritual weapons of prayer and penance “to defeat the spirit of evil. That is not washing your hands.”

 

 

[fides' Jack]

On 3/29/2019 at 5:27 PM, cruciatacara said:

No it isn't. A living, breathing, conscious child who faces terror and assaults upon their body and mind suffers much more -  simply because they are conscious of the suffering. Can you even begin to imagine the fear and shame a child feels when forced into sexual acts?  The attack isn't just upon the body but upon the mind and soul as well.

I don't think it is ever a good idea to compare two kinds of suffering as they must be judged on different criteria, but I can tell you that innocents who die are held in the arms of Jesus, but those who live after horrific acts of desecration against their bodies, will suffer the rest of their lives. Not only have their bodies suffered, but their minds and souls can be twisted too. That is why some of them end up committing suicide. 

Please don't make those kinds of comparisons.

You're wrong.  You assume that "innocents who die are held in the arms of Jesus", but that is not what the Church teaches, and for you to assume it is likely sinful in itself.  It is absolutely worse to kill someone before they've had a chance to be baptized than hurting someone after baptism.  If it were not for that simple truth, I would agree with you wholeheartedly; it would absolutely be worse to hurt someone in that way than to kill, say, a baby who has been baptized.

[cruciatacara]

5 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

You're wrong.  You assume that "innocents who die are held in the arms of Jesus", but that is not what the Church teaches, and for you to assume it is likely sinful in itself.  It is absolutely worse to kill someone before they've had a chance to be baptized than hurting someone after baptism.  If it were not for that simple truth, I would agree with you wholeheartedly; it would absolutely be worse to hurt someone in that way than to kill, say, a baby who has been baptized.

Your understanding of the catechism is lacking. Unbaptised babies no longer go to purgatory. Limbo no longer exists. In 2007 the Church stated this:

Quote

 

The Vatican announced on Friday the results of a papal investigation of the concept of limbo. Church doctrine now states that unbaptized babies can go to heaven instead of getting stuck somewhere between heaven and hell. If limbo doesn’t exist, what happened to everyone who was supposed to have been there already?

They’ve probably been in heaven all this time, but no one knows for sure. Until the recent announcement, the limbo crowd was thought to include anyone who hadn’t been baptized but would otherwise deserve to go to heaven—like infants (including aborted fetuses), virtuous pagans, and pre-Christian Jews. Those who had been baptized, on the other hand, either joined God in heaven, made up for their sins in purgatory, or suffered forever in hell.

If limbo never existed in the first place, you might assume that these souls passed straight through St. Peter’s gates. But the carefully worded document from the Vatican’s International Theological Commission stops short of certainty in this regard, arguing only that there are “serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope,” rather than “sure knowledge.”

 

You can research this for yourself.

[fides' Jack]

18 hours ago, cruciatacara said:

Your understanding of the catechism is lacking. Unbaptised babies no longer go to purgatory. Limbo no longer exists. In 2007 the Church stated this:

You can research this for yourself.

I never said that I believe in the concept of limbus infantus.  And unbaptised babies never went to purgatory  - that wouldn't make any sense.  Limbo may no longer exist, we don't know for sure.

That being said, this small snippet from some article is laughable.  The Church hasn't changed her teaching.  The teaching of the Church is that we don't know for sure what happens to babies who die without baptism.  That's what it has always been.  The best idea that I've heard was from a priest who told me it would make sense to him that babies are actually given a choice after they die, and some would choose to go to heaven and some would choose not to.  That's the most charitable and honest theory on the matter that I've heard.

Now, it is still Church teaching that limbo did exist, for those mentioned in your snippet, who did not deserve hell - the pre-Christian Jews (and possibly others).  I see no reason for limbo after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension.  But it is still valid teaching, and moral teaching which can't change, even if the Pope came out and said, "Limbo never existed!".  

But to assume that they are in heaven is still, like I said, probably sinful.  It's a common protestant mistake to believe without any kind of evidence that their families and friends go straight to heaven, when we know from Sacred Scripture as well as Tradition that most are likely in hell.  That's not exactly the same thing, of course, but it's a related error, I'd say.

18 hours ago, cruciatacara said:

“serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope,”

I sincerely hope, with all my heart, that you are correct, and that they are all in heaven.  I really do hope that.  But I would never assume that to be the case, specifically because that constitutes the sin of presumption.

Edited April 3, 2019 by fides' Jack
word-error

[cruciatacara]

6 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I sincerely hope, with all my heart, that you are correct, and that they are all in heaven.  I really do hope that.  But I would never assume that to be the case, specifically because that constitutes the sin of presumption.

And you are assuming that I am presuming. Once again, you leap to judgment without evidence. We have no evidence that babies aren't with Jesus, just as we have no evidence that they are. My hope lies in Him because He is the Resurrection and the Life. He also said that anyone who harms the least of these, it were better for him if he had never been born. I can safely assume (not presume) from this that Jesus really likes little babies. If I choose to assume (not presume) that His mercy is so great as to include the innocents (remember the Holy Innocents) then it is none of your concern. And it is a great presumption on your part to determine my sins.

If I choose to believe that Jesus would care for the unbaptised babies at least as much as He cared for the babies when Herod killed the Holy Innocents, then it is my right to do so. You are the one talking about presumption- I am talking about assumption, based on faith and hope and God's love.

So I still say that conscious children suffer more when they have to endure years of sexual and psychological abuse at the hands of pedophiles. My right to an opinion, just as you have yours.

We can argue about God's mercy until the cows come home (if they ever do) but this is a matter of opinion, not dogma, since the Church is unsure on this point.

[fides' Jack]

On 4/3/2019 at 3:48 PM, cruciatacara said:

And you are assuming that I am presuming. Once again, you leap to judgment without evidence. We have no evidence that babies aren't with Jesus, just as we have no evidence that they are. My hope lies in Him because He is the Resurrection and the Life. He also said that anyone who harms the least of these, it were better for him if he had never been born. I can safely assume (not presume) from this that Jesus really likes little babies. If I choose to assume (not presume) that His mercy is so great as to include the innocents (remember the Holy Innocents) then it is none of your concern. And it is a great presumption on your part to determine my sins.

If I choose to believe that Jesus would care for the unbaptised babies at least as much as He cared for the babies when Herod killed the Holy Innocents, then it is my right to do so. You are the one talking about presumption- I am talking about assumption, based on faith and hope and God's love.

So I still say that conscious children suffer more when they have to endure years of sexual and psychological abuse at the hands of pedophiles. My right to an opinion, just as you have yours.

We can argue about God's mercy until the cows come home (if they ever do) but this is a matter of opinion, not dogma, since the Church is unsure on this point.

We're not arguing about God's mercy.  Actually, it sounds like we agree about the basic matter of the argument regarding unbaptized babies: the "Church is unsure on this point".  That's really where our disagreement is, so since you recognize the Church's position, there really isn't an argument at all.

Whether or not you "assume" or "presume", you're really just playing word games.  Assuming is just as bad as presuming.  In fact, in this context, it's really the same thing, and to either assume or presume that unbaptized babies are saved, when the Church herself - guided by the Holy Spirit and with millennia of wisdom - admits to not being sure, is the sin of presumption.  I don't know if you're guilty of that.  I will say that the words you are choosing to use convey an attitude of the sin of presumption.  That's as far as I'm willing to go toward charitable, fraternal correction.

But, reviewing one of my past statements, I did say, "You assume [...] and for you to assume it is probably sinful in itself".  That statement does imply a slight contradiction to what I'm saying in the last paragraph.  For that, I apologize for the poor choice of words; I never personally judged you and never intended to judge you specifically in any way, but rather to make clear the potential moral difference between something terrible and something really bad.

That being said, do you or do you not presume or assume that unbaptized babies go to heaven?  If you say yes, then perhaps my prior statement was correct, anyway.  If your answer is that you want to believe they are in heaven, but like the Church you don't know for sure, then we are of the exact same mindset.

On 4/3/2019 at 3:48 PM, cruciatacara said:

If I choose to assume (not presume) that His mercy is so great as to include the innocents (remember the Holy Innocents) then it is none of your concern.

This is my one real beef with your statement.  This is a public forum.  Specifically a Catholic, public forum.  When you post here and then I post a rebuttal with some clarifying remarks, it doesn't really make sense for you to claim it's not my concern.  If you post in a public place, whether or not it's anyone's concern ceases to be a factor in the discussion.  I can really only respond to the public statements you make.  When you make a statement, it becomes the concern of anyone who wants to read it.

My end goal here is simply to reiterate the Church's position, as I understand it.  And if others can point to an area of Church teaching in which I'm in error (as has happened here in the past), then I can learn from my misunderstandings, and in doing so grow closer to God.

[fides' Jack]

-----------------------------------------------------------

One last thought, just to get this back on track: my argument is that if you don't really know where unbaptized babies go, to murder one of them is morally worse than pedophilia since you could be depriving them of even the chance of reaching heaven.  Sure, they would suffer less, but the weight of a sin is not really dependent on the amount of physical suffering it inflicts on other people.

Personally, I believe that the seal of Confession is much more than just a matter of law... Or to put it another way, it's a law based on a specific moral truth, and to remove the law would be to sin against that truth.  It's important enough that the Church has almost always maintained it's necessary for the salvation of souls.  And that is more important than trying to save some people from potential suffering, even when it's an awful, awful lot of potential suffering.  Especially when there's no real evidence that any single person would actually be spared from that suffering.

[Gary david]

Hi. I was reading the replies here and I found this in regards to Jesus and children.

Question: "Why did Jesus say, ‘Let the little children come to me’?"

Answer: At one point during Jesus’ earthly ministry, some children were brought to Him so that He could lay hands on them and pray for them (Matthew 19:13). The disciples tried to turn the children away, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (verse 14). Mark 10:14 (KJV) adds that Jesus was “much displeased” with His disciples for their actions. He then blessed the children (Matthew 19:15).

There are two potentially puzzling elements to this story. First, why did the disciples try to keep the children away from Jesus? Also, what did Jesus mean when he said, “Let the little children come to me . . . for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”?

It is important to remember that children in Jesus’ time were not necessarily regarded as special or particularly endearing, except to their own parents. Many cultures today look on children as especially sweet, innocent, and even wise. Jewish culture in that day probably did not see children in such optimistic terms. The disciples most likely rebuked those bringing the children to Jesus because they felt bringing children to Jesus was socially improper or because they thought the children would bother Jesus. It is likely that their move to hinder the parents from bringing their children to Jesus was motivated not by unkindness but by a desire to respect Jesus’ position as a teacher. But Jesus wanted the children to come to Him. He said, “Let the children come,” because He wanted to bless them.

It is wonderful to think of Jesus interacting with a child. Children are needy and dependent, and they know almost nothing about life. They function mostly on emotion rather than reason. Yet Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matthew 19:14). Scripture often compares believers to children (e.g., Luke 10:21; Galatians 4:19; 1 John 4:4). In fact, Jesus told those following Him, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3–4; cf. Mark 10:15).

Jesus’ command to “let the little children come to me” reveals several truths: 1) Children need to be blessed by the Lord. 2) The Lord wants to bless children. 3) Parents should be encouraged to bring their children to Jesus at an early age and teach them His ways. 4) Jesus has regard for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. 5) No matter how compassionate Jesus’ followers are, Jesus Himself is more compassionate still. 6) Those who come to Christ must do so in childlike humility, faith, and simplicity.

Like children who implicitly trust their parents, believers trust God. Faith is not about knowing everything or doing everything right. It is about knowing that, no matter what happens, our Father will take care of us. That trust in Him, even when life is terrifying and sad and makes no sense, is what makes a believer like a child. “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37). God loves His children.

God bless....

[cruciatacara]

@Gary david you seem to get what @fides' Jack appears to miss.

4 hours ago, Gary david said:

Like children who implicitly trust their parents, believers trust God. Faith is not about knowing everything or doing everything right. It is about knowing that, no matter what happens, our Father will take care of us. That trust in Him, even when life is terrifying and sad and makes no sense, is what makes a believer like a child. “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37). God loves His children.