STILLBORN BABIES?!

[missionseeker]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 4 2006, 12:24 AM']No, no, no! I said that wrong! I care about everything the popes from AD 33- AD 1965 said. It's anything the Pope said that wasnt infallable AFTER 1965 that I dont care about
ugh! alot of the more liberal Novus Ordo parishes' Altars are tables. And by the way, I have to go to the NO half of the time, so I know.
[right][snapback]875326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 4 2006, 12:55 AM']I, sir, am not denying the Popes! I firmly believe that Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are legitimate Popes. I just dont always like what they say, and if it is not infallable then I, under the pain of sin, dont have to listen.
my goodness! Fisheaters isnt an extremist group! and it might as well be called "fisheater" because there's only one person who runs the site! The Webmistress is just a "plain old Catholic lay woman" who wants to evangelize and tell others about how wonderful the Traditional Latin Mass and other Traditional Sacraments are! And no the site dosent "catechize" me, I go to my trusty Baltimore and Trent Catechisms for that.
[right][snapback]875357[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]




[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 4 2006, 01:59 AM']You seemed to say and i maybe wrong that you denined or rejected Vatican II?  Vatican II has dogmas... does it not.
[right][snapback]875433[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

not quite clear there.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='missionseeker' date='Feb 4 2006, 01:08 AM']not quite clear there.
[right][snapback]875442[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]'

IDK, in reading the whole of this phorum it sounds as if Thomas in someway rejects the teachings of Vatican II, and wants to do away with them and go back to pre-Vatican II... and it is my understanding Vatican II contains Dogmas. Thomas states he has denined no dogmas... however if Vatican II does indeed contain Dogmas would his statement be true?

Edited February 4, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[rkwright]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 4 2006, 02:19 AM']'

IDK, in reading the whole of this phorum it sounds as if Thomas in someway rejects the teachings of Vatican II, and wants to  do away with them and go back to pre-Vatican II... and it is my understanding Vatican II contains Dogmas.
[right][snapback]875454[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't think it does. I remember reading on here that it contains dogmas that were pronounced in other councils, but doesn't proclaim any new dogmas.

This thread has been all over the place! Rollar coaster whoo hoo...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 4 2006, 01:20 AM']I don't think it does.  I remember reading on here that it contains dogmas that were pronounced in other councils, but doesn't proclaim any new dogmas. 

This thread has been all over the place!  Rollar coaster whoo hoo...
[right][snapback]875456[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I dont know. Even if its just a repronouncement of dogmas all the more reseason not to reject Vatican II.

Yeah it has!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 4 2006, 01:35 AM']Am I now a heretic or something? Did I excommunicate myself? When I go to confession tommrow will it be invalid if I dont tell the priest I was a heretic? GOSH! THIS IS CRAZY! I DENY NO DOGMA! I DO NOT EXCOMMUNICATE MYSELF! AND I DONT NEED TO TELL MY CONFESSOR THAT I COMMITTED HERESY!
how am I a dissener to Catholic teaching?
[right][snapback]875415[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thomas you are trying to say the Cathechism isn't authoritative but it is:

[color=blue]The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.[/color]
The Hoyl Father dfeclares it a sure norm.
So if you deny this you are denying the theaching of the Holy Father.You don't have to like it, but as a faithful Catholic you must give it your firm assent of mind.

[Myles Domini]

Can I ask a simple question Monsieur More? Why exactly should I take the Baltimore Catechism as authoratitive? Its not that I've got any real problem with it but if you're going to deny the authoritativeness of the Church's Catechism I dont see why I have to accept the American Catechism as any more binding.

Moreover, I dont think it was I who made the argument from baptism of blood I said baptism of desire from the parents but even if I didn't its a possible angle that I've not yet considered.

Your understanding of EENS seems very naive 'more'. I would suggest you read Pius IX's teaching on the matter carefully so that you might not fall further into error. By your claim that one must be a catechumen to recieve Baptism of desire the Old Testament saints would've been condemned to Hell whereas we learn in 1 Peter that Jesus descended to the dead and freed the righteous. If your view is correct then the Church has been sinning dreadfully for centuries for commemorating the just of the Old Testament.

Your refusal to accept the ordinary magisterium is sinful and directly rejects the solemn teaching of the Church on the matter. Either you accept the Popes are legitimate in which case you are bound to obey them even when they do not speak infallibly as the Vatican Councils demand or you're a schimastic.

Your selective use of tradition is quite interesting too. What if I only take traditions from the pre-Augustinian Fathers e.g. Sts Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian (all of whom are Doctors of the Church and were made so by Popes you view as authorative). To my recollection none of them speaks about Limbo. You say you believe it because of tradition but if I only depend on these Doctors of the Church can I say that my not believing in limbo is an even more traditional belief than your traditional belief in Limbo?

According to your logic I could practically pick and choose my faith. As Newman queries in his essay on the Development of doctrine where should we start and end? The 15th century or the 12th or the 6th or the 3rd? Whats old enough to be a tradition sir? Please tell me because I'm sure the Puseyite Anglicans would be interested to know so they can substantiate their branch theory. Either, as Newman advocated, you accept all or you accept none. You cannot have it both ways thats contradictory because according to the teaching of the Fathers, Councils and Popes you accept as authortative if you regard Benedict XVI as legitimate--as you claim--you must also obey him even when he's not speaking ex cathedra.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Myles

[avemaria40]

First, prayers for your sister and her triplets. That is so sad

Second, as Limbo is not considered doctrine, Tradition, or anything, I am very skeptical on such a place. It isn't implicitly mentioned in the Bible (while Purgatory is and many aspects of Catholic Tradition are found implicitly in the Bible and neither Jesus Himself, nor his apostles ever said anything on this matter) and it doesn't seem to fall in line with the teachings of Christ, since He had said,Let the little children come to me. I believe in the mercy of God and His tenderness towards children and therefore do not believe He would deny His vision to children. All Limbo is is a hypothesis.

Edited February 4, 2006 by avemaria40

[cmotherofpirl]

The trouble is some people mistook it for doctrine and taught it that way

[MC Just]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 3 2006, 11:17 PM']The third is what I asked about.  He said it's not Protestant.

Actually, the "common-place utensils" used to say spoons I think, which is what the Eastern Catholics use.

A table is not allowed for Mass, or it shouldn't be.  An altar is not a table and it's unfair to say that the Novus Ordo's altar should be equated with a table because some people with faulty theology say so.

Anyways, this is my small rebuttle of some of their tract. 
[right][snapback]875320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ive been to parish that haev tables.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 4 2006, 12:46 AM'][color=red]A unborn Child that is aborted or that is stillborn goes to heaven no doubt! They are innocent only having origal sin, God, being a just and wise and mercyful God is not going to send these children to hell or "Limbo"[/color][/quote]

Actually, the Church teaches that we can only intrust them to God's mercy...We do not know for sure whether or not they can go to Heaven.

[quote name='missionseeker' date='Feb 4 2006, 01:01 AM']And if it is the same one, would that count for the Holy Father having something to do with? (referring to Qfnol's post. )
[right][snapback]875361[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not really. He, as the Holy Roman Pontiff, must make a declaration. Theological commissions have no authority unless the Holy Father promulgates their conclusion as authoritative.

And if his previous opinions mattered much, all of our Masses would either turn around and face East (or away from the people at least) or have a Crucifix up front, we would be singing much more Gregorian chant or polyphony, we would have many more Masses in Latin, and the Tridentine would have a more generous indult.

Plus, the Holy Father's private opinion isn't binding at all. I disagree pretty strongly with Pope John Paul II's philosophy from what I've read of it (phenomenology), and I'm okay to do so since none of it became teaching of the Church.

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 4 2006, 01:27 AM']YOU ARE SUCH A HERETIC! GOD HELP YOU!
[right][snapback]875399[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Technically, since the Baltimore Catechism denies Limbo as existent, then it too is heretical.

However, I know you don't think that. I think you're problem is that you see this as an argument against Limbo, which I think shouldn't be the case. I have a special place in my heart for Limbo, and (until a Pope says otherwise) will probably continue being very open towards it.

You are very adamant about Limbo being a teaching of the Church, but it never has been. You yourself said that Baptism of desire is possible in some cases, and that should be enough for disagreement. By calling people heretics you have shown that most of you emphasis is actually on a perceived "modernism," not that they deny any part of Catholic Teaching. You yourself believe in Limbo, and that's fine, but it's not heretical to not believe in it as well.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 4 2006, 02:19 AM']IDK, in reading the whole of this phorum it sounds as if Thomas in someway rejects the teachings of Vatican II, and wants to  do away with them and go back to pre-Vatican II... and it is my understanding Vatican II contains Dogmas.  Thomas states he has denined no dogmas... however if Vatican II does indeed contain Dogmas would his statement be true?
[right][snapback]875454[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not any dogmas there, but that doesn't mean nothing in the council was infallible.

[quote name='MC Just' date='Feb 4 2006, 09:12 AM']ive been to parish that haev tables.
[right][snapback]875506[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have a feeling you didn't care much for those...

I pray for those parishes each day because I think they give a bad name to themselves (deserved!), the Magisterium, and the Novus Ordo.

[Paphnutius]

Thank you Myles for weighing in. Your insight is always balanced and charitable.

Thomas, I see two main flaws in your outlook on the Church:
1) Limbo is an indisputable fact when it is actually a theological speculation.
2) You deny that you must give assent to anything other than infallible teaching. We as Catholics must give two types of assent to teaching: One is Ecclesiastical Faith- holding that the truths not contained in divine revelation but are connected with it and have been defined by the Church with the exercise of Her infallible power. The second is: Religious assent- those truths that authoritatively but not infallibly proposed by the Church. The Catholic must give to these an internal assent, based on the fact that the authoritative teaching power of the Church is assisted by the Holy Ghost.

That came straight from a moral theology book pre-Vat II so no disputing it as liberal rubish. The fact of the matter is Thomas, that we must give assent to the teachings of the pope, infallible or otherwise. You have denied that you must do this, and that is incorrect. I would invite you to speak about this with your pastor. You might not like what the pope is doing with limbo, but that is no reason at all to call him weak.

Quick question: Have you read any books put out by the pope? I think you would find him to be an excellent theologian. You are twelve years old my friend. Pope Benedict is advanced in age and wisdom, has his degrees, and was made a prefect. I think the least that you can do is listen to what he has to say before you condemn him as weak.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 4 2006, 08:04 AM']Can I ask a simple question Monsieur More? Why exactly should I take the Baltimore Catechism as authoratitive?  Its not that I've got any real problem with it but if you're going to deny the authoritativeness of the Church's Catechism I dont see why I have to accept the American Catechism as any more binding.

Moreover, I dont think it was I who made the argument from baptism of blood I said baptism of desire from the parents but even if I didn't its a possible angle that I've not yet considered.

Your understanding of EENS seems very naive 'more'. I would suggest you read Pius IX's teaching on the matter carefully so that you might not fall further into error. By your claim that one must be a catechumen to recieve Baptism of desire the Old Testament saints would've been condemned to Hell whereas we learn in 1 Peter that Jesus descended to the dead and freed the righteous. If your view is correct then the Church has been sinning dreadfully for centuries for commemorating the just of the Old Testament.

Your refusal to accept the ordinary magisterium is sinful and directly rejects the solemn teaching of the Church on the matter. Either you accept the Popes are legitimate in which case you are bound to obey them even when they do not speak infallibly as the Vatican Councils demand or you're a schimastic.

Your selective use of tradition is quite interesting too. What if I only take traditions from the pre-Augustinian Fathers e.g. Sts Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian (all of whom are Doctors of the Church and were made so by Popes you view as authorative). To my recollection none of them speaks about Limbo. You say you believe it because of tradition but if I only depend on these Doctors of the Church can I say that my not believing in limbo is an even more traditional belief than your traditional belief in Limbo?

According to your logic I could practically pick and choose my faith. As Newman queries in his essay on the Development of doctrine where should we start and end? The 15th century or the 12th or the 6th or the 3rd? Whats old enough to be a tradition sir? Please tell me because I'm sure the Puseyite Anglicans would be interested to know so they can substantiate their branch theory. Either, as Newman advocated, you accept all or you accept none. You cannot have it both ways thats contradictory because according to the teaching of the Fathers, Councils and Popes you accept as authortative if you regard Benedict XVI as legitimate--as you claim--you must also obey him even when he's not speaking ex cathedra.
[right][snapback]875479[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Always impressed with your writing... happen to take many writing courses or write for a newspaper?

Or maybe its becuase your from England so your accent shows in your writing as 'awesomeness' :

Edited February 4, 2006 by rkwright

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 4 2006, 04:06 PM']    Always impressed with your writing... happen to take many writing courses or write for a newspaper?

Or maybe its becuase your from England so your accent shows in your writing as 'awesomeness'  :
[right][snapback]875561[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've never actually writing for a newspaper although I had one of my letters published in the London Times not too long ago. I've done a little public speaking in my time though and the Oxford tutorial system has helped me to develop my presentation skills. When I first came here one tutor I had said my work was like roses amongst thorns but with help I've managed to improve my essay writing technique thus I'll attribute whatever eloquence I may possess to that.

PS) Thanks for your kindness rwkright, paphnutius

Edited February 4, 2006 by Myles

[musturde]

STM by any chance do you celebrate Tridentine Mass?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 4 2006, 09:13 AM']Actually, the Church teaches that we can only intrust them to God's mercy...We do not know for sure whether or not they can go to Heaven.

[right][snapback]875531[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, I have no doubt they go to heaven. God's mercy would not allow a innocent aborted child to go to hell, theres no way, and there is no Limbo. Perhaps Purgatory... but I doubt it. Ethier way in the end their in heaven.