[goldenchild]

KFBobInsanesMom, I am interested in helping with these. I'll do whatever I can do, I will apologize now though as this is something that will take some time and will probably need to run it by a few people before I can be sure of the answer. One thing I want to point out is that, if these claims are true(and to me personally this is a big if as I have great respect for our current Pope), then what this shows is that this specific Pope is in error. I'm not aware of any of these claims being things that are considered infallible Church teaching and can be subject to error(if I come across anything that is infallible doctrine then I retract this statement). But anyways, what I will do is start a new thread here in Catholicism forum and try to go through them a few at a time. Sound good?

[Pennypacker11]

GoldenChild, if you don't mind, I'll say a little bit about some of these (if you do, just delete my post ). Also, Please look at #'s 16 and 18 specifically to see what type of website we are dealing with. Not only are these things taken out of context, the vast majority are at best misunderstandings of the pope (and/or the earlier teaching) and at worst purposeful misrepresentations. Also, it is somewhat amusing that in their attemp to reach 100, a great deal of these are more or less the same thing said again under another #.

First, as already acknowledged, these quotes are taken out of context and lets face it, we can make anyone contradict if we do that. However, some of these represent misunderstandings and some of them do show shifts in Catholic thought.

Here we go (I would recommend having the website with the 'contadictions' up next to this for quick reference):
#1: I think that a distinction between Catholic and catholic Church would be helpful. The (Roman) Catholic Church does not lack unity, the Pope doesn't claim that. However, the catholic Church does.

#2: There are three types of baptism: baptism by water (the norm), by desire, and by blood. One does not have to be baptized by water to be saved (thief on the cross for example); it is the Catholic faith that we have the hope that God will saved those who have been aborted, that the blood shed in that act will in a sense, be their baptism via "martyrdom".

#3: I'll have to look that one up further:

#4: It is true that one of the strongest shifts in the Catholic Church today is the ecumenical movement, which stems in great part from the misunderstanding of much of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The Catholic Church would still make a clear distinction between itself and other 'sects', but now recognizes that they are not heretics in the same sense that Arians or Nestorians were; they are separated Brethren in whom the Spirit can work. So yes, with this one, there is a shift in teaching, but I think it is a clearing up of 450 years of misunderstanding, leading to the conclusion that Protestants are different, wrong on certain important things, but nonetheless Christians (w/o the fullness (not total lack) of faith).

#5: See #4.

#6: See #1 and #4.

#7: We need to define 'liberty of conscience.' For a long time, this meant, in non-Christian circles that, in a relativistic way, whatever your conscience tells you is true (for you). The Church rejects this understanding of conscience, from Gregory (who is cited), to Newman (who championed freedom of conscience), to Vatican II. However, we do have the freedom to follow our conscience into truth or falsehood; this freedom is certainly a right of man. However, even with this distinction which I think clears up most of the issue, there is still a shift here; we no longer see an inquisition trying to coerce people into Christianity by the sword. We recognize the freedom to accept or reject the faith. THus, I think that there is, in part, a change in teaching here, but not on something infallible (Gregory was wrong).

#8: See #4.

#9: I'll need to look at this more deeply.

#10: See #4.

#11: I'm sure what this is even talking about, but I'm pretty sure that they are talking about different things when one looks in context (the first maybe being one dominating world order like in the End Times and the Pope talking about everyone working together for peace, to end hunger, etc.)

#12: These things aren't even saying the same thing. God does love everyone. That doesn't mean that everyone pleases God or that everyone is saved.

#13: I'll need to look at this one more deeply.

#14: I don't really know anything about Mason or the context in which Pius IX/JPII wrote those statements, so i can't get this one.

#15: See #4.

#16: Going back to the orignal source here is very telling of this website and how an agenda can lead one to make something say anything. I read that entire section of Crossing the Threshold of Hope and that quote is their summary of what the Pope is saying and quite frankly, it is horrendous. The Pope was discussing how Vatican II was a council in which the Catholic Church set forth its faith to its own people and to the world, without condemnations of others. He does not state that councils shouldn't condemn things (not that a condemnation is actually needed to defend truth); he was simply stating the style of this particular council.

#17: Having read those paragraphs in Pius X, he is rejecting the idea that dogma is tied merely to a specific time and can and must change, sometimes radically with a new place and new time. JPII is simply noting the longstanding teaching of the Church that we grow in a fuller understanding of the Revelation in Christ over time.

#18: Like #16, this one shows a clear misunderstanding/purposeful misrepresentation of the Pope. Although they didn't give it, this is Paragraph 68 of Familiaris Consortio. The Pope NEVER says that all inter-religious marriages are good and gives reasons why they can be harmful; however, he also recognizes the biblical principle of santifying the non-believing partner, and the fact that a marriage between a Catholic and Protestant can bring the catholic Church closer together.

#19: I dont have that book, but it is difficult w/o context.

#20: Pius VI was simply wrong here and misunderstood the Gospel.

#21: See #11.

#22: See #4. Note, that the Catholic Church still would say that Luther was quite wrong on many things, but that the Catholic Church was also wrong on certain practices (note: not dogma) and that is misunderstood Luther in many cases (and Luther misunderstood the Catholic Church.

#23: Again, context is needed. And i need to look further, like #13.

#24: See #1.

#25: First, the citation of LOR is very frustrating since it is a newsletter from the Vatican and they are not citing which particular one. Now, I assure you that they are misrepresenting the Pope since he wouldn't say that, he states clearly the opposite in other writings.

#26: Again, I can't find that reference but i would guess, based on their track record, that this is out of context.

#27: See #7. Also, I do think that there is clear shift in teaching here, although context can explain a lot (if we think of religious liberty as the French Revolution (state controlling the Church), then it is rejected. THis is the context of Pius IX).

#28: I need to look more deeply.

#29: See #4.

#30: See #1, #2, #4.

#31: Context! The Pope says that there are particular circumstances in which a non-Catholic can receieve the Eucharist, Pennance, and Anointing of the sick. However, the circumstance must be extenuating and the person must "manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments". So for example, if a Lutheran accepts the understanding of Anointing and is about to die, if they ask for the Sacrament a priest can give it. This is a development in doctrine for a particular circumstance; the norm is still that non-Catholics can't recieve.

#32:See #4.

#33: These aren't addressing the same things and no one said that the Church could never do sinful things.

#34: See #4. Again, they keep apply the term heretics as a broad term covering everyone from Arians to Protestants while the Pope would make a distinction.

#35: See #7.

#36: See #7.

#37: See #4.

#38: See #4. FOr a long discussion on 'subsists', there was a thread in here about a month ago.

#39: See #1 and #4.

#40: They aren't saying the same things and the Pope also rejects relativism (see the introduction to Evangelium Vitae).

#41: First, "Today's" obviously refers to different time periods (1920's and 1992). Further, all this section of the Catechism states is that both sides were to blame; this does not at all state that 'heretics' are not to be blamed.

#42: See #38.

#43: See #2.

#44: See #17.

#45: The Catechism states that all are called or ordered to belong in the universal Church. Blatant misrepresentation.

#46: See #4.

#47: I need to look more deeply.

#48: I need to look more deeply.

#49: In that we share a common humanity with a common origin and goal (not that all will achieve this goal (salvation)).

#50: I need to look more deeply.

Alrighty, there is 50 of them. I need to look more deeply into #'s 3, 9, 13, 19, 23, 28, 47, 48, 50, but these revolve around a two themes:

Other Religions (3, 9, 19, 28, 48, 50).
Specifically Judaism and the Old Covenant (13, 23, 47).
I'll try to get to these, but if anyone else wants to that is fine too.

[goldenchild]

That's cool, good work. I will start a new thread for this one as it kind of clutters this up. If someone wants to transfer the above post to the new thread that would help.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

KFBobInsanesMom, I am interested in helping with these. I'll do whatever I can do, I will apologize now though as this is something that will take some time and will probably need to run it by a few people before I can be sure of the answer. One thing I want to point out is that, if these claims are true(and to me personally this is a big if as I have great respect for our current Pope), then what this shows is that this specific Pope is in error. I'm not aware of any of these claims being things that are considered infallible Church teaching and can be subject to error(if I come across anything that is infallible doctrine then I retract this statement). But anyways, what I will do is start a new thread here in Catholicism forum and try to go through them a few at a time. Sound good?

That sounds great. I waited over a month to even post this but it just kept nagging at me. Maybe if I could pick out ones that I have read the documents given and still question it would work better. I guess to start I need to understand the RCC belief about the eternal fate of aborted babies... if there is indeed an accepted belief on this issue.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Pennypacker11

#2: There are three types of baptism: baptism by water (the norm), by desire, and by blood. One does not have to be baptized by water to be saved (thief on the cross for example); it is the Catholic faith that we have the hope that God will saved those who have been aborted, that the blood shed in that act will in a sense, be their baptism via "martyrdom".

Great , a place to start. Pennypacker... look back at my post #114. I copied from the document sited the quote of Pope JPII. It doesn't seem he is saying it a " hope" that God saved them, but he comes right out and speaks to those who have had abortions and tells them their babies ARE with the Lord. This is not what I understood the position of the RCC was. So , to me, that is a very clear contradiction made by the Pope.

[2ManArmy]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

That sounds great. I waited over a month to even post this but it just kept nagging at me. Maybe if I could pick out ones that I have read the documents given and still question it would work better. I guess to start I need to understand the RCC belief about the eternal fate of aborted babies... if there is indeed an accepted belief on this issue.

Hello,

To address your question concerning the fate of unborn babies...
They are innocent, and since they are without sin, they "go straight to heaven", so to speak.
I have heard the argument that since they are not baptized, they technically go to 'eternal happiness, but not with God in the same way that baptized Christians are'. However I do not know where this stems from. Let me find some more information for you, if I remember.

God bless you! Please, any more questions on this topic are welcome.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by 2ManArmy

Hello,

To address your question concerning the fate of unborn babies...
They are innocent, and since they are without sin, they "go straight to heaven", so to speak.
I have heard the argument that since they are not baptized, they technically go to 'eternal happiness, but not with God in the same way that baptized Christians are'. However I do not know where this stems from. Let me find some more information for you, if I remember.

God bless you! Please, any more questions on this topic are welcome.

Does this not contradict then the RCC teaching on what baptism does? I know I have had several discussions with goldenchild where the effects of baptism were addressed and it was stated that baptism washes away the sin we inherit from Adam. ( I quarantee that is not quite how it was stated but I can't find where we discussed it to give you the actually wording.. sorry in advance if I don't have that quite right... but I believe that was the general answer I was given). What would be the difference between a baby one second after birth and a baby that was aborted one second before birth then? Do not both have the same sin nature?

[eldestofvic]

Originally Posted by 2ManArmy

Hello,

To address your question concerning the fate of unborn babies...
They are innocent, and since they are without sin, they "go straight to heaven", so to speak.
I have heard the argument that since they are not baptized, they technically go to 'eternal happiness, but not with God in the same way that baptized Christians are'. However I do not know where this stems from. Let me find some more information for you, if I remember.

God bless you! Please, any more questions on this topic are welcome.

2Man

You are aware, I hope, that this is theological speculation and not part of the Catechism of our Church.

Article 1261 of the CCC:
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

KFInsane: Belay reaction to 2Man's earlier comments as they do not represent the official teaching of the Catholic Church and never did.

[Katholish]

In the interest of clarity, I just want to reaffirm Eldestofvic's statements.

The Church infallibly teaches that Baptism is necessary for Salvation.
She also teaches that all (I am all in the general sense as the Bible uses it)people have Original Sin. If you die in a state of Original Sin, you cannot attain heaven.

It has been a widely circulated speculation in the Church's history that there is a place called the Limbo of infants, where those who die without having attained the age of reason and not having been baptized go, which is not a place of poena sensus (pain of the senses), but is not being in the presense of God either.

If, however, some or all of those that die with Original Sin without having attained the age or use of reason, they would have to have had Baptism of Desire or Blood, but Baptism is absolutely necessary.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I guess to start I need to understand the RCC belief about the eternal fate of aborted babies... if there is indeed an accepted belief on this issue.

The passage from the Catechism is the most "official" statement there is on this issue.

Article 1261 of the CCC:

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

All we can do for those infants who die with baptism is hope that God has mercy upon them. Yes, baptism is necessary in one of it's three forms, but I don't think anyone can limit God to the ways in which He can work

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Great , a place to start. Pennypacker... look back at my post #114. I copied from the document sited the quote of Pope JPII. It doesn't seem he is saying it a " hope" that God saved them, but he comes right out and speaks to those who have had abortions and tells them their babies ARE with the Lord. This is not what I understood the position of the RCC was. So, to me, that is a very clear contradiction made by the Pope.

Okay I'll start with this one then.

I think this is the passage you are referring to.

Evanglium Vitae 99

" ... I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, ho is now living in the Lord. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life."


There doesn't seem to be much in the way of a proclamation that aborted babies are in heaven. That bolded part is the only thing in there. Aborted babies may or may not make it to heaven. This is something that we just don't know. So I don't think it a contradiction for a person to say either way whether a baby is or isn't in heaven. The passage is really concerned with consoling all women who have had an abortion, maybe this part was out of compassion for the women(it isn't exactly the nicest thing in the world to come out and say one's baby is in hell ). But I do see you're concern here. But the passage I, and eldestofvic gave, is the passage one should focus on in this regard.

As for St. Zosimus' passage, I can't seem to find the passage online. So I can't read it. What I do know, with certainty, is that this guy never made a definitive, infallible proclamation of faith and morals. If he is outrightly teaching that a baby goes to hell without baptism then this is not necessarily true. Going by the Catechism, frankly we just don't know.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

the effects of baptism were addressed and it was stated that baptism washes away the sin we inherit from Adam. ( I quarantee that is not quite how it was stated but I can't find where we discussed it to give you the actually wording.. sorry in advance if I don't have that quite right... but I believe that was the general answer I was given).

That's correct. But again, this is a very similar situation to someone who has committed suicide. Committing suicide is a very grace sin in the Catholic Church. If the offender of this sin, knew that the sin was serious, and gave full consent to it anyway then it constitutes a mortal sin and may not(being conservative here ) be in heaven. But we as people are in absolutely no position to judge the people who do such things. Even though such a sin is very serious we can't just assume that they are in hell. Scripture tells us "Judge not, lest ye be judged", so we make no judgements.

It is a similar situation with aborted babies. The norm belief is that one needs baptism for salvation, however we cannot judge these babies and just assume they are in hell, because we cannot know just what God takes into consideration when judging a soul. Maybe the parents would baptise the baby if it had lived, if so, maybe God considers this. We just do not know. That's really all that can be said about this, the Catechism says it in simple enough words that we can only HOPE for their salvation. We don't know where they go.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Okay I'll start with this one then.

I think this is the passage you are referring to.

Evanglium Vitae 99

" ... I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, ho is now living in the Lord. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life."


There doesn't seem to be much in the way of a proclamation that aborted babies are in heaven. That bolded part is the only thing in there. Aborted babies may or may not make it to heaven. This is something that we just don't know. So I don't think it a contradiction for a person to say either way whether a baby is or isn't in heaven. The passage is really concerned with consoling all women who have had an abortion, maybe this part was out of compassion for the women(it isn't exactly the nicest thing in the world to come out and say one's baby is in hell ). But I do see you're concern here. But the passage I, and eldestofvic gave, is the passage one should focus on in this regard.

As for St. Zosimus' passage, I can't seem to find the passage online. So I can't read it. What I do know, with certainty, is that this guy never made a definitive, infallible proclamation of faith and morals. If he is outrightly teaching that a baby goes to hell without baptism then this is not necessarily true. Going by the Catechism, frankly we just don't know.

Well, from what you have said, I see a direct contradiction here between the words of the Pope and the stand of the RCC. In the Pope's words he clearly states that the aborted baby is " now living in the Lord". I can see no other way to take that statement than that the child is in heaven. Why?


How could a baby be " living in the Lord" if they were not in heaven? Also, how can you tell a woman she will be able to ask forgiveness from her child if you have no idea where the child is? Can one ask forgiveness from someone who is in hell?? What does it mean that " nothing is definitively lost "??? I find that statement to be entirely false. Perhaps I am not understanding what was meant by those words. If it is not believed that aborted children go to heaven, then I find it very offensive that it was said in a way to be deceptive to women who have had an abortion. ( it's deceptive to me, so I believe it fair to say it would be deceptive to others also ) I'm not trying to be difficult, but if words that are not true were spoken to women who have had abortions because it was felt is was more compassionate, that is just wrong. It is never good to make something you know is not true look true just to please man.

I think on this one it is a clear contradiction to the accepted RCC belief by the Pope.

[goldenchild]

Actually according to the Catholic Church, there is no "official" belief either way, as I tried to show you with the quote from the CCC. It simply not known, either way, that is as simple as it gets. On this issue we are allowed to have different speculations, some people choose not to make a decision on whether a person is in heaven or hell(I am one, I simply don't know enough to decide either way). Other people believe that being killed by abortion is in some way a form of baptism by blood. I personally don't believe this is exactly true, but it could be. Maybe this is the position the Pope takes. I don't know. I do want to know how you think there is contradiction though. The Church makes no declaration on this issue, so some believe either position and it's okay.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Actually according to the Catholic Church, there is no "official" belief either way, as I tried to show you with the quote from the CCC. It simply not known, either way, that is as simple as it gets. On this issue we are allowed to have different speculations, some people choose not to make a decision on whether a person is in heaven or hell(I am one, I simply don't know enough to decide either way). Other people believe that being killed by abortion is in some way a form of baptism by blood. I personally don't believe this is exactly true, but it could be. Maybe this is the position the Pope takes. I don't know. I do want to know how you think there is contradiction though. The Church makes no declaration on this issue, so some believe either position and it's okay.

Well, are you saying that what the Pope said in this writing is nothing more than his opinion? If the position of the church is as you stated from the CCC , that is cannot be known, then how can the Pope say to women that their aborted children are " living in the Lord"? Thats a contradiction. It cannot be both ways.