I'm giving up this Board for Lent. There are so many reasons I don't know where to start but here are a few:

1. The imposters just keep on comin'.

2. The sedevacantists and SSPXers drive me nuts.

3. I'm so very, very tired of seeing topics like "No salvation outside the Church" posted over and over and over and over and over again by the SAME PEOPLE.

So I'm outta here. God bless you, have a blessed and happy Lent and Easter and if you want to keep in touch, I'll be at the forum known as "phatmass" from time to time.

-- Christine Lehman (christinelehman@hotmail.com), March 03, 2003

Answers

'Bye, Christine. I'm re-arriving, and you're departing. C'est la vie.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 03, 2003.

SSPXers drive me nuts

I resemble that remark.

Nyuk nyuk.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 03, 2003.

Jake

-- ==john (chickenpop@hotmail.com), March 03, 2003.

Jake, so I can pick you out of the crowd; whats a SSPXer

-- -- john (chickenpop@hotmail.com), March 03, 2003.

Chris,

If this board is that annoying and frustrating, I think it would be a greater sacrifice for you to stay and practice patience! Patience is a virtue! ;)

But, whichever you choose, have a Holy and blessed Lenten season, and hope to see you back soon!

I, too, will be limiting my online time. Perhaps abstaining altogether on Fridays...

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 03, 2003.

Christine,

Have a blessed Lenten season.

I could pull a old thread up for 99 percent of the topics that come up in this forum. Ed hasn't beem here that long so he might not be familiar with a lot of the older threads. I think people like the excitement of starting new threads, and giving there opinions. Plus the fact I think Mr. Richards enjoys getting proven wrong every day. I know there is a word for this, but I can't rember what it is now.

We can't realy control what subjects people will start threads on, but we can conrol what ones we will post on. Take it all like a grain of salt, and keep praying.

I appreciate all the prayers that my Trad friends have prayed for me and my family. I think that they live a very prayerful life.

I miss you Gino. If you read this, you have a blessed Lenten season too. Come on back bro.

God bless you.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), March 03, 2003.

Well, the window is just about closed anyways, and in true form the substance of my Lent and your Lents will be supplied from the outside rather than any decisions you or I make or any list we've all got made up. It is going to be that kind of year. So I'm off too and bid you all farewell; last one to leave, turn out the lights. Something wicked this way comes.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 03, 2003.

Aloha, Christine, Have a prayerful Easter Season.

God bless you,

Ed

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 03, 2003.

David, the word is MASOCHIST. Maybe you're right!.

God bless you too.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 03, 2003.

Pray for us Christene, God Bless and hope to see you back after "Oesterzeit"

Joe

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), March 03, 2003.

Jake, so I can pick you out of the crowd; whats a SSPXer

A supporter of the Society of St. Pius X; but don't worry, you won't have much trouble picking me out of this crowd, armed with that knowledge or not.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 03, 2003.

I think Christine's post was snotty and underhanded and I'm disappointed no one called her on it. I mean, ok. She says the Sede's and the SSPXers "drive [her] nuts." It's obviously the people who hold the traditionalist opinion who she really doesn't care for. Christine, why not show some backbone and mention Jake and Isabel by name? Why do they drive you nuts, anyway? Their beliefs are your heritage as a Roman Catholic, no?

I'm also curious why the "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" subject bothers you so. As a Catholic, one would think you'd agree with this teaching fully and enjoy defending it whenever possible....

-- P. (email@email.com), March 05, 2003.

> "I'm also curious why the "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" subject bothers you so. As a Catholic, one would think you'd agree with this teaching fully and enjoy defending it whenever possible."

There are always exceptions, and people of other faiths are open to baptism by desire, and having contrite hearts for their sins.

Both Isabel and Ed, not sure about Jake, are not open to this. I'm not sure why, but maybe they can explain it?

I can see why it drives Christine nuts, because these people repeat their traditionist stance, with their harsh judgments over and over again. Ed and Isabel have made it quite clear that people of other faiths are going to hell, simply because they are not Catholic, as how they define Catholism!!! I believe people who die with the baptism of desire, and contrite hearts are Catholic.

I consider myself a traditionist, and even attend Latin Mass each week, but the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin.

I don't agree with the SSPXers also!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 05, 2003.

Both Isabel and Ed, not sure about Jake, are not open to this. I'm [Baptism of Desire] not sure why, but maybe they can explain it?

I'm not closed to it at all. I just cannot accept that it's the norm; the rule rather than the rare exception.

Ed and Isabel have made it quite clear that people of other faiths are going to hell, simply because they are not Catholic, as how they define Catholism!!!

People who die outside the Church, after having had the opportunity to know Christ and His One True Religion, will most assuredly go to Hell. This isn't Ed's or Isabel's or my personal judgement. This is what we know through centuries of Church teaching including infallable pronouncements of the Popes.

I believe people who die with the baptism of desire, and contrite hearts are Catholic.

That's only a (very) small step away from saying that all "nice" people go to Heaven. It's a slippery slope.

I consider myself a traditionist, and even attend Latin Mass each week, but the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin.

The Novus Ordo in Latin is NOT the "Latin Mass." It's the Novus Ordo in Latin, and you are not a traditionist (sic).

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 05, 2003.

(ii) It is remarkable that in the 32nd edition of Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum (edited by Fr. Schonmetzer) the offending sentence has a footnote inviting comparison with an extract from article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

It is evident that this passage is quite irreconcilable with Catholic dogma, but is in perfect agreement with the view propounded in Pacem In Terris. Indeed the verbal echoes would strongly suggest that the author of the offending sentence of Pacem In Terris was conscious of the extract from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as he wrote.

Moreover, the same footnote in Denzinger quotes another convention of human rights to the effect that:

“The freedom of manifesting one's religion or convictions can be subject to no restrictions except those established by the law as necessary measures in a democratic society for public security, the protection of order, or of public health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and liberties of others.”

And if that does not contradict Catholic teaching, nothing does: in fact, it is the very teaching that Vatican II was later to propound and that even its strongest proponents have admitted is irreconcilable with traditional doctrine.

It seems to say that the second Vatican council, muddied the waters with their teaching on religious liberty.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 05, 2003.

> "People who die outside the Church, after having had the opportunity to know Christ and His One True Religion, will most assuredly go to Hell. This isn't Ed's or Isabel's or my personal judgement. This is what we know through centuries of Church teaching including infallable pronouncements of the Popes."

That not true at all! The Church makes it quite clear that you have to commit a mortal sin in order to be guilty of hell! Those who are in other religions sincerly believe they are following their conscience, thus no mortal sin is involved, as a mortal sin requires that the person knows they are commiting a serious sin, and yet continue to do so.

> "I believe people who die with the baptism of desire, and contrite hearts are Catholic.

That's only a (very) small step away from saying that all "nice" people go to Heaven. It's a slippery slope.""

That's your interpretation of my opinion. I never said that at all! You twisting my words, because I don't accept your false interpretation of the Catholic faith. You clearly do not understand your faith. You are making it overly rigid to the point, that if someone hears about the Catholic faith once, and rejects it in good conscience you are condemning that person to hell. That is wrong! Absolutely wrong!

I see I am repeating myself here to you guys, but that is fine, as someone has to stand up against you people who are teaching falsehoods about the Catholic faith.

> "The Novus Ordo in Latin is NOT the "Latin Mass." It's the Novus Ordo in Latin, and you are not a traditionist."

Sorry, I do attend a latin Mass each week because it is in latin. Yes, I do consider myself a traditionist that must defend the Catholic faith from you who are distorting it. You are the one who is not a traditionist!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 05, 2003.

You are the one who is not a traditionist!

My dad can beat up your dad.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 05, 2003.

Sorry, I do attend a latin Mass each week because it is in latin

A pig in a silk hat is still just a pig.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 05, 2003.

Funny Jake, we are still laughing here!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 05, 2003.

I don't agree with the SSPXers also!

To say you don't agree with the "SSPXers" means that you don't agree with the Church before the changes vatican two made. The SSPX and those who support their position, are just preserving Church history, teachings, doctrines, etc. They have not -- nor do they wish to -- add to, take away, or waterdown anything and I'm sorry that the same cannot be said for the Church today. You may argue "disobedience" or "schism" but if you take that position, you have chosen also to disagree with many past writings from great Saints -even Scripture itself!- who spoke about disobeying - even a pope - when the faith is threatened, and that not all disobedience amounts to schism.

Do you realize that the Pope (I believe it was last year) wished to grant every priest (including those of the SSPX) the official right to say the Traditional Mass whenever/where ever they wished, but nearly all the French Bishops promised formal disobedience if he granted it? So the Pope.....well...he caved to them. Talks between Rome and The Society continue behind closed doors, and at one meeting with a SSPX Bishop, the Pope thrust a Rosary into his hand and said, "I am pleased." Vatican spokesmen - representatives of the Pope himself - have said that there are very "good fruits" coming from the work of the Society.

So, very well. If you wish to disagree, fine. Just remember: Our very own Pope has embraced their work and wants this "internal matter" to be rectified before he dies. If he grants official permission to the Society and to traditional priests everywhere, will you continue to "disagree"?

-- P. (SSPXer@HMC.com), March 06, 2003.

You are making it overly rigid to the point, that if someone hears about the Catholic faith once, and rejects it in good conscience

That's it! You think that one can actually reject the Catholic faith in 'good' conscience! Unbelievable. How can the Catholic faith ever be rejected in 'good' conscience? When rejecting the Catholic faith, or even refusing even hear of it, is rejecting God's grace. God may or may not choose to give them another chance.

Our Lady of Fatima said that souls are falling into hell like snowflakes from Heaven. Doesn't sound like Baptism of Desire is doing much good for those people. Even Our Lady, when talking to the children at Fatima, concentrated on the things that seperated us from other faiths, not those that we had in common.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

Ooops! Meant to bold the first sentence. It was copies from someone's post.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

Gordon,

Whats that you said about 'no backbone'? :-)

Maybe you should ask these people to pray for your Muslim friend whom you use to live with, but wern't succesful in converting. We don't want to see him one of those 'snowflakes'.

May the Lord give your friend the Grace to come home to the holy Catholic Church.

God bless you Gordon Vink and your friend of the Islam faith.

-- David (David@excite.com), March 06, 2003.

I am glad to hear that another SSPX has written.He is so correct,(in my opinion). Since Vatican 2, the church has condescended to the Protestants to such a degree, that they have almost become a quasi- protestant organization themselves. The fact that French bishops, (or any bishops for that matter), can pressure the pope, shows who is really running the church. When V2 gave the bishops fifty percent of the say, they did irreparable harm. It has now come home to roost.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

your Muslim friend whom you use to live with, but wern't succesful in converting.

Oh, was that you? I thought it must be something like that. You have a Muslim friend who's nice, and is sincere about being a Muslim, and you refuse to see how God could send such a nice guy to Hell for all eternity?

If that's the way God operated, do you think He (God Himself) would have humiliated Himself to such an extent as to: take on human flesh, be regarded as an outcast, hunted by a wicked Jewish king who meant to slaughter Him, suffered reproaches all His life from the religious authorities of His day; and THEN, ofter all that, to be betrayed, abandoned, mocked, scourged, crucified and die the death of a common criminal...

...if He planned to let your Muslim friend into Heaven because he's a good Muslim?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 06, 2003.

> "To say you don't agree with the "SSPXers" means that you don't agree with the Church before the changes vatican two made. The SSPX and those who support their position, are just preserving Church history, teachings, doctrines, etc."

I spoke extensively at one time with a SSPX priest, and I understand that they are still valid priests, but when one of these priests cuts down our Pope repeatedly, and make claims they are the "True Catholic Church", then I must protest.

The true Catholic Church is the one headed by our current Pope. Nothing the SSPXers say can change that, for the Church receives it's authority from God.

> "You think that one can actually reject the Catholic faith in 'good' conscience! Unbelievable."

You're promoting something which has nothing to do with how the human mind works, or has anything to do with the Catholic faith. You don't believe me? Ask a Catholic priest about this, and come back here with the reply. Please Isabel do this, for your own sake.

Isabel to say that people of faiths are not rejecting the Catholic faith in good conscience means you are overly rigid. Be careful as we all will be judged accordingly, for God judges us on how we judge others. You gain nothing by judging these people so harshly, so why do it? Pray for their conversion, and do acts of evangelization. I belong to the Legion of Mary, and each week, for 2 hours, I go down to skid row in our city here, visiting people, and trying to bring fallen away Catholics back into the faith, and to try and bring non-Catholics to the Catholic faith. That's called putting your faith into practice. Please share with us, what you do to spread the Catholic faith, since you argue so strongly for it?

> "Our Lady of Fatima said that souls are falling into hell like snowflakes from Heaven. Doesn't sound like Baptism of Desire is doing much good for those people."

There are 10's of millions of secular people who want nothing to do with God, and that very well could account for the huge number or people going to hell, and not necessary means that huge numbers or people of other faiths are going to hell. Anyway in a world of billions of people, even those of the Catholic faith alone could account for a huge number going to hell, for millions of Catholics do not follow their faith.

> "the church has condescended to the Protestants to such a degree, that they have almost become a quasi- protestant organization themselves."

You would think the protestants are shouting for joy, but no the opposite is true. They still continue to condemn us, as you are witness to repeatedly on this forum. The Church has not become more Protestant through it's changes, if that was the case, the protestants would be happy.

How can you be a Catholic, and not respect the authority of God's Church? The Pope says the current Mass is a valid Mass, and yet you have people who criticize it. You either accept God's Church or you reject it! There is nothing sinful in God's Church as a result of Vatican II, but only a bunch of people who cannot handle change. Saying the Mass in the vernacular for example is certainly not wrong in anyway!

Jake, don't pay any attention to what David says. I have told David a number of times now, that I refuse to debate anything with him anymore because he is so irrational. Don't believe me, check past threads, and see how he argues with people. The guy has major problems with anger, and lack of charity for his neighbour. I ask that you please pray for him, and pay no heed to what he says. He really needs our help. I'm currently praying a novena for him. Please pray a novena for him also.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

> "I thought it must be something like that. You have a Muslim friend who's nice, and is sincere about being a Muslim, and you refuse to see how God could send such a nice guy to Hell for all eternity?"

That would be to judge someone on a human level, and I don't do that. The Catholic faith teaches that you must be guilty of a mortal sin inorder to go to hell, and it is common sense to believe, that millions of people of other faiths follow their faith in good conscience. They do not reject the Catholic faith out of pride, and so God takes that into account.

I am not recounting what I believe, but I am telling you what the Catholic Church stands for.

You know what guys, I was once like you, overly rigid and very judgemental, but over the years, I said to myself, that being so judgemental does no one any good! No one was ever converted by my condemnation of them, so I stopped doing it. I joined the Legion of Mary, to put my faith in practice, and now I go out each week to evangelize our faith. That means infinitely more to God, than all the harsh judgements you guys say in this forum, which helps NO ONE!

I strongly suggest you guys join the Legion of Mary in your parish, and see how wonderful it is, how the Legion works to bring people back to the Catholic faith, and how wonderful it is to convert people to our faith.

Please give it up. If your truly care about your faith, then put it into practice, and stop condemning people. Pray for them instead.

Show me where Mother Teresa for example condemned people? Follow after this great saint.

May the Sacred Heart of Jesus open your hearts to compassion!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

That would be to judge someone on a human level, and I don't do that.

You've done that here plenty, Mr. VanVink.

The Catholic faith teaches that you must be guilty of a mortal sin inorder to go to hell, and it is common sense to believe, that millions of people of other faiths follow their faith in good conscience. They do not reject the Catholic faith out of pride, and so God takes that into account.

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned." -Mark 16:16

(notice Our Lord does NOT say "He who means well will be saved." or He who is sincere while rejecting, denying, and blaspheming Me [as Muslims do] will be saved." Nor does it say "As long as pride was not your motivation on rejecting Me, I will make an exception in your case." Look, I'm sorry about your Muslim friend, I really am. I hope he renounces his diabolical religion and becomes a Catholic before he dies. I notice now you're backing off any references to universal salvation being doctrinal, and have now moved onto calling it "common sense." It is neither.

You know what guys, I was once like you, overly rigid and very judgemental, but over the years, I said to myself, that being so judgemental does no one any good! No one was ever converted by my condemnation of them, so I stopped doing it.

Er, no you haven't. You're doing it right now!

I strongly suggest you guys join the Legion of Mary in your parish

I'll make a mental note.

Please give it up. If your truly care about your faith, then put it into practice, and stop condemning people. Pray for them instead.

How dare you say such a thing? You criticize anyone who doesn't subscribe to your ridiculous, heretical views on universal salvation by saiying that they do not practice their faith? is your high horse so high as to be able to make such an arrogant pronouncement?

May the Sacred Heart of Jesus open your hearts to compassion!

..and may He open your eyes to the simple truths of the Roman Catholic Church.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 06, 2003.

> "You've done that here plenty, Mr. VanVink."

If you insist on the "Van" because of my dutch heritage, then I must insist that you also include "Von", because of my german heritage on my mother's side. signed Mr. Van Von Vinky :)

Jake, your are fogetting baptism of desire, and lack of baptism does not mean hell! The Church says that. If you don't believe me, then ask a priest.

I really feel sorry for you Jake, and your response to me, just proves you need prayers.

I challenge you guys to discuss you views with a priest, and if he does not agree with your harsh reality, are you going to condemn him also?

Who is up for the challenge?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

Gordon,

I wasn't debating anything with you. I gave you good advice. You should ask Christians to pray that your Islam friend(Herbie?) converts to Catholicism. His soul could be in very grave danger.

God bless you

-- David (David@excite.com), March 06, 2003.

Gordon,

You said to Jake,"Your response to me just shows that you need prayers".

Gordon, everyone needs prayers bro! Of course Jake needs prayers just like you and me, and everyone else that visit this forum. Your friend Herbie? needs our prayers too. Right?

Arn't you the one that is acting irrational?

-- David (David@excite.com), March 06, 2003.

If you insist on the "Van" because of my dutch heritage, then I must insist that you also include "Von", because of my german heritage on my mother's side. signed Mr. Van Von Vinky :)

Whatever.

Jake, your are fogetting baptism of desire, and lack of baptism does not mean hell! The Church says that. If you don't believe me, then ask a priest.

Ah, but there's a little catch to Baptism of desire, my man: you have to actually desire baptism, which someone who remains obstinately and culpably in a false religion clearly does not. You seem to assert that God forces salvation on nice people, whether they want it or not!

I really feel sorry for you Jake, and your response to me, just proves you need prayers.

...and you dont, right? I mean, if you're SO sure of the salvation of well-meaning Muslims, Jews, Protestants, and Pagans, well, you've little to worry about, right? I mean after all, you are a member of the legion of Mary, no?

Who is up for the challenge?

I challenge you to do a little research, and to base your theological positions on more than your own sentiment. Start here.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 06, 2003.

> "you have to actually desire baptism,"

So the thief on the cross desired baptism when he accepted Christ. No he did not, and yet he was saved! He had a contrite heart, and it's you guys who said he had a baptism of desire, and if that is the case, why not others who have contrite hearts!

> "...and you dont, right? I mean, if you're SO sure of the salvation of well-meaning Muslims, Jews, Protestants, and Pagans, well, you've little to worry about, right?"

I never said Pagans, and I am not sure of the salvation of anyone, except by the mercy of God, and by the fairness he judges people as taught by the Catholic Church.

> "on more than your own sentiment."

Nothing to do with my sentiment. The teachings of the Catholic Church. Funny how I never hear John Paul II, say what you guys are saying!

Don't be afraid of the answer, ask a priest!!! It will not hurt you Jake.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

Ask a Catholic priest about this, and come back here with the reply. Please Isabel do this, for your own sake.

I have asked more than one, and guess what, I get conflicting answers. (But my priest, who is my confessor, believes like I do.) Now, if seminaries were all teaching sound doctrine, would not all these priests learn the same thing? But they don't. Most teach 'feel-good' doctrine these days, so I tend to trust the older priests, ones who were educated in sound Catholic doctrine.

Isabel to say that people of faiths are not rejecting the Catholic faith in good conscience means you are overly rigid.

I guess the popes of old were all overly rigid, too. I guess it's a good thing we have had more politically correct ones lately.

Be careful as we all will be judged accordingly, for God judges us on how we judge others. You gain nothing by judging these people so harshly, so why do it?

I am in no means judging anybody, as I have already said I would never presume to say who is in Heaven or hell, excepting those that have been revealed to us. Stating something I believe to be fact is very different that judging and individual.

Pray for their conversion,

I do everyday when I say my rosary.

and do acts of evangelization.

I try spread the faith whenever I can, whether it be by my actions, words or example. Even in little ways like when someone asks what the string around my neck is and I show them my scapular and explain why I wear it.

Please share with us, what you do to spread the Catholic faith, since you argue so strongly for it?

I raise three children in the Catholic faith, teach them their prayers, go over their catechism with them, say the rosary with them, do First Saturdays with them, etc. Is that enough to suit you? Well, if it isn't enough, I do very often speak of the Catholic faith in public. I work with many Protestants that ask me many questions, and I am frank in telling them about the faith.

I said to myself, that being so judgemental does no one any good! No one was ever converted by my condemnation of them,…….

You know, you have this false idea that because I believe this way that I am judgemental and condemning of others. You could not be more wrong. I simply spread the faith as I know it, and hope that they will listen. But I never stop hoping that in their last hours, if they refuse all else before, that they will accept the truths of our faith and be blessed with Perfect Contrition. It is always a possibility. Besides, which way do you think will convert more people? "Your religion is OK, and you can be saved in it, but the Catholic Faith has the fullness of the truth, so I hope you become Catholic." OR "The Catholic Faith was instituted by Christ, and is the only religion which can save you. If you refuse to enter it, you do so at your own peril." Heck with the first statement, many will say, 'if I can be saved in my own religion, why not stay here. The Catholic Church has too many rules.' (I am told that all the time.)

Show me where Mother Teresa ……….. Follow after this great saint.

I hope you are right, but she has not been canonized yet.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

Funny how I never hear John Paul II, say what you guys are saying!

Funny how I never hear Popes of old say what you are saying! Even their dogmatic statements say otherwise. Odd.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

So the thief on the cross desired baptism when he accepted Christ. No he did not, and yet he was saved!

1. Our Lord did not institute the Sacrament of Baptism until after the Resurrection, and

2. The Good Thief acknowledged Our Lord as the Messiah (Muslims - including your friend), Jews, & pagans do not).

He had a contrite heart, and it's you guys who said he had a baptism of desire, and if that is the case, why not others who have contrite hearts!

Because in the case of the Good Thief, as in the case of any legitimate baptism of desire, Our Lord Himself intervened (made an exception to His own rules, as it were, which He is certainly entitled to do), and performed a miracle of Grace. Note the words "exception" and "miracle," which tend to lead one away from the idea that this happens all the time, which you so apparently share.

I never said Pagans,

Yipee.

and I am not sure of the salvation of anyone, except by the mercy of God, and by the fairness he judges people as taught by the Catholic Church.

Fairness. You mean Justice? Yes. God is just. Infinitely just, and the Church does teach that. That's precisely why He said that we have to believe & be baptized to be saved; because to grant salvation to those who don't even want it would be a mockery of Himself, and of His Son's passion & death. God could never do that, because it would be unjust (to Himself), and He is all-just. Perfectly & infinitely just.

Funny how I never hear John Paul II, say what you guys are saying!

It's lamentable, I know. Pray for the Pope.

Don't be afraid of the answer, ask a priest!!! It will not hurt you Jake.

I think you'd be disappointed in the answers of the priests I would ask, not that you'd believe what I said if I posted their answers, so let's just move on from that point, Mmkay?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 06, 2003.

I raise three children in the Catholic faith, teach them their prayers, go over their catechism with them, say the rosary with them, do First Saturdays with them, etc. Is that enough to suit you? Well, if it isn't enough, I do very often speak of the Catholic faith in public. I work with many Protestants that ask me many questions, and I am frank in telling them about the faith.

Sounds like she's doing quite a lot to live her faith, eh Gordon? Heck, I dare say she's even doing better than showing up to make flapjacks for the semi-annual Legion of Mary communion breakfast in the parish auditorium!

Seems there's al little more to being a Catholic than espousing the theology of niceness, slapping a Jesus Fish onto the back of the car, and catching up on the latest goings on in the Life on the Rock "coffee house."

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 06, 2003.

> "made an exception to His own rules"

That to me is a cop-out. So you saying that the the Catholic Church and Christ are not in agreement with each other now?

> "Most teach 'feel-good' doctrine these days, so I tend to trust the older priests, ones who were educated in sound Catholic doctrine."

Nonsense! I know older priests who teach the Catholic faith just fine, and do not say what you are saying.

> "I guess the popes of old were all overly rigid, too. I guess it's a good thing we have had more politically correct ones lately."

That's your perception, that somehow the Church has changed! I find this quite remarkable, as you saying you have to be a Catholic to be saved, and then you go and criticize God's Church today. How those this work? You mean you have to be a old fashioned Catholic like yourself, who does not understand her faith, inorder to be saved? I thought you just had to be Catholic!

You people give traditionists a bad name!

> "I am in no means judging anybody, as I have already said I would never presume to say who is in Heaven or hell,"

Come again, I could have sworn that you said all people who aren't Catholic are going to HELL, you never said they were in danger of going to HELL, but you said as if you knew for sure, that they were ALL going to HELL. Are now downplaying your harshness from before?

> "I raise three children in the Catholic faith, teach them their prayers, go over their catechism with them, say the rosary with them, do First Saturdays with them, etc. Is that enough to suit you?"

Does preaching to the converted count Isabel? I mean, you should be in Muslims, Jews, etc, faces day and night trying to save them, as you are convinced without doubt they are going to HELL!

> " I work with many Protestants that ask me many questions, and I am frank in telling them about the faith."

You mean you tell them they are going to HELL, for not being Catholic?

> ""Your religion is OK, and you can be saved in it, but the Catholic Faith has the fullness of the truth, so I hope you become Catholic.""

I never say that, but always promote God's Church as the one true faith, but at the same time, I don't go around condemning those people to HELL like you do. You are 100 percent convinced they are going to HELL for not being Catholic, as how you define a Catholic should be. That in my book is called arrogance in your own belief, and lacking trust in God's mercy!

> "I hope you are right, but she has not been canonized yet."

I had a feeling you would bring that up, and I think you agree, she never condemned anyone at anytime, but put her faith into practice.

You don't save others through condemnation! If anything they will only reject you.

> "Funny how I never hear Popes of old say what you are saying! Even their dogmatic statements say otherwise."

I have no problem with their statements, but reject your interpretation of those statements. You are a Catholic Protestant.

> "The Good Thief acknowledged Our Lord as the Messiah (Muslims - including your friend), Jews, & pagans do not)."

They accept God (not including pagans), and Jesus is God, or don't you believe in that. They believe in asking for forgiveness of their sins, just like the thief on the cross!

> "That's precisely why He said that we have to believe & be baptized to be saved"

You guys clearly said that those who are not baptised are going to HELL, and that is not what the Church has ever taught!

> "It's lamentable, I know. Pray for the Pope."

You are so Catholic, and yet reject the Pope! That's pretty sad, simply because he does not follow your OWN Catholic faith, which has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic faith.

> "I think you'd be disappointed in the answers of the priests I would ask, not that you'd believe what I said if I posted their answers, so let's just move on from that point, Mmkay?"

I still would like to hear what your SSPX priest would say, as I am sure that is the priest you would ask, but humor me all the same, and ask a priest from your local diocese, and tell me how the discussion went?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

> "Seems there's al little more to being a Catholic than espousing the theology of niceness,"

You see, you continue to distort my message, as you don't want to deal with the truth. The truth hurts!

> "Heck, I dare say she's even doing better than showing up to make flapjacks for the semi-annual Legion of Mary communion breakfast in the parish auditorium!"

Funny I have never been to one of those, and I would love to see how well you would do with my group, when we talk to the people in the skid row area of our city. Why would I get the feeling you would try to convert them, by first telling them they will all go to HELL.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

When I claimed that the new mass was inferior, I did not mean that the consecration was 90% or anything like that. I meant that the whole atmosphere breeds disrespect for Our Lord.. And maybe that's a lot worse than invalid.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

That to me is a cop-out. So you saying that the the Catholic Church and Christ are not in agreement with each other now?

Nope. No cop-out here. Our Lord taught the necessity of baptism, but then saved someone without baptism, because a) He is God, b) the Thief was dying and was out of chances to convert and lead a good life. I mentioned that the Lord was entitled to fdo this. You disagree?

They accept God (not including pagans), and Jesus is God, or don't you believe in that. They believe in asking for forgiveness of their sins, just like the thief on the cross!

...but there's no such thing as a "sincere" pagan? Why leave them out? After all, they're following their consciences.

Our Lord called Himself "The Way, the Truth, and the Life." and warned us that "no one comes to the Father but by Me." If He is the Way, and Muslims/Jews/whoever REJECT that and find a disserent "way," how can you hold out hope of their salvation? This has all been spelled out for us, in black & white.

You guys clearly said that those who are not baptised are going to HELL, and that is not what the Church has ever taught!

Sure about that? I'll give you some time to think about it.

You are so Catholic, and yet reject the Pope!

I do? By referring to him as weak? That may be a criticism, Vink, but it's not a rejection. Get a hold of yourself, man.

I still would like to hear what your SSPX priest would say, as I am sure that is the priest you would ask, but humor me all the same, and ask a priest from your local diocese, and tell me how the discussion went?

Well, here's an SSPX priest's take on it. As far as me approaching a priest of the diocese, infected with liberalism and modernism, I will not, I cannot, set foot in their churches, so I'l ltry an email or something, but I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 06, 2003.

Gordon,

Get a hold of yourself bro! And you have the gall to call other people irrational??

Everytime someone disagrees with you, you tell them."You need prayers, I'm going to pray for you..........."

Pray for Herbie, and learn to control yourself. I see you added Jake to your Novena list(because you said he needs prayers because he disagrees with you).

Pray for Herbies UN-baptized soul during this Holy season and all Muslims to become Catholics.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), March 06, 2003.

You mean you have to be a old fashioned Catholic like yourself, who does not understand her faith,

Did you just equate being and 'old-fashioned Catholic' with not understanding the faith? Or did I just read that wrong?

I thought you just had to be Catholic!

No, you have to be a Catholic in good standing.

I could have sworn that you said all people who aren't Catholic are going to HELL

No, I said that those who die without accepting the Catholic faith will go to hell. But I also said that we rarely know what happens in the last minutes or hours of someone's life. God is just and merciful, and if in those last minutes they accept the Catholic faith, He can even send an angel from Heaven to baptize them. Miracles do happen. But again, that would be the exception.

I mean, you should be in Muslims, Jews, etc, faces day and night trying to save them, as you are convinced without doubt they are going to HELL!

God gave us each a vocation, mine is to be a mother and help my children save their souls. If I were to be 'in the faces' of Muslims, Jews, etc. day and night, then it would be damnation for me for sure, because I would be neglecting my duties in life. And we should all know that to neglect one's vocation and daily duties will lead them on a straight path to hell. My God-given duties are to teach my children the Catholic faith so that they may one day attain eternal salvation.

You mean you tell them they are going to HELL, for not being Catholic?

If they ask what I believe on that issue, I am frank. I answer the questions they ask. Believe it or not, being frank and honest will earn one more respect than beating around the bush so as not to alarm them.

That in my book is called arrogance in your own belief,

It certainly would be arrogance if I laughed because I was given the grace of faith and they were not, but I do not laugh. I am sad that all are not Catholic. I offer up my rosary daily and any small sacrifices I do for the poor souls in purgatory, and the conversion of sinners.

They accept God (not including pagans), and Jesus is God,

a + b = c

a=Jesus is God b=they do not accept Jesus

Meaning that:

c=If they do not accept Jesus, then they do not accept God.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

I just can't help but wonder how long Our Lord is going to allow this to continue.  We have had 40 years of Vatican II, and 33 years of the Novus Ordo Missae.  It has been said that when the precious Blood of Our Lord is no longer offered on our altars, that the blood of men will have to be shed in the streets.

-- whale (U@pacbell.com), March 06, 2003.

Nice to see you again, Gene.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 06, 2003.

Isabel, I glad to see that you are rational in your debates with me, but Jake is somewhat closer to David in his tactics.

Isabel, you have to understand that the Catholic Church does not teach: 1) Those who are unbaptised go to hell, and has never taught this. 2) That those of other religions who believe/worship God, and ask forgiveness for their sins, go to hell also. 3) That people who embrace a different faith, do not necessary reject our faith out of pride, and thus no mortal sin.

I know you will not accept these Catholic beliefs now, but I know with time you will probably will accept it. Since you are sincere in your faith, you have to be open that others are sincere in their faith, and follow it in good conscience.

The law of God is written in each man's heart, but that does not mean the Catholic faith is written in each man's heart. There is a difference between morality and faith. If faith was written in each man's heart, then there would have been no need for the apostles to go out in the world to evangelize. God bless.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

you have to understand that the Catholic Church does not teach: 1) Those who are unbaptised go to hell,

"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema." Council of Trent

"If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema." Council of Trent

2) That those of other religions who believe/worship God, and ask forgiveness for their sins, go to hell also.

"If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ; let him be anathema." Council of Trent

"If any one saith, that the baptized are freed from all the precepts, whether written or transmitted, of holy Church, in such wise that they are not bound to observe them, unless they have chosen of their own accord to submit themselves thereunto; let him be anathema." Council of Trent

"If anyone denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins three acts are required on the part of the penitent, constituting as it were the matter of the sacrament of penance, namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance; or says that there are only two parts of penance, namely, the terrors of a smitten conscience convinced of sin and the faith received from the Gospel or from absolution, by which one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ, let him be anathema." Council of Trent

I know you will not accept these Catholic beliefs now, but I know with time you will probably will accept it.

I accept the Catholic teachings above. Do you? I once believed as you believe, and I thank God for giving me the grace to see the truth.

The law of God is written in each man's heart, but that does not mean the Catholic faith is written in each man's heart.

God wants all to be Catholic. God wants all to save their souls. Why would He not give all men at least one chance to have that which would most easily save their souls? I believe He does, because otherwise He would have to be unjust and cruel to deny men what would most easily save their souls. And we know He is all-just, all- knowing, with more love for us than we can imagine.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

If faith was written in each man's heart, then there would have been no need for the apostles to go out in the world to evangelize.

If all well-meaning people can be assured salvation as long as they're sincere, then there never was any need for anyone to hve evangelize anyone. Nor is there a need for baptism, for Pentecost, or the Catholic Church, or our Blessed Lord Himself, for that matter. His life & death were completely meaningless if there's nothing to be saved from. The idea of redemption loses all its meaning, and one by one, like dominoes, all the Church's dogmas begin to fall, one into the other.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 06, 2003.

Isabel, I have no problems with what you posted, but show me where it says hell in any of that text?

The Church cannot contradict itself, but you posted this: "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema." Council of Trent

By that, the Church says baptism by fire, blood, or desire cannot then exist. Now please explain this apparent contradiction to me?

Anathema means by the way "one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority" according to webster.com, and does not mean go to hell!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

Gordon,

You are right. The statements above to do not say hell. But the process of elimination should tell you that if they cannot attain eternal salvation, then the only other place would be hell. Because those in purgatory eventually do attain salvation. Here are some complete definitions for you.

anathema - 1. one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority. 2. someone or something that is intensely disliked or loathed. 3. a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication. 4. the denunciation of something as accursed. 5. a vigorous denunciation.

accursed - 1. being under or as if under a curse. 2. damnable

curse - 1. a prayer or invocation for harm or injury to come upon one. 2. something that is cursed or accursed. 3. evil or misfortune that comes as if in response to imprecation or as retribution. 4. a cause of great harm or misfortune.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

He has many times brought up that I used to live with a muslim roommate, and I suspect he does that because he hates muslims.

That's ridiculous. YOU brought up the fact that you had a Muslim roommate whom you tried unsuccessfully (surprise!) to convert to Catholicism. Your having brought it up makes David...what? a bigot? Get over yourself.

I'm not responsible for the loss of his mother.

You, Vink, have just lost the last thin shred of credibility as a Christian and as a human being that you were so tenaciously hanging on to. If that's not a blatant and cruel attempt at hurting someone, I don't know what is. I've never seen such underhanded deviousness on this forum. I hope you get sent packing.

he lacks charity for his neighbour, and I have yet to see David make any apologies to me or others in his constant insults.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I will continue to point out to others that they should not debate with David, as it is a complete waste of time.

If by "waste of time," you mean that you have failed to make David see things your way, that's more an accomplishment and sign of faith on David's part than it is a remark about your ineffectiveness in espousing and attempting to impose & justify your heretical beliefs.

David's faults are no fewer in number or less in gravity than my own (that's for sure), nor anyone else who posts here. So if he (or someone else)has put you in your place a time or two, I think maybe it's you who should be doing some introspection and self- examination into just why it is you can't ever seem to open your mouth without putting your foot in it. While you're at it, you may want to also examine your conscience and ask yourself what your real motivation was is calling David a bigot and bringing up painful & personal issues he may be facing. Seroiusly. You owe the forum, and David in particular, a huge apology.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 07, 2003.

off bold.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 07, 2003.

> "You are right. The statements above to do not say hell. But the process of elimination should tell you that if they cannot attain eternal salvation, then the only other place would be hell. Because those in purgatory eventually do attain salvation."

Isabel, we have to follow what the Church teaches, and the Church has never said that those who are unbaptised go to hell. You have yet to show me any proof, beyond what you believe. Just because it says the unbaptised are not saved, does not neccessary mean they go to hell. That is the main reason the Church talks of Limbo, and that is an explaination the Church says is not definite, as they are not sure where the upbaptised go. God bless.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

The true Catholic Church is the one headed by our current Pope. Nothing the SSPXers say can change that, for the Church receives it's authority from God.

It appears you DO agree with SSPXers after all, Gordon. The Society and it's supporters recognize John Paul II as our current Pontiff. Don't make the ignorant mistake of lumping the SSPX and other good Traditionalists in with the Sede Vacanists.

It is so unfortunate that all too often the loudest critics of the Society are usually the sames ones who know next to nothing about them. The false arguments about how the Society hates the Pope, how they created a new religion (that's the funniest by far), etc., are old as the hills. Again, to disagree with a Traditionalist is akin to saying 'I disagree with my very own Catholic heritage.' They live what you have disregarded.

-- P. (SSPXer@HMC.com), March 07, 2003.

P, I never said that SSPXers do not recognize our current Pope, but I have spoken with one of your priests, who cut our Pope down repeatedly. I don't agree with that.

It was this very same priest, that claimed they were the True Catholic Church, now you tell me who is making claims of being another religion? You bring it down on yourselves when you make such claims.

> "Again, to disagree with a Traditionalist is akin to saying 'I disagree with my very own Catholic heritage.' They live what you have disregarded."

Wrong again, I have no problems with the traditions of my Catholic faith, but I disagree with some so called traditionalist's interpretation of that tradition, as you can read all about in this thread. You're not automatically a traditionist because you claim to be one, as I actually would rather call some of you people Pharisee Catholics because of your overly rigid and legalistic interpretation of our faith. Now don't respond by saying a particular Pope said this or this, as I don't agree with your interpretation of what they have said. Anyway, if you are so respective of what past Popes have said, then respect our current Pope.

Again I ask, where does it say the unbaptised go to hell? You have three so called traditionist Catholics claiming that here.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

It was this very same priest, that claimed they were the True Catholic Church

Really? What was his name? If I don't know him, I probably know of him, and if I don't, Isabel probably does. Also, what occasion did you have to speak with him "extensively?"

I actually would rather call some of you people Pharisee Catholics

You and every other heretic, sure. We know.

if you are so respective of what past Popes have said, then respect our current Pope.

Where have we not?

Again I ask, where does it say the unbaptised go to hell? You have three so called traditionist Catholics claiming that here.

Not Hell, Vink. We're talking about being deprived of salvation, or at least we were a while back. That could include, of course, eternal damnation. Go get a pencil.

1) Unbaptized babies, though they can't enjoy the beatific vision, go to a place of happiness, or Limbo, where they are free of suffering. No, this isn't a doctrine, but it has been long held by the Church as worthy of belief. It was the position of St. Thomas Aquinas, and it has never been refuted.

2) The Church has consistently taught that there exists, in RARE circumstances, Baptism of Desire & Baptism of Blood. Those receiving it, of course, are saved.

3) Those who, after having been given sufficient Grace to be exposed to the Catholic Church, but who refuse to cooperate with that Grace, as well as anyone who dies apart from the Church and /or in a state of mortal sin, go to Hell for all eternity.

source.

4) There is no such word as "traditionist," except in your own mind. Note: If you're going to assign names, run them through spellcheck first. Bye now.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 07, 2003.

"Unbaptized babies, though they can't enjoy the beatific vision, go to a place of happiness, or Limbo, where they are free of suffering."

Unless you are enjoying the beatific vision, one cannot say that there is "free[dom] of suffering". That is to say, anything less than the beatific vision is suffering to some extent.

That's like saying, they cannot enjoy the full presence of God, but they will still be free from suffering, which is inaccurate. UNLESS you are in the full presence of God, you are to some degree outside of God and therefore suffering.

Just my 2 pennies.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

WHAT IS THE FATE OF UNBAPTIZED INFANTS? The fate of the unbaptized infants is left to the mercy of God. It is generally taught that the souls of those who depart this life with original sin on their souls, but without actual sin, go to limbo.

WHAT IS LIMBO? According to St. Thomas, limbo is a place of perfect natural happiness but without the supernatural vision of God to which we have no natural right.

Just St. Thomas Aquinas' 2 cents.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 07, 2003.

"According to St. Thomas, limbo is a place of perfect natural happiness but without the supernatural vision of God to which we have no natural right."

Okay, so where does St. Thomas explain how we can have perfect natural happiness without the vision of God? Unless it is a matter of semantics. Is the vision of God different then the presence of God?

Also, remember, although St. Thomas may be hills and mountains over me theologically and intelectually, him and I both are fallible.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

Is the vision of God different then the presence of God?

In other words, isn't it true that if you are in the complete presence of God, you would be able to see him (not with eyes of course - with your soul)?

If they cannot see God, then aren't then not in the complete presense of God, which would indicate some sort of non-happiness... How can they be truly and naturally happy without seeing God (for eternity - mind you).

You can give your 2 cents, or if you can find St. Thomas' 2 cents about this post them too!

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

Not to beat a dead horse, but…

Punch, whack, slam…

I understand that the Church has taught (infallibly) that there are three locations for a soul to go after death. Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven.

Limbo, as I recall, refers to Purgatory.

So, if St. Thomas meant Purgatory, then he could not have meant that the unbaptized child would be deprived for eternity of the beatific vision. Purgatory is a temporary state for the soul. In Purgatory the soul works toward Heaven, never away from it and never stagnant. If he meant purgatory, then I would agree. The soul of the unbaptized child would need not only to work off the stain of original sin, but also be "preached to" about God - like a Catechism class. Once the soul of the child has matured spiritually to the point of being universal "Catholic" then it could indeed enter the vision of God.

Or, do you (or St. Thomas) mean to say that there is a 4th place called Limbo, separate for Purgatory, Heaven and Hell, where the unbaptized remains for eternity?

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

Or, do you (or St. Thomas) mean to say that there is a 4th place called Limbo, separate for Purgatory, Heaven and Hell, where the unbaptized remains for eternity?

Yes. We both do. Again, it's not dogmatic, but the Church has held for centuries (with the Angelic Doctor) that the idea of a Limbo of Infants exists. This has not been disputed by any legitimate authority. I would also clarify that the occupants of the Limbo of Infants are unbaptized infants. That is, those who died with original sin, but no actual sin.

Again, non-doctrinal, but unopposed (by any authority).

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 07, 2003.

Did I say non-doctrinal? Good. I did. Non-doctrinal, as in Limbo is not a doctrine. So put away your doctrinal litmus paper. (I thought traditionalists were the ones who his behind the "we don't have to believe it" flag.) We are not required to believe it, but I'd side w/ St. Thomas Aquinas one heck of a lot sooner than I would you, Jake H. or Gordon VanDerVink (no offense to either, of course).

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 07, 2003.

"If they cannot see God, then aren't then not in the complete presense of God, which would indicate some sort of non-happiness... How can they be truly and naturally happy without seeing God (for eternity - mind you)."

In your opinion then, could you please answer this? I'm not disagreeing with you are St. Thomas. But there's something missing... I mean, it could be a misunderstanding on my part. Can you provide the info, as to how one can be happy for eternity without seeing God EVER.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

Allright, you doubt St. Thomas. Fair enough, after all: NON- DOCTRINAL.

How about Fr. John Hardon, SJ? Is he suffiiently liberal? What I mean by that is, since you won't be satisfied by anyting in the traditional teaching of the Church, & want to hear it from a source that's staunchly defined in the light of Vatican II, Here is what Fr. Hardon has to say:

"It is true that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not speak of limbo. Over the centuries, the Church has understood limbo to be the abode of souls who enjoy the happiness that would have been our destiny if human beings had not been elevated to the supernatural order. The limbo of infants would therefore be a state or place of perfect happiness, but without the beatific vision of God."

and here is the source.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 07, 2003.

jake, it isn't a matter of doubt. It's a matter of knowledge. I believe full well that St. Thomas knew what he was talking about. But I don't.

I don't care who said "The limbo of infants would therefore be a state or place of perfect happiness, but without the beatific vision of God."

If the Pope infallibly proclaimed it, I would accept it.

But I'm looking for the explenation to HOW it is possible for one to be in a state of perfect happiness without seeing God.

Neither of your sources have explained HOW it is possible, only that it is.

Thanks.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

To clarify further:

"since you won't be satisfied by anyting in the traditional teaching of the Church, & want to hear it from a source that's staunchly defined in the light of Vatican II, Here is what Fr. Hardon has to say:"

It is unfair for you to put words in my mouth. I am not "satisfied" not because it is "traditional" or not or because it was before VII or not. I don't care about that. And I don't care if I hear it from a source that's staunchly anything. You know me, I hope, from my previous posts.

The reason I am "unsatisfied" is because I would simply like to hear the explenation as to HOW it is possible. Which you have skipped over.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

Jake H

Think of it this way, too. If they have never experienced the beatific vision, then they would not have that pain of seperation.

Have you really never heard of Limbo? I was taught that growing up. Do they not teach it anymore? I guess there's no need to if *everyone* goes to Heaven.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

May the Holy Spirit bless us all,

Amen.

and pray for my Mom, Marylu's Moms' soul, Aunt Mil,

Comsider it done, brother.

and let Regina and Jake have a healty baby.

Thanks, David. She had an ultrasound last week. Arms & legs moving around everywhere (the baby's, I mean), little hands & feet, a beating heart, a face; it's miraculous. I wanted to find out the baby's sex but I chickened out at the last second.

Cest le vie.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 08, 2003.

Gordon,

You mentioned the good thief. Here is a litle help bro.]

His name is St. Dimas, and his feast day is celebrated on March 25th in the holy Catholic Church:date derived from tradition that was the calander date of crucifixion, though the Passover and Easter celebrations move from year to year.

May St. Dimas pray for us all during this Holy season.

God bless you Gordon Vink, and Herbie(?) too.

-- David (David@excite.com), March 08, 2003.