The anti-Catholicism of the "National Catholic Reporter"

[heyheyhey]

In my opinion, the NCR (different from the National Catholic Register and from the Catholic World Report) appears to be classic type of a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is the most anti-Catholic weekly publication that I know, and yet it continues pretending to be "Catholic." The evidence of NCR's anti-Catholic and anti-Christian agenda is somewhat camouflaged, so let it be dug up and brought to daylight in this thread.

- Why, and who cares? Under normal circumstances I couldn't care less, but very many American priests and religious read the NCR, and it has poisonously influenced a generation or two of priests. When we see the sorry state of affairs in our Church we should know, for our own protection, where the devil dwells. Many screwy things (most of all the disdain for the Teaching Magisterium) originated and/or have been, or continue to be, sponsored by the NCR.

There is only one FReeper, as far as I know, vigorously defending the NCR, so he is rare and dear - let's be respectful to him.

[m4629]

Do unbaptised infants in limbo get the black & white version of the Beatific Vision?

My friend. I pinged you simply because I mentioned you and OP because of your exchange with sinky in the other tread.

I really don't want to go off topic with this thread because it is about the anti-Catholic NCR that sinky embraces.

I'll be happy to discuss this in more detail on a different thread some other time. For now, let me just say "limbo" is only a theological proposal, not a definitive teaching of the Church. At the same time, to suggest anyone still stained with Original Sin may enjoy Beatific Vision is in serious heresy.

God bless.

[m4629]

"Unbaptised infants do not enjoy Beatific Vision in Heaven" could be found in the teaching of Second Council of Florence, Council of Trent, Aquinas, Trent Catechism, St. Pius X Catechism, The Douay Catechism of 1649.

Maybe you never heard of these. They are really Catholic teachings.

Perhaps you should check with other real "catholic deacons" if you don't want to look them up.

Yeah, don't bother to pull that "doing your homework for you" again.

Others who wish to have specific references could Freepmail me to get them. But not for you, as I intend to make you actually look up catholic teaching for a change, sinky.

Yeah, Lurkers are familiar with your style too I suspect.

[sinkspur]

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about unbaptized infants:

1261 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 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.

So, you see, there is no definitive teaching about unbaptized infants.

Some basic catechesis is in order, m. Perhaps you ought to come to my RCIA catechumenate instruction. You might learn something.

[sinkspur]

Yeah, don't bother to pull that "doing your homework for you" again.

I did "homework." Perhaps you'd like to post a quote from the Council of Trent, or the Council of Florence, which definitively teaches about the fate of the souls of unbaptized infants.

I don't want speculation; post a definitive teaching.

[m4629]

allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism

LOL.........you didn't realize this is just an opinion bordering on "wishful thinking"?

You would do well looking at Council of Trent, Florence, and other catechisms on "definitive teachings" on this instead of leaning on "wishing thinking".

You have no clue what was pronounced in the Councils above as well as constant teachings of the Church.

[m4629]

I told you sinky, not going to do your homework for you.

If you actually did your homework, you wouldn't be in this extremely embarrassing predicament now. Sorry. They are there, in front of me, for the whole world to see. But you won't get it from me here.

Perhaps if you exercise humility, others might post them for you tho.

[sinkspur]

You have no clue what was pronounced in the Councils above as well as constant teachings of the Church.

Since you won't back up your contention with a citation from any of them, I am forced to conclude that you don't, for sure.

Lurkers: There is no definitive teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the fate of the souls of unbaptized infants!

[sinkspur]

If you actually did your homework, you wouldn't be in this extremely embarrassing predicament now. Sorry. They are there, in front of me, for the whole world to see. But you won't get it from me here

LOL!!

(m: I'm not the one who's embarrassed).

[m4629]

Perhaps you'd like to post a quote from the Council of Trent, or the Council of Florence, which definitively teaches about the fate of the souls of unbaptized infants.

Ah, switching gear again, your favorite diversion tactic.

You should stick to the quote OP and I gave, which is "unbaptised infants do not enjoy Beatific Vision in Heaven". That's what the councils taught also. Never said anything about "fate" you put forth. We didn't jump ahead. You did.

Try honesty for a change sinky.

[drstevej]

If there is definitive teaching, why does the Catechism engage in "wishful thinking"? Doesn't speak well for the catechism.

[sinkspur]

That's what the councils taught also

But it's not. Perhaps you could find it, since I can't seem to.

[m4629]

Actually, I've already made my point. Others know you don't know Church teachings, but that you pretend to know.

They have all the proof they need. You won't be able to stay them sinky.

My mission on this is accomplished.

[drstevej]

"My mission on this is accomplished."

NOT QUITE...


***If there is definitive teaching, why does the Catechism engage in "wishful thinking"? Doesn't speak well for the catechism.***

[sinkspur]

Never said anything about "fate" you put forth.

Then use another word, if you prefer.

You don't want to cite anything because you CAN'T cite anything, m, that proves your point.

You make a statement, you back it up.

[sinkspur]

Others know you don't know Church teachings, but that you pretend to know.

I'm the only one on this thread who has posted an official statement from the Church on this subject.

If your mission is "accomplished," then you're running away from your unproven statement.

Not your finest hour, m.

[m4629]

If there is definitive teaching, why does the Catechism engage in "wishful thinking"? Doesn't speak well for the catechism.

Well, doctor, sometimes I wonder. As you would also recall, the CCC already had "revisions" on a few items.

Ordinary Magisterium is only as good as they adhere to constant teachings of the Church, especially on theological items specifically pronounced by Councils.

In all fairness, while "speculation" is allowed, they should be more careful and make mention of it whenever applicable.

[drstevej]

Maybe the Catechism should not receive a Nihil Obstat!

[m4629]

Give it up sinky.

I already made my point.

I bet the good Doc can find all the reference I made before you do, because I know you are not interested in the truth, but only in polemics and promoting this anti-Catholic trash NCR.

[m4629]

Dear Doc. Just go to those reference I gave, study them, and let me know what you think.

[sinkspur]

Maybe the Catechism should not receive a Nihil Obstat!

It did, though, from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.