Sure, check out our Cookie Monster Bishop Embarrasstus Cummins of Oakland.
You wanna see the recipe? I have that too.
So much for the lies coming out of Kumbaya AmChurch parties.
Posted on 01/28/2004 12:46:44 PM PST by 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.
You are correct. The current figure is 50,000, which is 12,000 more than The Wanderer, a paper that has been in circulation much longer than NCR.
The 100,000 figure is old.
That is not a teaching. It is a speculation.
Good night, m. You have not supported your contention, but, instead, have engaged in obfuscation.
Kicking up dust is not evidence. Let me remind you, and everyone else, that I am the only one who has posted a statement from a definitive source on the fate of unbaptized infants.
That is not a teaching. It is a speculation.
I will keep reminding you of this mistake in the future, and that you don't know Church Teachings and refuse to look them up as I already gave you the council references as well as the catechisms cited, which is easily accessible on the net.
Like the last time you bombed with your "Ecclesia Supplet fiasco", you should stop pretending to know Church Teachings.
Mission accomplished for the day. The truth is here, and here to stay.
You can't back up your arguments.
Let me remind you, and everyone else, again:
I am the only one who has posted a citation from an official Catholic source as to the fate of unbaptized infants.
I know Catholic teaching, and can back it up.
You may know Catholic teaching, but you're too lazy to back it up.
It turns out that my road map to sanctity turned into a minefield.
m4629 will love this, but there was one article in the NCR that I really liked. It was about Juan Diego and how he very likely didn't exist (backed up by scholarly research and testimony of some priests and others).
I turned into the one thing I dreaded most. Being a cafeteria catholic. I had to pick and choose after all.
For once, they admitted they didn't really know. More honest that way.
Dig your head out of the sand.
Sowing doubt and discord among the faithful is a reprehensible thing to do.
Sure, check out our Cookie Monster Bishop Embarrasstus Cummins of Oakland.
You wanna see the recipe? I have that too.
So much for the lies coming out of Kumbaya AmChurch parties.
I have recently gone around with Sinkspur at length concerning this very subject, and the most convincing evidence that I could find was a book by Fr. Murphy issued under the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat of the Roman Catholic Vicar-General of Westminster.
Sinkspur was good enough to admit that Vicar-Generals shouldn't go around tossing off Nihil Obstats for teachings which he believes to be "Pure Speculations", and he basically admitted that such blanket approvals make a Mockery of the alleged authority of the Roman Catholic Church's so-called "Teaching Magisterium".
But since Sinkspur has been intellectually-honest enough to admit this obvious deficiency of operation in the Roman Catholic Church's alleged "Teaching Magisterium", it behooves me to demonstrate intellectual honesty in return: One Vicar-General's Imprimatur does not necessarily define the Dogmatic Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
And thus I hold to the teaching of John Calvin, that "The Reprobate procure their own Damnation", God judging them by their Works; whereas of those whom He has ordained to die in Infancy, He has Elected to Save "by a secret operation of the Holy Spirit", Electing in a dispensation of Pure Mercy to apply the atoning Merits of Christ against the Original Sin of those who die with no Volitional Sin on their account (whether Baptized or not).
While John Calvin's teaching can not be precisely proved from Scripture, I believe his teaching to be a Biblically-Economic and Apparently-Correct Resolution of the dichotomy between God's determination to Judge the Wicked by their Works, and His Mercy towards Infants. And so it gives me great pleasure in this affair to be a Calvinist, and to uphold the teaching of Saint John Calvin -- the Anointed Reformer of the Most High God.
But YOU have claimed that the Teaching "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the 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, and various legitimate catholic teachings that you probably don't read or learn from.
Well, as an old-school College Debater, I seem to remember that THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.
YOU have claimed that these many authoritative (indeed, Dogmatic and "Infallible") Roman Catholic sources do teach that "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". Unless you can present Evidence of this fact, Sinkspur can simply say "No, they don't!" And then it's nothing but He-Said, She-Said.
In other words, the "Homework Assignment" is not Sinkspur's, it is yours.
YOU have claimed that these Dogmatic (and supposedly "Infallible") Roman Catholic Sources do teach that "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". If you can present Evidence of this Fact -- YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT!! But if you can't, you don't. That's how Debate Rules work.
You have claimed that these Dogmatic (and supposedly "Infallible") Roman Catholic Sources do teach that "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". Do they, indeed? THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.
Dear OP, this is more than fair and I have no problem with it, except for the timing and circumstances.
You see, as I have mentioned earlier to the good Doctor Steve, I do have all the material in front of me, and they have been here all along, for centuries. It's just that I do not wish to go off topic on this particular thread, and offered the good doctor to have this discussion another time, on a different thread. I shall promptly notify you when that happens. Fear not.
The reason I pinged you and the good doctor is only because I mentioned you both, and as a courtesy, alerting you of the reference of your debate with sinky on a different thread. BTW, you did beat up sinky pretty good, and you quoted the correct teaching of the Church "with Nihil Obstat" and its true authority attached to it.
Rome did not screw up as you claimed, but sinky screwed up, because he doesn't know the teaching, and even went so far as to claim "never heard of it" and suggesting that you IGNORE the "nihil obstat". That's pathetic on his part. Next time you would know who NOT to go to confirm a catholic teaching.
The crux of my posts in this particular thread is that the NCR is anti-Catholic trash, and those who promote it are not worthy of the name "catholic" and, sinky in particular, does not know Church Teachings but often times he pretends to. Fortuntately, most of us catholics on FR is quite aware of his hangups. In addition, he won't go research this even tho he claimed otherwise, that's his usual M.O.
If you do not wish to wait for my posting of the aforementioned Teaching later on, the references I gave are readily available on the net.
Again, this is not about my winning a debate, as I do know what my Church has been teaching all along, for centuries. So in that sense, I am in no big hurry.
Dear M4629 -- I am not personally familiar with you, having not previously had the pleasure of exchanging Posts with you (so far as I remember).
Nonetheless, I will repeat what I have said before -- as an old-school Magisterial Protestant, my sympathies lie with Traditional Catholicism in the sense that "A Man is judged by the Caliber of his Enemies".
I should rather prefer to be damned as a "Heretic" by Tridentine Catholics who believe in SOMETHING (even the wrong things), than to sup an insipid Porridge of False Ecumenicism with Modernist Catholics who believe in NOTHING -- and call it a "Blessed Eucharist".
God forbid. (Honestly, God does forbid. "If you love Me, keep My Commandments." Truth is not subject to Compromise. At least the Trad-Caths recognize this... although, of course, they're wrong on the particulars).
HOWEVER...
The reason I pinged you and the good doctor is only because I mentioned you both, and as a courtesy, alerting you of the reference of your debate with sinky on a different thread. BTW, you did beat up sinky pretty good, and you quoted the correct teaching of the Church "with Nihil Obstat" and its true authority attached to it. Rome did not screw up as you claimed, but sinky screwed up, because he doesn't know the teaching, and even went so far as to claim "never heard of it" and suggesting that you IGNORE the "nihil obstat". That's pathetic on his part. Next time you would know who NOT to go to confirm a catholic teaching.
Roman Catholics to the left of me, Roman Catholics to the right!!
You claim that the Vicar-General issued a Nihil Obstat on the matter of "Unbaptised Infants" in full Magisterial adherence to Dogmatic Roman Catholic teaching, whereas Sinkspur claims that the Vicar-General merely authorized the issuance of a "Theological Speculation" with no relation to Magisterial Teaching whatsoever!
Whom should I believe?
You, or Sinkspur?
"Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". Suppose I wanted to become Roman Catholic. Suppose I wanted to know what the Roman Church teaches on this matter. Would it be even possible for me to find out?
Is there a Dogmatic Roman Catholic teaching on this subject, or not?! Regardless of what the Teaching entails, it would seem to me rather embarassing if the Church could not even define whether or not there IS a Dogmatic Teaching, at all.
The crux of my posts in this particular thread is that the NCR is anti-Catholic trash, and those who promote it are not worthy of the name "catholic"
Yes, I know that. If I wanted to "come Home to Rome", I would not let the NCR be a lamp-post unto my feet.
But let's suppose....
If you do not wish to wait for my posting of the aforementioned Teaching later on, the references I gave are readily available on the net.
No, you mistake me. I'm willing to wait.
Take your time. Post your Evidences.
After all, if anyone asked me, "Suppose I want to become a Calvinist. How do I know what Calvinists believe?" I'll answer them almost immediately. They can take it or leave it, but defining WHAT we believe is not difficult.
So take your time. Suppose I truly wanted to know Rome's teaching on this subject. You have mentioned a number of authoritative Roman Sources.
Well? What does Rome teach?
As promised, I have all the cited materials in front of me and will post them in time. No worries. The Church has done the homework for me, been here all along.
Please allow me to explain. For a catholic who is unsure about any teaching, he has 2000 years worth of constant teachings to consult with. Most of the answers could be found in various authentic Catechisms (preferably with Nihil Obstat), Council teachings, Encyclicals (Papal teachings), and specific dogmatic pronouncements. In addition, an easy short cut would be consulting a faithful priest whose heart and mind are with Rome.
I certainly confirmed what I stated with the above mentioned sources, as I should.
It has always been my interest when dealing with others to find out WHY one does WHAT he does, and HOW he does it.
At this time, let me just say to be fair to sinky, I want to see him given ample opportunity to find out and make the necessary correction for himself on "Unbaptised Infants do not enjoy Beatific Vision in Heaven", which is NOT the same as "Unbaptised Infants being in hell" as you have also caught him switching gear here.
In time, we shall all see sinky's diligence, or lack thereof, on such an important theological issue by evaluating how he came about his research and what the conclusion is, or simply brush it off as if he knew better than the V.G. of Westminster and Rome with her constant teachings.
In short, basically it will boil down to if sinky will eat Humble Pie and affirm Rome's teaching whether he likes it or not.
Most catholics here are familiar with how he operates, but you will get to see it first hand.
At the same time, when you see a book with Nihil Obstat, you can count on it Rome means business.
God bless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.