Irrelevancy.

Everyone,

I, too, have had "mixed feelings" about returning to the forum and am not looking forward to being abused, ridiculed, etc. for my beliefs; I see that a thread that I was going to reply to (about "Father Z," who, by the way, 10 years ago stated publicly on the catholic.com forum that the Council of Florence had erred in Cantate Domino -- not hearsay, by the way, he was replying to me) has already been locked.

It's all irrelevant -- angels, if they truly exist, can sacramentally baptize the unborn.

So, any "argument" that Father Z, Mike, the SSPX, or anyone else who dislikes "Feeneyite theology," this is our rejoinder. So, if sacramental Baptism in Water had been instituted at the time of the Holy Innocents, they were all, without exception, baptized by angels in their mother's wombs.

If you think that any of this is "strange," then you need to watch more Star Trek. Ten years ago when I was about to come into the Church, I met with a modernistic Novus Ordo priest who did not take Catholic theology seriously at all, and in his office, he had a beautiful print of the Starship Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) from "Star Trek: TNG" prominently displayed on his office wall. I found it both ironic and amusing that a Catholic priest would have a print from an atheistic, materialistic TV show in his office. Another discussion for another day, I suppose.

Of course, if you watch enough of that series, it will be clear to you that the writers, producers, and even the actors of "Star Trek" were heavily influenced by exotic quantum physics, the type which posits time travel into the future and past, individuals being in multiple places at the same time, going instantaneously from one point in the Cosmos to another without crossing the intervening space, "stepping out" of the space/time continuum, stopping time, telepathy, etc., etc. Just read Professor Brian Greene for more information and/or one of his colleagues looking to make money off of popular science writing.

Saint Thomas, early in the 12th-century, taught that angels posses the same abilities as do transporters, warp drives, worm holes, etc., even more so. It's all in the Summa, and you can read about it for yourselves. It reads like something straight out of science fiction.

After Rasha shut the forum down a few months ago, I had an interesting and informative email discussion with John Salza, who rejects the modernistic heresy that there are infants in Heaven since the institution of Baptism who have ended this life without Sacramental Baptism. I pointed out to John that he could offer no hope to mothers who have lost children in the womb, which he agreed was true, at least according to his theology. On the other hand, I told John that if angels truly exist, then they can miraculously baptize, even infants in the womb, which, if true, obliterates any "arguments" from Baptism of Blood. What angels could do for unborn children, they could, of course, do for adult catechumens.

As I have pointed out ad nauseam, it's not an either/or mentality, as Mike would have us believe. Quoting from a church document that expresses faith that infants and children who are maytred for Christ are in Heaven, hardly "proves" that the individuals are also expressing a belief that those children died without Baptism. It's an "argument from silence" of the worst kind. As we all know, what the Church has infallibly proclaimed stands all on its own, so "twice nothing is still nothing." In the end, if angels truly exist, those who believe that there are individuals in Paradise who have died without Baptism since the coming of Christ are tasked with trying to "prove the ultimate negative," something that even Richard Dawkins would agree is not possible to do.

I dunno man...is this just too hot of a topic that people cannot be charitable to each other while debating?

In one sense I am kind of energized by a good debate as well as the fellowship (which I was already ridiculed in an indirect way for) which the internet provides, but on the other other times I am just discouraged at how uncharitable people can be on these forums. If I didn't believe in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus I probably would have left the Church a long time ago, definitely I have found that most Catholics are jerks, there is no charity among Catholics today, and you get no support whatsover (I mean psychological or spiritual) from your parish community as a young Catholic trying to make it in the world. I mean how can you go to a parish for years to daily Mass and not one person says hello to you? What is that? I've tried many times to say hello myself and even then people just ignore you.

RashaLampa wrote:I dunno man...is this just too hot of a topic that people cannot be charitable to each other while debating?

In one sense I am kind of energized by a good debate as well as the fellowship (which I was already ridiculed in an indirect way for) which the internet provides, but on the other other times I am just discouraged at how uncharitable people can be on these forums. If I didn't believe in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus I probably would have left the Church a long time ago, definitely I have found that most Catholics are jerks, there is no charity among Catholics today, and you get no support whatsover (I mean psychological or spiritual) from your parish community as a young Catholic trying to make it in the world. I mean how can you go to a parish for years to daily Mass and not one person says hello to you? What is that? I've tried many times to say hello myself and even then people just ignore you.

Hey Rasha, you posted recently about joining an Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish; I'm just wondering if you've noticed anything different there in terms of what you just wrote about above? I also apologize if I've ever offended you or anyone here somehow.

RashaLampa wrote:I dunno man...is this just too hot of a topic that people cannot be charitable to each other while debating?

In one sense I am kind of energized by a good debate as well as the fellowship (which I was already ridiculed in an indirect way for) which the internet provides, but on the other other times I am just discouraged at how uncharitable people can be on these forums. If I didn't believe in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus I probably would have left the Church a long time ago, definitely I have found that most Catholics are jerks, there is no charity among Catholics today, and you get no support whatsover (I mean psychological or spiritual) from your parish community as a young Catholic trying to make it in the world. I mean how can you go to a parish for years to daily Mass and not one person says hello to you? What is that? I've tried many times to say hello myself and even then people just ignore you.

Sounds like you're throwing a lot of other issues into this and the thing you're describing actually sounds a lot like Western civ in general. You might as well drop out of Western civilization and move to India, but even there, you'll find it hard to fit in...

If MRyan wants to quote irrelevant things that have nothing to do with the point, that's his business, but he should be refuted.

You know the priests there are friendly and definitely willing to hear my confession upon request, but really they are only friendly if I initiate the conversation first.
One even knows my position on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

There are also some people that I have talked to there, but again it was me initiating the contact, not them. I went there pretty regularly for more or less two years and no one said anything to me. So it's not like they are unfriendly if I try to break the ice (unlike the Latin parishes) but they are not super friendly either.

It's an epidemic problem really in the Catholic Church, I lived in Spain and seen it there as well. We just aren't taught that we should be welcoming to people...if we are it is taught by liberal priests in a canned cheesy kind of a way...i.e. the whole "Before we start Mass please greet the person next to you" technique that doesn't work.

As a practical personal resolution I do time to time try to break the ice with people in the various Churches I frequent. The problem is, in my view, it is really the duty of the parishoners who have been there for years to be the ones to welcome the newcomers, and not vice versa. But then again they don't believe that there is no salvation outside the Church, so who cares if anyone comes to church anyway?

[quote="otremer6"]

RashaLampa wrote:
Sounds like you're throwing a lot of other issues into this and the thing you're describing actually sounds a lot like Western civ in general. You might as well drop out of Western civilization and move to India, but even there, you'll find it hard to fit in...

I agree with the throwing other issues in there....I am doing that. But at the same time the Protestants are friendly.....

A big part of it is the disconnect between the parish and the community in cities.

What did a lot to kill parish life in the fifties was the mechanical Jacobin. People can zoom out of the parish right after Mass, whereas in the old days they stuck around for talks, food and Vespers in the evening before they walked a half-hour or so back home through their neighborhoods, occasionally waving to cousins and such on the way home.

You've got to really fight to keep people coming into the parish, and some parish priests can hardly wait till everyone leaves so they can sneak upstairs in the rector to play some World of Warcrafft III for the rest of the night.

Prods aren't friendly, they just want to know what you do for a living.

Jehanne, something bothers me about the "angels baptizing" thing. You may want to investigate whether or not only human beings can baptize other human beings. It may well be the case. If so, no love lost, as one might be able to maintain the general nature of the speculation by merely switching probable ministers from angels to the members of the Church Triumphant. Saints and stuff.

Speculating is good. All we need to be mindful of is whether or not everything we speculate entirely meshes with divine revelation. We all know that baptism is necessary, but this leaves us feeling a bit flat over those who seem to elude it, and so we want to try, rightfully of course, to understand how the mercy of God works to save those in sticky situations by providing what seems practically impossible. The rest is, well, unfortunately, academic.

I write about this on my blog:

Can Angels validly Baptize?

It would seem so -- one (Gabriel) prophesied to our Lady, another comforted our Lord in the garden, still another rolled away the stone on His tomb and sat upon it. In any case, angels can do amazing things, as Saint Thomas teaches us:

"As was observed above in the preceding article, the local motion of an angel can be continuous, and non-continuous. If it be continuous, the angel cannot pass from one extreme to another without passing through the mid-space; because, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. v, text 22; vi, text 77), 'The middle is that into which a thing which is continually moved comes, before arriving at the last into which it is moved'; because the order of first and last in continuous movement, is according to the order of the first and last in magnitude, as he says (Phys. iv, text 99). But if an angel's movement be not continuous, it is possible for him to pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle..." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.53, a.2)

"This objection is based on continuous time. But the same time of an angel's movement can be non-continuous. So an angel can be in one place in one instant, and in another place in the next instant, without any time intervening. If the time of the angel's movement be continuous, he is changed through infinite places throughout the whole time which precedes the last 'now'; as was already shown (a. 2). Nevertheless he is partly in one of the continuous places, and partly in another, not because his substance is susceptible of parts, but because his power is applied to a part of the first place and to a part of the second, as was said above (a. 2)." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.53, a.3, ad 3)

"Since the order of Divine Providence disposes that lower things be subject to the actions of higher, as explained above (q. 109, a. 2); as the inferior angels are enlightened by the superior, so men, who are inferior to the angels, are enlightened by them." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.111, a.1)

"But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels. But if demons, who are 'lying spirits,' were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid." (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.64, a.7)

Sounds like Einstein's Theory of Relativity! Non-local space, quantum teleportation & entanglement, faster-than-light travel, plus subliminal, but direct, communication.

Now, even if you are going to say that "only humans" can Baptize, then there is no reason why the angels (which may number in the trillions) cannot transport a Catholic missionary from one location to another to do just that and return that person home without anyone ever noticing.

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/absolute-necessity-of-sacramental.html