Um, that last post was mine. . . .

Um, that last post was mine. . . .

To again use the example of the prodigal son, it makes no sense that the Father would earnestly hope for his son's return unless it is first established that the prodigal son is truly his son. It is BECAUSE he is his son that the father wants him back into his home, and not dining with swine. The simple, ontological reality that he is his father's son is essential to the story. Otherwise, he would just be some stranger.

>>>"have you ever heard Walter Kasper tell Jews that unless they believe in Jesus they are not God's children?"
No, because that is not Catholic doctrine.
>>>"My point is that the supposed ontological fatherhood of God is mentioned constantly in "conservative" Catholic and liberal protestant circles, to the detriment of the clear emphasis of the NT."
Of course it's mentioned, because in the context it is mentioned, it is very important. God loves even the pagans, because they are his children. Because they are his children, and our brothers, we are called to love them as well. We are also called to share with them the plan of God in his Christ and in his Church. In doing so, they will hopefully transfer from a natural relationship with their father to a supernatural relationship.

Jason,
My point is that the supposed ontological fatherhood of God is mentioned constantly in "conservative" Catholic and liberal protestant circles, to the detriment of the clear emphasis of the NT. For example, have you ever heard Walter Kasper tell Jews that unless they believe in Jesus they are not God's children?

The prodigal son never ceased to be his Father's child. Like the father of the prodigal son, God goes out and looks, hoping his children will come back to him, and be adopted into his Church, his family, his bride.

Steve,
Like I said, of course it does. Scripture is written from the perspective of God's reconstituted family, his Church. He wishes all men to come and be adopted into this family. Outside of it there is no salvation.

Jason,
I did a search of "children of God" in the NT and it almost always referred to those who are children by adoption.

Steve,
Of course it does. Scripture teaches us two things: The history of salvation and the supernatural life. The history of salvation centers on the Incarnation, and the Church, which is God's reconstituted family, and to which he calls all men, to live the supernatural life. Nevertheless, people have to know that they have a Father who loved them enough to create them and consequenntly to save them.

Jason,
The Bible stresses spiritual sonship much more than "ontological" sonship. A word search of the NT makes this clear.

drat! That last post was mine.

>>>"Once example is unbelieving Jews, who are not even children of Abraham."
This example only confirms what I said. The Jews ARE children of Abraham. They are physically descended from him, and thus are his children. If a Jew is obstinately opposed to what Abraham stood for and promised, then they are not his sons in the sense that they have any meaningful relationship with him (because they ignore him); but they are still his children by nature.

Steve,
A child is someone who you have brought into being. I am my father's child because he begot me. God brought the entire human race into being, he "fathered" them into being. His children, however, are wayward sons. They have been divorced from a truly supernatural relationship with him (because of original sin). Thus, he must "adopt" them into his reconstituted family, his Church, so that they can be sons in a supernatural way.
(btw, 'Anon' was me. Forgot to write my name)

Anon,
I don't think all people are children of God. Biblically, you become a childe of God by adoption. The Bible calls many people not children of God. Once example is unbelieving Jews, who are not even children of Abraham.

Why can't the Church just say "We don't know"?
Isn't that pretty much exactly what they did say?

Tom,
She has. But, as the course of ecclesial history has it, people like answers to questions. Hence, Scholasticism.

Why can't the Church just say "We don't know"?

I'm somewhat concerned about this language:
"every human being, even if he was an embryo or fetus in the womb, is part of the human family and, ontologically, in his being, has a relationship with all people and, therefore, also with Jesus Christ, who is the head of the new humanity, the new Adam."
Do people in hell have a relationship with Jesus "ontologically"?

Some curious things in that interview, such as: Others mention the desire of those parents, good Catholics, who have conceived a child and whom they would certainly have had baptized if it had been possible, and wonder if the parents' desire or that of the Church is not enough.
It certainly is stretching the idea of baptism of desire to make the desire of parents or of the Church (who in the Church?) a substitute for baptism of water itself. With this idea we seem to move a step closer towards asserting the irrelevance of the particular act of baptism by water altogether. Why bother baptizing anyone as long as somebody somewhere desires anybody anywhere to be baptized?
I know, of course, that this is just one approach being considered, i.e., it's just 'one theory' being considered. Nevertheless, as the particularity and specificity of baptism by water is diluted by such 'theories', it becomes increasingly difficult to assert that priests like Fr. Kennedy in Australia (the priest who baptized invalidly in the name of the 'Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier') are doing anything wrong. Baptism becomes less and less a particular sacramental act with its own well-defined matter and form, and more a sort of generalized good intention residing . . . well . . . somewhere, anywhere.

A couple confusing things in that interview...
He calls baptism "an infallible means" of salvation. But can't someone reject their baptism and be damned?
He also says handicapped children need not worry because their will be no body in the beatific vision. What about the resurrection?