Note: This is more of a speculative post. I have endeavored to make it consistent with the teachings of the Church, as far as they go. However, it goes beyond what is taught and into the real of speculation. All of my posts concerning faith, morality, theology, etc are subject to the magisterium of the Church, and through said magisterium to my local bishop, and should be subordinate to the teachings thereof, even if said bishop has better things to do than to read my blog and offer his imprimatur. Since this is a more speculative post, I think that it is especially important to re-iterate that point.

_____

Yesterday morning I was conversing with my friend, Mr Andrew Elster, during our weekly work-out session (and beyond into breakfast). He mentioned talking to a colleague from work about infants, Baptism, and salvation. His colleague's position was something along the lines of "Unbaptized infants are damned to hell, since they are as guilty of Original Sin as anybody else, but have not had the time to develop faith nor the grace which comes from baptism." This opinion--or something like it--is actually fairly widespread, both amongst Catholics and Protestants; it is also the cause of much consternation amongst said groups, for an infant who dies before baptism (to say nothing of the unborn murdered in the womb) is now condemned to hell through no fault of his own, but rather through Adam. An extension of this can be applied to those who are outside the Church, particularly those who lived before Christ and those who have never heard the Gospel message.

Note: This is the second of a set of Lenten reflections on the heresies which have fought against and been fought by the Church. The first one can be read here

“For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works” ( 2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

Saint Paul warned the early Christian community in Corinth to be on guard against the wiles of the devil. Though many signs and miracles would be performed in the name of Christ, so too would there be signs performed which were not in His name. Such signs could seem to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and to point those who saw them to God; yet the Devil himself was once an angel of light, and so he can disguise himself as such. Similarly can he work some types of miracle through those who follow him, in order to dupe the faithful and lure them away from the Faith.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it....And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (John 1:1-5, 14).

If Pride is the first sin, then Gnosticism was the first rebellion. We have little record of that fateful spiritual battle waged in the heavens in the dawn before time; we know nothing more than what has been revealed, and that is itself scarce. We know that one of the greatest amongst the angels--Lucifer, the bearer of light--was a proud creature who rebelled against his Creator. We know that the immediate result of this rebellion is that he and the other traitorous angels were cast out of heaven, out of the presence of God. Lucifer could not rule heaven, but would be made instead to govern hell.

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object? Or more properly phrased, what happens when an unstoppable object collides with an unmovable object? This question seems like a bit of a logical stumper, until one realizes that it is sheer nonsense. An unmovable object and an unstoppable force cannot simultaneously exist. Within in the bounds of the laws of physics and of mathematics, neither object can exist, for an unmovable object would necessitate an infinite amount of inertia, and thus infinite mass; and an unstoppable object must have an infinite amount of momentum, which is possible only if the object has infinite mass or is traveling with a speed of c, that is, at the same speed as light traveling in a vacuum.

A few days ago, I wrote a brief article about a difference of approach between Catholics and Protestants as concerns the practice of prayer. In particular, both Catholics and Protestants share much in common in their prayer styles, with this exception: that Catholics have, in addition to the many forms of prayer practiced by most Protestants, an additional form of prayer which is meditative in nature, and which is generally a form of adoration. Why does this difference exist? Why do Catholics so often have "additions" to the articles and practices of Protestant faith? It is more proper to ask why Protestants discarded so many articles and practices of the Catholic Faith. In any event, it always seems like Catholics meet the Protestant "either/or" with their own counterproposal: "both/and."