THE BLASPHEMY OF THE MASS

Wrong by scripture or wrong by Catholic tradition? You really ought to check whom it is you follow when you toss out everything not approved fro you by the catholic church. That is very much like Mormonism and Islam and ... well, you should get the gist. If you are incapable of recognizing truth except it be fed to you by your ‘other’ religion, Catholicism, then you really should check your departing tickets to see which train has you scheduled.

Then please provide the official, Catholic church approved infallible interpretation of that verse for us.

If we are wrong, then prove it. There must be a standard somewhere by which you make that determination. Since you are Catholic, we can presume it’s from Rome. So provide the official, Vatican approved source for the correct interpretation.

Nobody is going to simply accept the say so of an anonymous internet poster.

And sending us to a search engine is NOT an interpretation, it’s a cop out.

I know that Paul used the Old Testament frequently, and that the Septuagint is quoted in places in the New Testament, but each apostolic writing is also God-breathed, as much as anything written for the Old Testament, and so needs to be interpreted, i.e., understood, by anyone who would govern their lives according to the will of God. This includes the book of Hebrews.

But you appear to be saying that there is no need to interpret the book of Hebrews, because it is itself an interpretation of the Septuagint. I see that as nothing but an ingenious way to avoid having to tell us what the official position of Rome is on this passage of apostolic revelation.

But this is an untenable position. One cannot engage in conscious thought without interpreting. I looked at your Catholic RSV version and find it says virtually the same thing as my KJV. How does that help me understand the distinctives of the Roman position? It doesn't. Using your logic, one could argue that every book after Moses was just an interpretation of Moses, and so needed no further commentary from Rome on any of those either.

(Interesting sidebar: The Sadducees of Jesus day did in fact take a position quite like that (IIRC), that only the Pentateuch was revelation, the rest just interpretation. It is how they were able to deny the resurrection. At least until Jesus used Abraham to show God was God of the living, not the dead, from the Pentateuch. It really flummoxed the Sadducees. And it embarrassed the Pharisees, because they'd had that proof available to them and never saw it until Jesus revealed it!)

In any event, if you are not actually interested in showing what your denomination believes about this passage in Hebrews at an official, infallible level, you should just come out and say so. I can understand your apparent disinterest in doing so. You probably do not know where to find it. This is why we keep asking. We are confident there is no official, infallible Roman interpretation of Hebrews 10. Your apparent refusal to answer is only helping our position. But you are free to do as you please. We are happy to take the de facto concession.

Peace,

SR

Wrong according Scripture.

You really ought to review all thing Luther and subsequent editors changed.

The verse proves it.

You would accept no other.

“i.e., understood, by anyone who would govern their lives according to the will of God”

Yes, I understand you are each your own Pope, and so whatever you divine is perfect and true....No matter that it differs from the person sitting next to you, equally inspired.

Yes, I understand you are each your own Pope, and so whatever you divine is perfect and true....No matter that it differs from the person sitting next to you, equally inspired.

That fallacious argument is getting old...

It's not what we divine as perfect and true, it's what is in the word of God...we are inspired by...

I can claim any nonsense and claim it's from God, but if it does not align itself with what is in the word of God...

It's nonsense

Our baseline of truth is the word of God, not ourselves...

Regarding the topic of this thread, the Catholic Mass keeps sacrificing Jesus, imputing His flesh as the bread to be broken again and again and cannibalisitically consumed over and over, as if God's Grace must be renewed cannibalistically because supposedly it doesn't have eternal efficacy and must be doled out again and again by the religion in which you have placed your eternal destiny. Recall the Rock which was to be smitten ONCE for the water of life in the desert.

And when you accuse 'wrong according to scripture' you might try posting the supporting passages you hang yourself with.

Apparently, you have not seen the Gospel yet. So here it is in the simplicity your Catholicism religion cannot use:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whomsoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting Life. John 3:16

And again, when the 'leadership' of Judaism in His day asked Jesus what work God required for salvation, Jesus answered simply:

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. John 6:29

When Jesus asked the disciples whom the people said He is and then 'but whom say you that I AM', Peter's Holy Spirit inspired response is so true, so complete, so absolutely based upon God's Promise that Jesus expounded on the process to come (you know, the keys and the foundation rock):

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16

And in his letters Paul echoed this same simple formula and not anything else:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Roman 10:9

And Peter echoed this same simple Gospel when he preached in the home of Cornelius:

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly ... And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Acts 10:38 - 44

And we see how God affirmed this Gospel immediately, even before Peter finished his sermon!

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

And that, dear Catholic is the Gospel of Salvation, complete, not needing anything else to be real and immediate. Believe that Jesus is the one God has sent for our Salvation, believe God has raised Him from the dead as your Savior, and you are then IN eternal life, by the Promise of God, not some man-made institution. Your eternal life with God begins with that utterance/confession of faith, because it is at that moment that God's Holy Spirit enters to indwell you and as far as you let, he changes you into what He finds 'comely'. For it is God Who is in you, both to will and do of His good pleasure, from the moment of your profession onward.

Yes, I understand you are each your own Pope, and so whatever you divine is perfect and true....No matter that it differs from the person sitting next to you, equally inspired.

LOL, except it's generally not different. But again, thanks for your response. It proves the point I'm trying to make. The jury will have to interpret the result for themselves. :)

popman, yes, it is tired, and frustrating if you let it be. Everyone must interpret. It's a function of being human. If interpreting makes one a pope, then the charge is true, but true for everyone on the planet with the capacity for conscious thought. None can escape the effort to understand what they are hearing or reading. God made us that way and by natural law that is how we must function in the world. We can from there choose to be honest and admit that is what we must do, or we can pretend that it's OK when we do it, but not OK when someone else does it. This is not the spirit of liberty we have in Christ, but some other spirit. My truest pity for those entrapped in it.

BTW, the reader will observe that as yet no official Roman refutation of the passage in question has been presented, so of all the possible "self-poped" interpretations out there, we have no competition from Rome. They haven't even showed up to play. We win by default. Sweet. :)

Peace,

SR

You’re the best....

"None can escape the effort to understand what they are hearing or reading"

Every now and then you come across a gem in the RF.

Thankyou.

With all the talk about 'interpretations' that abound here,I can't help but wonder sometimes how on earth do some folks read the daily paper?

Simply put, Paul there is describing the cessation of the Mosaic system of sacrifice, and if those Jews who had come to be among the Christians for a while, and had ample evidence of the truth of the faith, but at some point couldn't put up with the persecution, and opted to return to Judaism, the message is grim. If they go back to the shadow world of Moses, there is no further sacrifice they can look to for forgiveness of sin. Jesus is it. Like the last chance gas station at the edge of the desert, if they miss this, they will not make the crossing.

Demonstrably false; OSAS is a teaching of the Gentiles who abandoned the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Hebrews contradicts it; those who enter into the new covenant, Jew or Gentile, and sin willfully afterward can expect judgment, fiery indignation, and being devoured (imagine that for "the rapture").

As for Paul, he did not sign that letter, and he is a Hebrew of the Hebrews. Do you think Paul lied to the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, all Israel. and sinned in the temple here ?

And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Acts, Catholic chapter twenty one, Protestant verses seventeen to twenty six,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

No. Not false. I understand some think the description of Paul's temple event negates the entire sense of the book of Hebrews, but the Temple sacrifice system has been ended, both by fact of history and by apostolic revelation in the book of Hebrews. This is really beyond contest. As I have a real job that demands my attention and don't have time to do a full exposition of Hebrews for you, I recommend you reread the entirety of the book in one sitting, takes notes, and make an outline of the development of the message, and see if the theme of the superiority of the New Covenant, especially with respect to the change in the sacrificial system, does not come through for you. In that New Covenant, there remains no other sacrifice besides Christ whereby we may seek forgiveness of sin. This is entirely consistent with the language of Chapter 10 as I and others here have proposed it to be understood.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, if you are only offering me your own personal reconciliation between Paul's temple event and the subject matter of the book of Hebrews, I do not see how this advances my understanding (or yours) of the official, infallible Roman position, as it appears to be absent from the discussion altogether. I would wager there is a diversity of opinion and that the matter of how to interpret this passage has not been rendered dogmatic.

For example, your private solution just offered (if I understand it correctly) is defective because it works too well. Tell me of any sin that isn't willful? Sin by definition is an act of will to run against the will of God. Anyone who knows the truth about Jesus and still sins is meeting the criteria stated in Hebrews 10. Any sin at all. A momentary flicker of lust. A split second of unjustified anger. Sin is sin, and all of it is done with consent of our will, or it wouldn't be sin. If you're driving a car and the brakes fail and you run over and kill a child, you didn't commit first degree murder, because your will was not involved. So everyone, upon committing their first post-conversion sin, would become irreversibly apostate, by your use of this passage. No confession, no seeking of forgiveness, can be allowed, if your private interpretation is correct. Nothing but judgment ahead, after the tiniest sin. An extremely fragile salvation indeed. Basically, Heaven will be a very lonely place. No one will make it. A "solution" that works too well.

Which is why it would then be necessary to massage it into something that works for Rome. And who knows how they might try to do that. I can't imagine any solution that would work under those terms. This is why it would be necessary to know the full, official, infallible, dogmatic position of the Roman magisterium on the matter. I am interested in your private views, but they don't inform me concerning the Roman solution to these problems. If we are going to have a meaningful contest between Rome and Biblical Christianity, Rome needs to show up.

BTW, this is no small matter to me personally. This passage in Hebrews has been greatly abused by some in my experience, leading some tender, Christ-loving souls to grave despair over sins they thought made them lost and unsaveable, based on this passage. It is a wretched thing to see, and such as feel the worst pain of it are often those most disposed to want desperately to please God. Like the apostles at the Lord's Supper, where Jesus tells them one will be a traitor, and those who loved Christ deeply felt great anxiety that they might be that traitor, whereas the actual traitor, Judas, just calmly did his evil deed. Those who would teach in the body of Christ have a serious obligation to not mess this sort of thing up. It can be devastating to the weak of conscience and ill-informed. Anyone with true pastoral love for the flock of Christ will not settle for a sound-bite solution to this problem.

Which again is why I am insisting on an official position that I can rely on as Rome's claimed infallible interpretation of this passage. Once I have that, then I will know whether and in what way it conflicts with the clear teaching of the word of God. I will not be holding my breath while I wait.

Peace,

SR

The book of Hebrews argues against the theory that the audience were other than holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, and Paul did not sign that book. Paul's temple event was apostolic obedience in the unity of the Paraclete among the Jewish Apostles, which argues strongly against the Paul sinned in his return to Judaism sermon. The language is so powerful against OSAS that it is generally avoided by those who follow that tradition.

Catholics have no problem integrating Hebrews into the faith once delivered to the saints. I don't know who the human author was.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Hebrews, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses one to four,
Hebrews, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses one to four,
Hebrews, Catholic chapter three, in its entirety,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Tell me of any sin that isn't willful?

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head, and kill the bullock before the Lord. And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away, As it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.

And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord. And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the vail. And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar. And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.

When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord: it is a sin offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them. And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants. And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not. Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Leviticus, Catholic chapter four, in its entirety,
Luke, Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses thirty five to forty eight,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Yes, some sins are committed in ignorance. For example, there could be a Muslim man raised to believe honor killing is virtuous, and so he kills his daughter for becoming too western. He sincerely believes he is right. Did he sin willfully? That is, was his will involved in his sinful act?

Again, to restate my earlier question, can there be any such thing as a sin that does not involve an act of the will?

But let's now say our poor Muslim friend makes a profession of Christian faith, learns that honor-killing is actually murder, but goes ahead and kills his second daughter because he doesn't like the way she is dressing. What then? Can he be forgiven? He had some knowledge of the truth, and sinned anyway. Your use of Hebrews 10:26 does not allow forgiveness for a willful act of sin after conversion. As I understand what you have said, any such act results in permanent exclusion from the benefits of Christ's sacrifice.

So let's say the now ex-Muslim professing Christian comes to you as his pastoral adviser and repents in sincere grief that he has done wrong, and now wishes to be restored. What would you tell him? No? You had knowledge, and you did a terrible, sinful thing anyway, so too bad, story over, go home and wait for hell? Is that your position?

BTW, I notice that your response here is still just your own private interpretation. No infallible Roman source cited. How do you know, for example, you are using the official, infallible definition for "willfully" as it is used in this passage? More importantly, how do I know I'm not dealing with your own, personal, eclectic view of this passage (the AF Church of One Willful Sin Damnation - great name for a denomination, don't you think?) versus the official, infallible view of Rome?

Peace,

SR

Yes, some sins are committed in ignorance. For example, there could be a Muslim man raised to believe honor killing is virtuous, and so he kills his daughter for becoming too western. He sincerely believes he is right. Did he sin willfully? That is, was his will involved in his sinful act? Again, to restate my earlier question, can there be any such thing as a sin that does not involve an act of the will?

I do not recall a single case where the lawyers that posed these types of questions to the Messiah profited thereby. My advice, is to take these scriptural warnings to heart, so to speak, and profit thereby.

BTW, I notice that your response here is still just your own private interpretation. No infallible Roman source cited. How do you know, for example, you are using the official, infallible definition for "willfully" as it is used in this passage? More importantly, how do I know I'm not dealing with your own, personal, eclectic view of this passage (the AF Church of One Willful Sin Damnation - great name for a denomination, don't you think?) versus the official, infallible view of Rome?

Wilt thou also become a Roman ?

I do not recall a single case where the lawyers that posed these types of questions to the Messiah profited thereby. My advice, is to take these scriptural warnings to heart, so to speak, and profit thereby.

Jesus didn't avoid answering any lawyerly questions by saying they were useless. Rather, He leveraged those questions into startling new insights. He is the best lawyer (and teacher) ever, and he out-lawyered the very best the Jewish magisterium had to offer. In that regard, and in every other way possible, He is my role model.

As for my question to you, I ask you to answer rather than avoid, because I believe it will lead to insight. The bottom line is, it has dawned on me I am not up against just one Roman heresy, but every FR Catholic who expounds their own private views as if they were speaking for Rome, but are in effect being their own little mini-me RC popes. This comes home to me when I can't seem to get you to give me anything remotely like an authoritative, infallible interpretation of this passage in Hebrews 10. Am I really expected to argue these things with all of you individually, only to find out at the end of the day that Rome has no official position on the matter? What a monumental waste of time and effort. At my age time is precious. I truly do not want to waste a second of it. If your position isn't even demonstrably the Roman position, why would I care about it?

But of course I do care about it. I care because I know the damage false guilt from dire warnings can produce when they are unfounded. It is precisely because this is such a terrifying warning that it's exact application must be made certain. Again, I am asking you most sincerely to consider the question I posed as if you were in a role of pastoral care. Real pastors do have to answer these questions for real, troubled souls. Those pesky lawyers Jesus confronted only wanted to confound Jesus. They had no care for the people in their charge. But I've seen the damage misapplied "warnings" can do, up close and in person. This is serious business. I wish I could convince you of at least that. We don't have to agree. But the word of God can be seriously misused. Don't you suppose the "circumcisionists" Paul fought in Galatia were running around quoting dire warnings at people who were not the proper object of those warnings? You see Paul's pastoral instinct come out strong against those folks, not because he wants to out-lawyer them, but because he cares about the damage they are doing to precious souls for whom Christ died.

That's where I'm coming from. That's why the question needs to be answered. Better if you can get an official, "infallible," dogmatic answer from Rome. But I'll take your private interpretation too. Equal opportunity apologetics. But I would like some truth in labeling. If it's just your personal opinion, better if everyone knows that up front.

Peace,

SR