Free Republic

To publicly deny transubstantiation, and to persist in the denial even after pastoral correction, is heresy.

To be a heretic, one must publicly deny a doctrine of the faith, or act in some way which denies a doctrine (e.g., baptizing only in the name of Jesus, and not the Trinity), and then be obstinate in the denial after educative reproof by his superiors.

You seem to be implying that a person is only a heretic if they say it publicly. This is incorrect. Per the CCC, "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same." A person is a heretic once they knowingly choose to deny OR DOUBT any matter of defined dogma. With dogmas that have been long defined, there is no need whatsoever for any correction or reproof by their superiors, only that they be aware that the Church teaches such a thing. Anyone who does not believe in transubstantiation is a heretic.

So if this "intention" or "belief" is private ("occult", known only to himself and/or a few others), the Mass will be valid.

But if this "intention" or "belief" is creating public scandal to the point of formal excommunication, the his "mass" is not valid.

You don't seem to be implying the contrary here, but just for clarification, excommunicated persons, even if excommunicated for heresies which do not touch the sacrament in question, can still say valid masses (or whatever sacrament). For example, as far as I know the masses of the Orthodox are valid.

Is America being Babylonianized rather than secularized? In other words, is paganism hiding behind secularism?

When the Israelites wanted to rebel against Moses, they didn't say, "Hey, let's camp out in the wilderness." They said, Is it not better to return into Egypt? (Numbers 14:3)

As it is written, He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23)

Sorry, don't agree with you on this for a second. It is the duty of the individual to guard against his own conduct. It is the job of each man not to sin or be tempted

I must disagree on several points. The first is the fact that a person cannot refrain from doing something passive. It cannot be a person's responsibility to "not be tempted" any more than it can be there responsibility to "not be hit" or to "not be rained on." That doesn't mean a person does not have the responsibility to try to flee from danger, or to come in out of the rain, but that isn't always possible.

Temptation is a sin that is committed against someone. It is an attack on a person's soul. Just like an attack on a person's body, it can be resisted, fled, etc. and since the soul is always defended by free will, the target is always at moral fault when they do succumb to temptation. But our sins are not absolved by other people's guilt. It is the responsibility of every Christian to avoid doing anything which would tempt another to sin.

As in, But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)

And see especially, But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak...shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died? Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother. (1 Corinthians 8:9,11-3)

...not the women who must hide everything so you aren't tempted.

See, In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire, But as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works. (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

And, For many have perished by the beauty of a woman, and hereby lust is enkindled as a fire. (Ecclesiasticus 9:10)

It is a basic principle of charity that we support one another, not undermine them. If you know a person is a struggling alcholic, it is an obvious sin to waive a beer under his nose, and a lame excuse to say, "Hey, it's his job not to drink."

Not that your excuse is particularly unusual. Am I my brother's keeper? (Genesis 4:9) has seen a lot of use in the past 6,000 years. But then again, God hasn't accept it in all that time, and I don't expect him to change His mind any time soon.

However, he should remember his loyalty lies to the Constitution, not the Pope.

He should remember that all law, including the Constitution and any oaths he may take regarding it or anything else, is founded on the Divine Law and is utterly void apart from it.

Then Mary is the Foster Mother, because she is less of a Mother of His essence than a normal Mother is. I didn't exist before my mom conceived me. Since Jesus already existed as God and as Spirit, the Majority of Jesus was not mothered by Mary.

You have some misconceptions regarding the nature of motherhood and fatherhood. You speak of the "majority" of Jesus, by which you refer to His existance as God and Spirit. But the "majority" of you (obviously spirit only, not God) did not come from either your mother or your father, but from God, who created your spirit and infused it in your newly conceived form. That He did this at a particular point in time is due to your nature both a creature, that needed to be created, and a human, who is by nature both soul and body.

You say that Mary did not "mother" the majority of Jesus. No woman has ever "mothered" the majority of anyone, since motherhood has to due with conceiving and carrying the body, and has nothing to do with the soul, which is always provided by God alone.

There is not one thing which your mother did for your spirit which Mary did not do for Christ.

“The Free Enterprise System” wants to be inclusive, not exclusive...it wants to define “community” in an economic, not a “social” sense.

You are mistaken. 'Free enterprise' does not equal 'consumerism,' much less mercantilism.

To this end players in market driven systems want uniform national standards, and they want the interests of national economic players to dominate over “community values”, for example to overrule homeowners associations that attempt to ban “unsightly” DirecTV dishes, or municipalities that want to ban cell-phone towers, or local bodies that want to regualte the content they can carry. That’s just the way "free markets" work.

That isn't at all the way "free" markets work. That is the way mercantilist markets run by robber barons and their pet whore politicians work.

"Uniform national standards" cannot be imposed in a free market. They can only be imposed under the "government assisted" market.

The interests of national economic "players" only "dominate" through bribery and corruption of the political class. To use your own examples, a homeowners association is a sovereign local association entered into by property owners, and agreed to by anyone who wants to buy into that property. They can only be overruled if the whining billionaires at the multinational corporations go crying to the government to destroy the authority of the local association by force.

And IMO this contradition is at the heart of the struggle from the soul of the “modern conservative movement”.

True. But the struggle is not based upon a "contradiction," it is based upon a lie. The lie that government is supposed to be "pro-business" rather than simply do justice. Thou shalt not do that which is unjust, nor judge unjustly. Respect not the person of the poor, nor honour the countenance of the mighty. But judge thy neighbour according to justice (Leviticus 19:15)

Long live Christ the King!

I am a very conservative Lutheran

Out of curiosity, how do you deal with Lutherans who are not very conservative? I know that there are many liberal Catholics, but it is fairly easy for me to deal with the fact that their errors can be authoritatively condemned, and any new errors/excuses that they come up with in the future can also be authoritatively condemned. But if you are dealing with a liberal Lutheran, once he has come up with his list of standard excuses (Sodom was destroyed for 'inhospitality', etc.) what do you do with him?

The reason I ask is that I have read much lately on the historical formation of the Roman Catholic Church. From what I have seen five "churches" and really rather "congregations" formed in the earliest of times during and immediately after the apostolic period 33-100ad...

Actually there were dozens, if not hundreds of Churches formed throughout the Empire (just take all of the Churches St. Paul wrote to as a starting point). There were several Churches that were especially prestigious for various reasons, and many times a local Church was considered to have authority over other local Churches (e.g. Alexandria over the other Coptic Churches). But Rome was the one and only Church which was considered to have a universal jurisdiction.

If there were five legitimate descendants or successive churches when and why did the whittling down to only the Roman Bishop and his church become the only of the congregations that was the One Holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church? Did the churches started by Paul and the other Apostles not believe the same things as the church that stakes its claim to have the successor of Peter as its leader?

The Churches were united by the one faith. But only the successor of St. Peter was given the grace to remain in the faith always. Of the "big five" every single diocese fell into heresy at one point or another, except Rome. As a conservative Lutheran you can easily look through all of the original doctrinal controversies, look at the side that you yourself see as orthodox, and then realize that in every one of the Christological/Trinitarian controversies of the first 1000 years of Christianity, "your" side is the "Roman" side.

In case there was any doubt left about the "big five," it seems to me that God did a pretty good job settling the controversy by wiping out four of them...

Equally intriguing, the researchers say, is the possibility that a number of behaviors - hitting back when feeling threatened, fleeing when scared or laughing when amused - may also be programmed into human brains, a product of genetic heritage...said Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."

Hmm...I "feel threatened" by academic pinheads. Hopefully, this study will take the discussion about beating the living crap out of people you don't like out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of 'science.'

Any bets on whether God would take that on Judgement Day?

In an interview before the meeting, Kobia said he wasn't asking Benedict to renounce "Dominus Iesus," but merely put it behind him.

See, we don't have to actually renounce Catholic doctrine formally, all we have to do is pay no attention to it. That WCC is so considerate...

The best advice that I can give you is to pray directly for the people that you dislike. In my experience, this is the absolute best path when personal difficulties arise.

Try to avoid the prayer, "God, please help this person to stop being such an a**hole, so (s)he will stop screwing with me." As much as possible (and I know that it is difficult as all heck), offer a sincere, disinterested prayer to God for that person's well being.

I sometimes find that the only way I can pray for someone in a situation like that without being half-spiteful and filled with self-will is to separate my prayer from the situation entirely. Just pray that they will have a good life; pray that they will be happy; most of all, pray that they will find grace and peace with Jesus Christ. Go to Holy Mass (daily, if possible) and entrust all of your intentions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts solely for their benefit. Say your favorite novena for them.

Most importantly of all, take all of the merits and satisfactions that accrue due to the patient suffering of this evil, place them into the hands of Our Lady, and ask her to use them as she will for the salvation of those who have done this.

B16: But how can one's personal authenticity be discovered if in reality, in the depth of our hearts, there is the expectation of Jesus, and the genuine authenticity of each person is found exactly in communion with Christ and not without Christ? Said in another way: If we have found the Lord and if he is the light and joy of our lives, are we sure that for someone else who has not found Christ he is not lacking something essential and that it is our duty to offer him this essential reality?

sinkspur: And, at least to me, BXVI is much clearer and to the point than JPII

Piers-the-Ploughman: I would concur that thus far B16 is more lucid, more easily understood, by me at least.

I have to say that I am somewhat mystified by this assertion. The Holy Father's statements is many things: orthodox, for instance. But "clear" and "lucid" it is not.

The defined dogma, "Outside of the Church there is no salvation," is clear and lucid.

The letter of St. John, "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son; whoever has the Son, has the life; whoever does not have the Son, does not have the life." is clear and lucid.

St. Augustine, "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church," is clear and lucid.

But, with all respect for Pope Benedict, his answer to his question is simply insufficient. He asks himself, "But why do we not leave them in peace? They have their authenticity, their truth. We have ours. And so, let us live together in harmony, leaving all persons as they are, so that they search out their authenticity in the best way."

The only answer to that question is, "Because they will all go to hell when they die, if we do not bring them into the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church."

Are people ready for that answer? Maybe not. Maybe we need to ask people if they "are sure" that people who do not have sanctifying grace in their souls are not "missing something." But that is not clarity or lucidity. That is deliberate ambiguity to avoid causing apoplexy to simpering liberals.

Is whitewashing the Faith the right strategy? Again, maybe. I cannot say for sure. But personally, I think that the fact that the Holy Father feels the need to sugarcoat the Faith to priests even in his own diocese is pretty darn sad.

You weren't "jesting",

Ah...so you know all the secrets of my heart? I say that I was jesting, you say I wasn't. Who is more likely to know?

proselytizing other CHRISTIANS is not only stupid, but offensive,

I don't proselytize to Christians. I do proselytize to heretics. Or are you of the opinion that there is no such thing as heresy or error? And if you are so offended by my desire for you to know what I believe to be the truth, then I can only say, "He that loveth correction, loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is foolish." (Prov 12:1)

and if you want a more closed to GOD OT, READ A JEWISH BIBLE!

Why, when Jewish Bibles now in circulation are from nearly a thousand years after their rejection of Christ? As a Catholic, I already have the true Jewish Bible as it was in use by Jews before the Incarnation.

Now go and ask GOD's forgiveness.

I do. Every day. But making an attempt (futile, in this case) to discuss the truth will never be one of the things that I ask to be forgiven for.

That is my biggest annoyance, I can be right in the midst of leading someone to Christ on the internet, and some "christian" comes up and says "well you know faith without works is dead, and Jesus will say many will hear Lord Lord" etc, and they try to actually blow the whole thing. I just don't understand "christians" that want works over grace

It isn't a question of what we want, it is a question of what God has ordained. "Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire."

There will be many people who have faith, who, because they do not do good WORKS, will burn in everlasting fire with the devil and the angels. "Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble." (Jas 2:19)

See also Hebrews 10:26 - "For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries." This is very clear that a Christian who brings forth bad fruit by sinning "wilfully" (as opposed to the sins without full consent of the will, i.e. mortal vs. venial sin) has no hope, but only "dreadful expectation", and will go not to heaven, but to "the rage of a fire" with the "adversaries" (a.k.a. "Satan")

Those "christians" you speak of could just as easily reply, "I don't understand 'christians' who only preach half the gospel." (Technically, only a third, because Faith is only one of the three theological virtues, and likewise only one third of possession of Christ per his own self idenification as "The Way, The Truth, and The Life" w/out which no one goes to the Father).

Exactly. I'm doing this because I love God, not because I'm trying to get into heaven. I'm already going

1 Corinthians 10:12 - "Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall."

1 Corinthians 9:27 - "...perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway"

None of us know whether or not we are going to heaven. "Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain." (1 Cor 9:24)

St. Paul asks us to "run that [we] may obtain." He says of himself that he does "all things for the gospel's sake: that I may be made partaker thereof." (1 Cor 9:23) The things that he does are what make him a partaker of the gospel. He does not say that he is already a partaker of the gospel, and just does good works as a kind of thank you note sent heavenward. The works that he did, and the works that he asked us to do, were done so that we would "with fear and trembling work out [our] salvation" (Phil 2:12)

So please accept this in the spirit in which it is given. "He that loveth correction, loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is foolish." (Prov 12:1) I am not impuning your sincerity. But poison is poison, no matter how innocently it is thought to be medicine. You are preaching a false gospel if you preach a gospel that makes works a mere afterthought in the Economy of Grace. And anyone who believes that false gospel will lead a life that will lead to damnation.

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked."

I apologize if I have said anything in what seems to be an uncharitable tone. It is always difficult on the internet to get across the proper sense of what you want to say. Please accept my prayers for you.

Unlike some people here, I don't proselytize

For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. ...How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?...Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ

and would appreciate NOT being told that I should believe the way someone else else does,

Acts 1:14 - "All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren"

Romans 12:16 - "Being of one mind one towards another"

Romans 15:5,6 - "Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind one towards another, according to Jesus Christ: That with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. "

2 Corinthians 13:11 - "For the rest, brethren, rejoice, be perfect, take exhortation, be of one mind, have peace; and the God of peace and of love shall be with you."

Philippians 1:27 - "Only let your conversation be worthy of the gospel of Christ: that, whether I come and see you, or, being absent, may hear of you, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind labouring together for the faith of the gospel."

Philippians 2:2 - "Fulfill ye my joy, that you may be of one mind, having the same charity, being of one accord, agreeing in sentiment."

1 Peter 3:8 - "And in fine, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, being lovers of the brotherhood, merciful, modest, humble:"

Sorry, neighbor. There is only one God, and therefore only one truth. So yes, you must believe as someone else does. You must believe the one truth.

or that I should "BURN MY BIBLE"; as I was ordered to do, by another poster here.

"Ordered"? It was really more of a suggestion. I am a little sorry about that, though. I had intended to put a ": )" on the end of that, so you would know that I was in jest. Not that the KJV is not a really awful translation, and you really should get yourself a real Bible at some point. But it was not my intent to hurt your feelings, and I apologize if I have done so.

the Haydock is said to have 'powerful footnotes and commentary'. I haven't seen it, but will have to assume that some of those 'powerful' comments support the scripture mixed with man-made ('iron and clay') teachings that are not taken in context.

The commentary is mostly taken from the teachings of the Church Fathers. I know that some Protestants basically accept their orthodoxy, and some don't. Personally, I find knowing what the Christians thought during the first 500 years after Our Lord interesting.

No thanks...I like the KJV the best. If I want something in the OT, I'd take a Jewish Bible over any modern day Christian one, where all kinds of things have been messed with, in translation.

Me, too...that's why I go with a Bible based on the Septuagint. If you prefer the Jewish old testament, why not take the Jewish OT from the Alexandrian Jews over two centuries before Christ over the Jewish OT from the Palestinian Jews who had already rejected Christ?

And I don't take books from the Apocrypha as legit...I'm not going to go any further with this discussion, because it's pointless. If I were to post a true refutation, you and/or other would hit the abuse button.

If you do not wish to continue our discussion, that is your right. I must disagree with it being "pointless." It seems to me that the question of how we know the Truth is one with a very big point indeed. As for the abuse button, you still have seventy times seven times to offend me before I would seek to do you some evil.

You don't care for counter views.

Really? Do you know me? Have we met before? How is it you know so much about what I would like?

I'll give you the prophets' prophecies of the MESSIAH; that's a given. But, as far as the rest of it goes, I'm done with this and no, I refuse to take the Roman Catholic version of anything into count, as I am not a Catholic.

Really? You won't even give me that the Hebrew names of OT figures are relevant? Why is it that God spends so much time changing people's names then?

Also, the typological reading of the OT is not the "Catholic" reading of the Bible, it is the Biblical reading of the Bible (admittedly, Biblical is just another way of saying Catholic). How is it that St. Paul knew that Adam was a "figure of the one who was to come" or that "the rock was Christ" or that the Red Sea was a figure of baptism, and the cloud that they passed under the Holy Ghost, or that baptism was Christian circumcision, or that Melchisedec was a type of Christ, etc.? Rejecting the typological reading of the OT is rejecting the entire set of Pauline epistles.

I'm more of an NIV guy ;)

You could do worse...like a New American ::shudder::

From my experience the NIV is a fairly faithful English translation. Not sure I'd care for the footnotes, though : )

This might shed a little light on a few things:

1. Regarding the pre-existence of the Gospel, and Satan's knowledge thereof

Jesus Christ is the "Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world." (Apoc. 13:3) What this means is that God always knew that his creatures would sin, and always knew that he would redeem them. So while the Incarnation occured in time, the Incarnation's place in the Economy of Grace has existed since at least the beginning of time, if not for eternity.

Now, if a plan exists to do something in a certain way, it is at least theoretically possible that someone can find out about the plan, even though the event hasn't happened. So it is entirely possible that Lucifer knew about Christ's coming long before we did.

Is there any Biblical evidence that this was so? Well, yes. The same Biblical evidence we use to prove that Jesus was in fact the Christ that was promised by the prophets. If looking back now, you and I can read the prophets and see Christ predicted there, then certainly at the time that those prophecies were made the Devil, who is astronomically more brilliant than any man has ever been, could understand them as well.

On a side note, there are some of the Church Fathers who speculate that it was Satan's very knowledge of the Gospel that caused the Fall of the Angels. The pride of Lucifer could not stand being subject to a man (it is clear from the temptation in the desert that Lucifer did/does not understand the Hypostasis - if he did, he never would have bothered with the temptation)

2. Regarding the prophecy in Genesis 3:15, "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Firstly, this is a prophecy of salvation. If the serpent's head is crushed, then he is clearly defeated. So God here prophesies the destruction of kingdom of the devil.

Secondly, this is a prophesy of the Virgin Birth. Women do not have literal seed. Men have seed. Refer to Genesis 38:8, "[Onan] knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name."

3. Regarding Cain meaning "acquired" not being in the Bible.

Technically, you could say that there is nothing in the Bible about Abel meaning "empty-handed," or Simon meaning, "a grain of sand," or Jesus meaning, "God saves His people." But they do. Cain means "acquired" (I have heard it rendered, "possession") not because the Bible says it, but simply because it does. That is just what the Hebrew word cain means.

Amazingly, there are true things that are not found in the Bible. One of them is a Hebrew to English dictionary : )

4. Regarding the King James Bible

Burn it and get yourself a real Bible (Haydock, of course)

In case those links are too wordy (I didn't check, lazy me), here is a quick list:

Latin is better than English (or any other language) because...

1. Latin is Catholic (universal), the vernacular is provincial. So Latin unifies the Church in all of the nations (and ethnicities within the nation), while the vernacular divides it.

2. Latin is ancient, the vernacular is modern. So Latin helps to remind us that God has never changed and will never change, while the vernacular caters to our chronological snobbery.

3. Latin is stable, the vernacular is chaotic. In 100 years (if not sooner), every translation in every nation will need to be redone. Words just won't mean the same things anymore.

4. Neither inspiration nor infallibility *EVER* applies to a translation (for example, an English Bible is not inspired nor inerrant in any way, except virtually inasmuch as it is a faithful translation of the original). Therefore every time we introduce a translation in the liturgy (or scripture), we run a risk of introducing error into the Church, or at least compromise. Yes, the Latin was not inspired either, but it has been tried and tested over many, many years, in a way all of the dozens of translations can never be.

Also, on another point, it isn't always just about the language. If I had my choice of attending a mass said in English according to the 1962 missal, or a Novus Ordo mass in Latin, I would go 1962 anyday. The "Latin mass" isn't just in Latin, it is entirely different in the prayers that are said.

On that note, did anyone notice that in His Holiness' first mass, he said the old-style Confiteor (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)?