Free Republic

Gosh, who teaches "salvation by works" (other than the Democratic party)?

Salvation is by the Grace of God.

If you're a serious-enough Catholic . . .

Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

Request a FREE copy here.

From the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

Request a FREE copy here.

Some issues are intrinsically evil.
These include:
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Fetal Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
As such, being evil in nature, they must always be opposed.
Any candidate that supports them can not be supported.

Regarding the death penalty:
"The traditional teaching of the Church does not
exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty" (CCC 2267).
It is not intrinsically evil. Good Catholics can and do
disagree over its use in modern society. In the prudential
judgement of JPII, such use should probably to be rare.

Regarding Kerry and Communion:
"The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the
person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience.
However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and
steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral
concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the
sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon
Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral
disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in
manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.
-- Ecclesia de Eucharistia, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, 37
http://www.catholic.com/library/ecclesia_de_eucharistia.asp

"Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been
imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest
grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
The Code of Canon Law, 915
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P38.HTM

If you wish to contact Theodore Cardinal McCarrick of the Archdiocese
of Washington, D.C. and express how scandalous you view the current
state of affairs, his e-mail address is:
chancery@adw.org

A pediatrician who speaks spoke fluent English, Rantisi regularly serves served as Hamas' spokesman to foreign journalists. He also makes made statements to the Palestinian public on behalf of Hamas.

Ray Weldon, who found that stresses in the southern portion of the San Andreas fault area at a 1,500 year high.

Were the pressure transducers used by North American natives in the year 500 that reliable?

Ecce agnus Dei qui tollit peccatum mundi

John 1:29 is so beautiful to me. "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" Even my meager grasp of its transcendent grace devastates me beyond words.

Be VERY careful. The way things have been happening, I wouldn't put it past some of these bishops to hire an internet search company to find out who all of us are.

Don't threaten, don't complain, don't make yourself out to be more Catholic than the Pope.

Put everything in the third-person. E.g.:

You should be aware that the most awful rumors are being discussed about you. Very reputable people claim to have reputable sources to back it up. The Internet is allowing it to spread like wildfire. One can only hope that the truth will come to light.

Thought you should be aware. I pray that all involved do the right thing now and always.

Above all, show charity.

Archbishop Charles Chaput is a hero.

Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

Request a FREE copy here.

Time to start a new thread?

Regarding the War in Iraq:
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military
force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such
a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of
moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what
is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of
these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the
prudential judgment of those who have responsibility
for the common good. (CCC 2309)

The Pope expressed deep concern about the efficacy of going to
war, but he did not condemn it as an intrinsic evil. As always,
the Church recognized that the moral responsibility rests
ultimately on the prudential judgment of President Bush.

Some issues are intrinsically evil, such as:
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Fetal Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
As such, being evil in nature, they must always be opposed.

Regarding the death penalty:
"The traditional teaching of the Church does not
exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty" (CCC 2267).
In some situations, it is not intrinsically evil.
In the prudential judgment of Pope John Paul II,
such instances are hopefully rare.

Regarding Kerry and Communion:
"The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the
person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience.
However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and
steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral
concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the
sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon
Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral
disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in
manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.
-- Ecclesia de Eucharistia, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, 37

"Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
The Code of Canon Law, 915

If you wish to contact Theodore Cardinal McCarrick of the Archdiocese
of Washington, D.C. and express how scandalous you view the current
state of affairs, his e-mail address is:
chancery@adw.org

"The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the
person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience.
However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and
steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral
concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the
sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon
Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral
disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in
manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.
-- Ecclesia de Eucharistia, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, 37

"Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been
imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest
grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
The Code of Canon Law, 915

If you wish to contact Theodore Cardinal McCarrick of the Archdiocese
of Washington, D.C. and express how scandalous you view the current
state of affairs, his e-mail address is:
chancery@adw.org

From http://www.catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Update: The Associated Press reports today that Kerry has met privately with Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C. The report says that Kerry requested the meeting. The meeting signals that Kerry is concerned about potential sanctions. Since most of us lack the prominence to get a private meeting with Cardinal McCarrick, this meeting should prompt many of us to communicate our views to the Cardinal by e-mail:
chancery@adw.org

Readers should also take a long look at Fr. Rob Johansen's post for today, April 15th, in which he aptly describes the current situation. His links to a recent Fox news story and to an extremely disturbing Catholic World News story are well worth the time. In addition, it is clear from the Fox news story that the U.S. Bishops' Conference needs a new spokesperson. A certain Mary Ann Walsh speaking for the bishops has come out and effectively put the abortion issue on the same level as other election issues. That is a gross misrepresentation of Catholic teaching, to put it mildly. Is it too much to insist that a spokesperson for the Catholic Bishops' Conference be familiar with Catholic teaching on a particular issue before she addresses that issue? She needs to find a new job.

As yesterday's morning rush hour wound down, the bullet-riddled body of Khalil Naimi, first secretary at the Iranian Embassy, was found slumped over the wheel of his car, which had run into a pole. It was not clear whether the two events were related.

Which two events? That he was "bullet-riddled" and "found slumped over the wheel of his car"? Or that he was "bullet-riddled" and that his car had "run into a pole"?

I know, I know. Just havin' a bit of fun.

I am one "fundamental" ( I prefer evangelical) who believes that the Shroud of Turin is the Genuine Grave Cloth of Jesus Christ.

Hi,
I appreciate that Fundamentalism can be considered as only a subset of Evangelicalism. The Fundamentalists tend to be very anti-Catholic, and as a result, anything that smacks of Catholic piety is automatically deemed to be in error. They can't prove it of course, but it's fun watching their knee jerk.

A note of caution: the Shroud may indeed be THE Shroud (I personally think it quite likely), but I wouldn't hang my faith on it. It can be cherished and honored and an object of reverent contemplation, but it will never be proved (unless they clone Jesus from the DNA of the blood and produce the Second Coming -- that's a joke, people!) Of note, the Catholic Church has never passed judgement on this article. They are extraordinarily cautious about it.)

Pax Christi,

Race, Race, Race,

I suppose I should congratulate you for at least posting some Scripture verses. You're moving in the right direction!

(1 Cor 13:8-10 KJV) . . . I know it because the Bible DOES say these things will pass.

Your selected verses don't support your proposition (presupposition, actually). It doesn't say prophecy ended in the past. What it does say in 1 Cor 13:10 is that there will be no need for prophecy and tongues after the Second Coming. I suspect all Christians would agree with that.

As an aside, I would urge you to read and study all of 1 Cor 13. It is one of those extraordinarily Catholic chapters (they all are, actually) that blows away notions of "Salvation by Faith Alone" held by too many Protestants. After all, you do claim to follow the Bible, right?

"though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Cor 13:2b

Even the Church history tells us that.

You seem to be confusing public revelation and private revelation again. Let me know if you need any help with that.

Many insist that the gift of prophecy is still being given today. Think of the implications of this. . . This kind of teaching is a serious attack on the sufficiency of the Bible as our final and only authority for faith and practice.

YOU ARE SO CLOSE! The Church teaches that public revelation ceased with the last apostle. I think that we are in agreement with that aspect. And this is one reason that latter day public "prophets", like the Mormons and the Muslims don't have much of a case. (Another reason is that their prophets contradict previous prophets -- but I digress.) God can, however, reveal Himself to whomever He chooses. Such authentic (private) revelation, is binding on the individual only.

Oh, and another aside. Nowhere does the Bible claim that it is the "final and only authority for faith and practice". That's just another one of those Protestant inventions.

The 66 Books of the Bible are not enough...

He-he! Right again. The Bible has 73 books. Always has since the canon was first set in 382 AD.

In 1 Corinthians 13:8 we learn that prophecies would be done away, whereas faith, hope and love would remain. This prediction came to pass at the end of the first century.

Again, you're taking that out of context. Paul isn't predicting that prophecy will end any time soon. He is reasoning that prophecy and tongues won't be needed once Our Lord comes again. That is the literal reading.

The key issue then is the SUFFICIENCY of the Word of God. Is the Bible really sufficient?

You've made several logical errors here. Is the Word of God sufficient? This ambiguous question is likely true for both common meanings of "Word of God" but turns on how you define sufficiency. (If you need help understanding the difference between "material sufficiency" and "formal sufficiency", let me know.) You are also implying an equality between "Word of God" and "Bible" that is demonstrably false. (Even the Bible acknowledges this equality as untrue.) At best, the Bible is only a subset of the "Word of God". And your blanket assertion that "sufficiency" is key is not logically supported by your reasoning thus far.

1) Christ promised the Apostles that the Spirit of truth would guide them into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13). The Spirit did guide them into all truth and this truth was incorporated into the New Testament Scriptures. What more do we need?

Wow. So close, and yet so far. Where in the Bible does it say that this "truth" was incorporated into the New Testament Scriptures? Doesn't the Bible actually say that this truth is now located in the church, "the pillar and ground of the truth"? (1 Tim 3:15) Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible.

2) Paul tells us that the God-breathed Scriptures are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17). What more do we need?

What more do we need? At a minimum, we need to read that in context.
2 Tim 1:13-14> Paul says guard Apostolic Tradition
2 Tim 2:2> Paul says teach Apostolic Tradition
2 Tim 3:14> Paul says follow Apostolic Tradition
2 Tim 3:15> "And" (i.e., oh by the way, don't forget to) follow scriptures
(Paul is talking about the OT, as the NT had not yet been established)
2 Tim 3:16> the OT is profitable, (useful, but not sufficient)

If this verse proves the sufficiency of Scripture, it only proves the sufficiency of the Old Testament. (Better chuck out all that New Testament stuff ;-)

Rather, 2 Tim is largely about following Apostolic Tradition. And where does one find this Apostolic Tradition? In the very church that Jesus built on Peter.

John puts the final "PERIOD" at the close of God's completed revelation, warning us not to add to or to subtract from this book (Revelation 22:18-19).

Dear oh dear. Read it again. John literally says "scroll" (singular). He's talking about his one manuscript. This is also seen in his words "if any man shall take away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy." (Books didn't exist at the time John wrote this.) If this defines the canon of Scripture, it means only Revelation is needed and all the other books can be tossed.

Interestingly, there is a similar command in Deut 4:2 ("Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.") Shall we toss everything after Deut 4:2? I thought not.

It appears that your biggest hurdle is that you are burdened with several presuppositions about what the Bible says, and you spend a lot of time trying to find proof texts to support your notions. That is why it is so easy for others to disprove your points. Rather, you need (at a minimum) to read the Bible without presuppositions, and learn to harmonize all the various texts that touch on a given subject. The Catholic Church, with 2,000 years of experience standing on the shoulders of scriptural giants defending the faith has a pretty good grip on its doctrines. The Bible is, after all, a Catholic book. There is NOTHING in the Bible that contradicts Catholicism and NOTHING in Catholicism that contradicts what is in the Bible. Try it, you'll like it.

Pax Christi,

Clearly, God stopped speaking through Prophets and visions and Dreams on the times of Jesus Christ, with the final , finished time of this beginning at Pentacost, and ending when the Church stopped having the signs and miracles gifts that ended before the fall of Jerusalem.

Your quotation of Heb 1:1-2 does not support your assertion.

If you need help understanding the difference between public revelation and private revelation, just let me know.

ADORATION WILL NOT BRING YOU SALVATION!

"We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are" -- Saint Jerome, Ad Riparium, i, P.L., XXII, 907

If you need some help understanding the difference between worship/adoration and veneration/honor just let me know. I'll be happy to explain.

THERE IS NO MEDIATOR BETWEEN CHRIST AND THE SINNER OR SAINT.

"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." -- 1 Tim 4:13

Saving yourself?
Saving others?

"If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them." -- Rom 11:13-14>

Imitate Paul?
Paul saves?

"For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? " -- 1 Cor 7:16

Husband and wife saving each other?

"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men , that I might by all means save some." -- 1 Cor 9:22

Paul saves?

"By loyalty and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD a man avoids evil. -- Prv 16:6

Our love atones for sin?

"let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." -- James 5:20

Anybody can save their own soul?

Oh dear. I better chuck all those books except the Gospel of Paul.

But wait!:
"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." -- 1 Tim 2:1-4

If I read 1 Tim 2:5 in context, I see that the intercessions offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something that infringes on Christ’s mediatorship. And as such, reading 1 Tim 2:5 in isolation restricts God's plan for us.