Free Republic

I have a brother who is a AGW alarmist.

I just ran across this guy today; I am impressed:
http://wmbriggs.com/classic-posts/#climate.hotmodels

I am sure that Pope Francis is a product of his environment just like the rest of us; it's his perception of reality.

The danger I see is that the real wacko environmentalists will use what he says on the one hand about depletion of resources and use it to beat the Church over the head about population control, abortion, euthanasia, and so forth.

I will have to look up Julian Simon, but I've argued with other Catholics that surely a God who was smart enough to give us the Sacrament of Reconciliation when we pollute our souls would also account for environmental pollution.

I sort of see an “out” in the quotes I cited in the sense that he specifically talks about “science” and “scientific consensus”. Almost as if to say “this is science speaking, not me”.

Though looking at the paragraphs you cited, like 51 does not leave any wiggle room: “The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries”...

I'll probably not bother reading the entire thing; there are too many other encyclicals I'd rather read. That's another reason to appreciate your fine analysis- thanks again!

Again I have to admit I have read very little of the encyclical. I will gladly take your word that it contains things disturbing to those who believe that less government is better than more.

I certainly don't want to sound argumentative nor in denial, but...

where exactly Pope Francis says AGW is a fact?

I see things like number 23 where he says "A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system"

and

"a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases".

Maybe I'm parsing too much? At least he didn't say "the science is settled"!

Very perceptive analysis- thank you!

I have not heard much at my parish yet, but it is summer in South Florida, so nothing much happens now anyway.

I have not read the encyclical, but I have read parts of it. In discussions with GW alarmists and libertarians, both camps claim the Pope says more than he does in the encyclical.

Perhaps that is spin from other sources; headlines and articles. Popes are usually very precise in wording encyclicals, and it seems to me that a lot of people claim it says things that it does not.

I go to Mass for several reasons...

Primarily out of a sense of obligation to God. I owe God everything, so I must worship Him. The Mass is the highest form of worship; not because of anything I do, but because Jesus offers Himself to the Father. I get to take part in that and offer myself also.

Aso to receive Jesus Himself in the Eucharist. What else can you say? Wow!

While the readings and the homily and the singing can be bonus material, they, like the lack of distractions, are immaterial to what is going on— that supreme sacrifice of Jesus, being made present once again.

Two other facts from another source:

1, these vehicles belonged to the county sheriff department; his pot bust was by the town police, and

2, it was his parent's tractor! Sucks for them! Though something tells me they are probably used to it.

Still, at the surface level, there is a part of me that admires the guy...

Cops sequestered in their air-conditioned, sound proof vault, unaware of the crime being committed against them in their own parking lot...

I've used Netnanny for my kids and have been very happy with it; I have a 3 user license that is $39.99 per year.

It might be overkill for you however.

Good luck!

The Acts of Peter are one of the many Apocryphal writings of the early Christian era. Google it if you are interested.

Did you read it?

The first line clearly says:

While not in the canon of Scripture, the Acts of Peter is a source of much of the history of Peter and Paul in Rome.

In other words, it's not in your bible.

uh, what scriptural account are you referring to?

Iscool, I know you don't accept anything having to do with Christianity unless you can find your interpretation of your beliefs in your bible. With the obvious exception of where in the bible it says not to accept anything unless it's in the bible...

But that's a discussion for another day. Suffice to say that it is the major difference between Catholics and Bible Christians. Scripture was closed with the death of the Apostle John; I believe we agree on that.

The Church continues in history, and others have written; what else has been written may not carry the same weight as scripture, but that does not mean it's untrue or that it did not happen.

Was Jesus in Rome? While not in the canon of Scripture, the Acts of Peter is a source of much of the history of Peter and Paul in Rome:

"Then both Peter and Paul were led away from the presence of Nero. And Paul was beheaded on the Ostesian road.

And Peter, having come to the cross, said: Since my Lord Jesus Christ, who came down from the heaven upon the earth, was raised upon the cross upright, and He has deigned to call to heaven me, who am of the earth, my cross ought to be fixed head down most, so as to direct my feet towards heaven; for I am not worthy to be crucified like my Lord. Then, having reversed the cross, they nailed his feet up.

And the multitude was assembled reviling Cæsar, and wishing to kill him. But Peter restrained them, saying: A few days ago, being exhorted by the brethren, I was going away; and my Lord Jesus Christ met me, and having adored Him, I said, Lord, whither are You going? And He said to me, I am going to Rome to be crucified.

And I said to Him, Lord, were You not crucified once for all? And the Lord answering, said, I saw you fleeing from death, and I wish to be crucified instead of you. And I said, Lord, I go; I fulfil Your command. And He said to me, Fear not, for I am with you. On this account, then, children, do not hinder my going; for already my feet are going on the road to heaven. Do not grieve, therefore, but rather rejoice with me, for today I receive the fruit of my labours. And thus speaking, he said: I thank You, good Shepherd, that the sheep which You have entrusted to me, sympathize with me; I ask, then, that with me they may have a part in Your kingdom. And having thus spoken, he gave up the ghost."

Besides, we all know that where the Church (the Body of Christ) is, there is Christ!

I do not spend much time on Free Republic on the weekends, so I just saw this today. As a Catholic I would like to respond, though I think others have done an excellent job already.

First, very simply, Catholics love Truth; manifested primarily in the Person of Jesus and all that He taught, and through His Body, the Church, which He left to guide us.

We believe Mary was a perpetual virgin because it is true. As Claud said earlier, the Church has always taught this.

As Campion pointed out, why would Mary, betrothed to Joseph, ask Gabriel how she would conceive, if she planned on having intercourse with Joseph? Is there any reasonable explanation, except that she intended to remain a virgin AFTER her wedding?

I think one of the most beautiful explanations is that the Church considers Mary the Ark of the New Covenant.

The Ark of the old covenant contained the 10 commandments (Word of God), Manna (bread from heaven), and Aaron's staff (priesthood symbol).

The Ark of the New Covenant- Mary- contained the living Word of God, the true Bread from Heaven, and the High Priest Himself.

No one was allowed to touch the Ark in the OT; and no one was allowed to touch (sexually) the Ark of the New Covenant.

The Church does not teach this because it considers sex to be dirty or sinful; on the contrary, the Church teaches that sex is holy and sacramental. To forgo sex for the greater glory of God and the furtherance of The Kingdom is, however, encouraged.

So while the perpetual virginity of Mary is not explicit in Scripture, Catholics do not believe that all truth is contained in Scripture. Jesus built a Church for us; and that Chuch existed before the New Testament scripture was written.

I hope that helps as an explanation, and I would ask you to return the favor-

As a non-Catholic Christian, why do you hold so closely that if it's not in Scripture, it can't be true?

Thanks, and God bless you!

Some great movies listed here.

I watched one the other night that I thought was pretty good- Isaiah Washington in “Least of These”.

As with contraception before homosexuality, and divorce before contraception, there are those who believe morality is dependent upon whatever the popular culture says.

The Church knows it has no authority to change God’s moral law. While I do believe the Church can do a much better job of catechizing it’s members, it cannot be held responsible for those who think morality is subject to popular vote.

Good question and reply.

There is a difference between committing a sin, which we all do, and living in sin. When one commits a sin, one repents- is sorry, makes restitution if possible, and resolves not to do it again.

When one lives in sin, it is more of a continual act of the will; one is generally not very sorry and has no intention of stopping.

In the Gospel story of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus declined to condemn, though He also said “go and sin no more”. That resolve to stop is important; even though one may continually fall, one must continually get up, and not give up.

I can worship God anywhere at any time, but the SUPREME ACT of worship is the Mass- any worship I might do on my own-

songs of praise, prayer, scripture reading- it all PALES IN COMPARISON.

Because the Mass is something Christ is doing, not me.

You did not answer my question! What was your understanding of the Mass?

I replied to a similar question you asked on a recent thread about Mary. I do not believe you ever responded to my post, perhaps you did not see it. Since you are asking the same question here, I will repost it:

If you used to be Catholic, you should understand that Catholics consider the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as THE supreme act of worship, as it is the eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ offering Himself to the Father.
We do not believe that Jesus is dying again, or continually dying, He died once- but continually offers Himself to the Father. For that brief moment for us in time at Mass, we get to take part in that sacrifice, and offer ourselves, along with Jesus, to the Father. We worship God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.

We receive Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. I could go on and on, in my limited and feeble way, but hopefully you get the idea.

Until recently I did not know that non-Catholics believe that once you die and your soul is separated from your body, you are... what, unconscious? asleep? Out of commission?

Catholics do not share that belief. We believe in the “communion of saints”; the Church Militant (we on earth), the Church Suffering (those in purgatory), and the Church Triumphant (those in heaven). We are a family, and believe God is very big on families, as God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is the first family. The Church Triumphant can help us by praying for us, just as family members here on earth help each other.

Mary holds a special place because she was the Mother of Jesus (God) and always said yes to God. She is the mother of the Holy Family, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, and our spiritual mother. She is anxious to help us, still struggling here on earth; as is all of heaven. We ask our heavenly family to pray for us.

At any rate, that was my post to you on the other thread. Others both on that thread and this one have mentioned the Mass but you do not seem to want acknowledge it- as a former Catholic, what was your understanding of the Mass?

I'll gladly give Chesterton a ping!

For anyone interested that has access to the EWTN network there is a 30 minute show about Chesterton and his writings on Sunday night at 9pm. You can also download the audio of some of those shows here:

Chesterton audio 1

Chesterton audio 2

I am just finishing up "The collected works Vol 3"; I highly recommend it!