Vatican Says Divorced Catholics Who Remarry Must Not Have Sex
THOMAS J HARDEN
From the Associated Press:
Divorced Catholic who remarry should be urged to stop living in a
a "state of sin"-meaning no sex in the new relationship, the
Vatican said yesterday in issuing guidelines on the subject for
priests.
Priests also should counsel those who have not remarried to remain
faithful to their original vows and not enter into other unions,
according to the guidelines, issued by the Pontifical Council on
the family.
The council released its recommendations after a meeting last month
devoted to divorced but remarried Catholics.
It told priests to show compassion for catholics whose marriages
have failed and noted that Pope John Paul II has said the divorced
who remarry still belong to the church.
But the church "must not express any sign, public or private, that
could appear to be a legitimization of the new union" the document
said.
Priests should invite such couples "to recognize their irregular
situation, which involves a state of sin, and ask God for the grace
of a true conversion." Vatican officials said that means
couples should abstain from sex.
-end
The Catholic Vatican officials again display there ignorance.
The year is 1997 not 1697.
I still cannot stop laughing at the Pope and his kiss ass zealots.
D1 :->
Robert Tully
dae...@ix.netcom.com(THOMAS J HARDEN) writes: > From the Associated Press:
Great now I'm living in sin
Wong Soon Peng Adrian
If the Gospel is timeless, then I don't see why the stand on marriage in
the Catholic Church should be affected by the year we live in. Would
sacred truth be reduced to nothingness in the future, if man should
decide so?
Adrian
Jamie Smith
2000 yrs. Based on Mt 5:32,Lk16:18;Mk10:11-12; Mt19:9; 1 Cor 7:10-11
most christians like the first verse refering to unchastity as a
reason to get divorced,(thinking that it is permissable to remarry
another), however the next verse states
that whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery. If a christian
divorces, the only person they can remarry is the one they got divorce
from in the first place.If you have sex with any other person regardless
of what the state says is adultery. Adultery based on Gal 5:19-21
is the basis for exclusion from the Kingdom of God.
The only reason the Pope is restating doctrine that has been the one
of the building blocks of western civilation is because the present
culture
and some of the pope's priests have decided that it is no longer
fashionable
to be married to one person for live.
For brevity sake I made this already assumes the reader
believes in the Bible.
g...@nutracorps.org
What do they do if they get HORNY?
Do they take matters into hand?
Do they take a Harlot to their bosom?
What?
Timothy Consodine
The pope is preaching what Jesus Christ Himself preached (because that is
his job)
Matt 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on
the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a
divorced woman commits adultery.
Matt 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has
joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Mark 10:7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be
joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no
longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not
man put asunder.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about
this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries
another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband
and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy
Roxanne
On 27 Feb 1997 10:46:04 GMT, dae...@ix.netcom.com(THOMAS J HARDEN)
wrote:
>From the Associated Press:
>
>Divorced Catholic who remarry should be urged to stop living in a
>a "state of sin"-meaning no sex in the new relationship, the
>Vatican said yesterday in issuing guidelines on the subject for
>priests.
Oh, who cares? Ignore them, everybody else does. What can they do
about it?
Roxanne
E-mail address altered to thwart automatic replies and
knee-jerk responses.
Lord Gilbert T. Sullivan
Roxanne wrote:
>
> On 27 Feb 1997 10:46:04 GMT, dae...@ix.netcom.com(THOMAS J HARDEN)
> wrote:
>
> >From the Associated Press:
> >
> >Divorced Catholic who remarry should be urged to stop living in a
> >a "state of sin"-meaning no sex in the new relationship, the
> >Vatican said yesterday in issuing guidelines on the subject for
> >priests.
>
> Oh, who cares? Ignore them, everybody else does. What can they do
> about it?
They might pray for me.
I wouldn't want that
Robert Tully
g...@nutracorps.org writes: > What do they do if they get HORNY?
> Do they take matters into hand?
> Do they take a Harlot to their bosom?
> What?
>
>
I guess your supposed to shut up and go to confession
Lord Gilbert T. Sullivan
No, just go out and get laid and don't tell anybody.
Jamie Smith
Robert Tully wrote:
>
> g...@nutracorps.org writes: > What do they do if they get HORNY?
> > Do they take matters into hand?
> > Do they take a Harlot to their bosom?
> > What?
> >
> >
>
> I guess your supposed to shut up and go to confession
Catholic's didn't already know this doctrine. I think the reason for
restating it is because the priests are not requesting people to refrain
from receiving the Eucharist and to advise the couple that their
"divorce" may be recognized by the state but that a Catholic marriage is
the providence of the Church's not the state. So a person who gets a
civil divorce and remarries outside the church then that marrage is not
recognized and the "couple" is committing adultery. If one tries to
remarry in the church, the first question they ask you is have you been
married before? People avoid the obivous pain that is caused by
reopening old wounds, but it has been my experience both from a family
member who went through it and numerous others who enter the church as
converts it can be quite cathartic for them.
If this fits your situation I would suggest you seek out a priest and
start the paper work to get an anullment, which though not easy to get,
your situation may prove fruitful.
God bless you - yours in Christ
Tom SMith
Suzanna
> The pope is preaching what Jesus Christ Himself preached (because that is
> his job)
>
> Matt 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except
on
> the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a
> divorced woman commits adultery.
hell can you committ adultery???
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against
her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
adultery.”
Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy
*That's bullshit!
**No wonder I have so much trouble with catholicism.....
Gareth
Lord Gilbert T. Sullivan <ga...@hell.com> wrote in article
<33178D...@hell.com>...
> Robert Tully wrote:
> >
> > g...@nutracorps.org writes: > What do they do if they get HORNY?
> > > Do they take matters into hand?
> > > Do they take a Harlot to their bosom?
> > > What?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I guess your supposed to shut up and go to confession
>
>
> No, just go out and get laid and don't tell anybody.
>
WE SHOULD DESTROY THE VATICAN BY
BURNING THE FUCKER DOWN!!!
Mark Hartman
In article <01bc26e3$8b3a0b80$e28489d0@default>, "Suzanna"
<sius...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>> The pope is preaching what Jesus Christ Himself preached (because that is
>> his job)
>>
>> Matt 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except
>on
>> the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a
>> divorced woman commits adultery.
>*But that's complete bullshit! If you are no longer married, then how the
>hell can you committ adultery???
If you read the context, Suzanna, you'll see that Jesus is saying that
divorce is in fact a futile attempt to dissolve something that cannot
be dissolved; in other words, that they ARE still married. Which is
the whole point.
>>“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against
>>her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
>>adultery.”
>>Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy
>*That's bullshit!
>
>**No wonder I have so much trouble with catholicism.....
That's true, Suzanna; anyone who argues for their own point of view by
simply offering the opinion that the opposing point of view is "bullshit"
would have trouble with Catholicism. Refuting it, that is.
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030 -+- e-mail m...@pdasolutions.com
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
Do it right the first time. Macintosh.
Bill Silverthorn
m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>In article <01bc26e3$8b3a0b80$e28489d0@default>, "Suzanna"
><sius...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>
>>> The pope is preaching what Jesus Christ Himself preached (because that is
>>> his job)
>>>
>>> Matt 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except
>>on
>>> the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a
>>> divorced woman commits adultery.
>>*But that's complete bullshit! If you are no longer married, then how the
>>hell can you committ adultery???
>
>If you read the context, Suzanna, you'll see that Jesus is saying that
>divorce is in fact a futile attempt to dissolve something that cannot
>be dissolved; in other words, that they ARE still married. Which is
>the whole point.
>
>>>“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against
>>>her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
>>>adultery.”
>>>Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy
>>*That's bullshit!
>>
>>**No wonder I have so much trouble with catholicism.....
>
>That's true, Suzanna; anyone who argues for their own point of view by
>simply offering the opinion that the opposing point of view is "bullshit"
>would have trouble with Catholicism. Refuting it, that is.
Poppy-cock, Mark -
Suzanna is just showing her frustration with Catholicism when it comes out
with such silliness .....
The basic facts are that God hates divorce ... period.
The Catholic church, in trying to "speak for God" has caused more problems
in the area of the bedroom with marriage, whether it was the first marriage
and now sadly the second, than any other institution on earth. There is
no need, let alone any scriptural basis for such looney interpretations of
marriage. Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy .... really? Who
is this quote from ??? I certainly hope not the Vatican ... must be
another self appointed "spokesman" for ....
In Jesus Name,
Bill
Bill Silverthorn
"Timothy Consodine" <timo...@flash.net> wrote:
>The pope is preaching what Jesus Christ Himself preached (because that is
>his job)
>
>Matt 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on
>the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a
>divorced woman commits adultery.
You are interpreting this sentence as a fundamentalist interprets the earth
being made in a literal 7 days ....
>Matt 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has
>joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Absolutely .... God HATES divorce ....
>Mark 10:7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be
>joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no
>longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not
>man put asunder.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about
>this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries
>another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband
>and marries another, she commits adultery.”
All true ... up to the context that you left it .... but then you say:
>Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy
ARGGHGHGHGH!!!! I can't believe you said such an insulting thing!!!
This basic mis-interpretation of scripture should be nominated to the halls
of "missteps of the fundamentalists" ....
Corinthian 7:15
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not
under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.
For some (mostly men) I can see the audience that you are referring to ...
Some guys (and gals I imagine) turn in their spouses like a set of tires,
always on the lookout for the newest model .... I agree, they will be
"burning in Hell" for such actions ... (time to bring a little fire and
brimstone into these dialogs!! ;-)
Let's look at what the Bible says, first in Matthew 19:
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is
it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Now here we have the actual direct question about "divorce" being put by
the "religious" of Jesus day (sounds like our catholic fundamentalist here
with his statement: "Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy") into words
to try to trap our Lord, Jesus.
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which
made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Which is great advice .... look to the scriptures for your answers and you
will find the truth ... be warry of quick directives by "religious" types
who back them up with out of context scriptures.
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
The basic message being that marriage is truly of God. It should not be
treated casually with the ability to throw out your spouse when you are
tired of her/him. To wit, the "religious" had a rebuttal of course:
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts
suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not
so.
And Jesus actual words on "divorce":
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be]
for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and
whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery
So do I, as a christian have the right to divorce my wife if she is
unfaithful? By the above words, one would see it as so ... But is "having
the right" make divorce acceptable? Not at all! And if my sinning wife
was remorseful, sorry and repentant, do I still have the "right"? One can
play legalist and say yes, but if you truly study God's word and call
yourself a christian, you would not.
So what does all this have to do with remarriage and sex with your new
partner???
> Matt 5:32: ...whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from
[her] husband committeth adultery.
Jesus warned the Pharisees that what they wanted as law, was a twist of its
meaning: this He showed in reference to divorce (see Luke 16:1-18). There
are many legalist sticklers for the "forms" of godliness, who are in truth
the bitterest enemies to God's power, and unknowingly try to set others
against His truth.
What is Jesus speaking of here? When two people get a divorce because of
unfaithfulness of one of the parties, does this mean that both parties are
forever walking around with a red scarlet on their forehead? Hardly.
For sure there is at least one party "at fault" regardless of what the
courts say .... and in many instances both have a role in the
unfaithfulness, i.e. one may have not been attentive etc. God does NOT
like divorce and the guilty party may not like the church who drives this
point home to him/her .... however, God also does not expect a woman who by
no fault of her own was married to an unfaithful man, or someone who beat
her or other wise mistreated her to the point of being clearly NOT a loving
relationship of ONE.
To tell people that they cannot remarry because of such events in their
lives is sad ....
But then the church has an answer for this, it is called annulment. By
doing this you can erase the marriage and then all of the above nonsense
about divorce and no more sex really doesn't apply anymore .... such silly
legalism.
On the one hand it is good that the Roman church puts as much emphasis on
the Marriage as to call it a sacrament, it is good that it preaches
strongly against divorce ... however, it is sad how it goes about doing it
with these ever changing interpretations of sex, marriage, divorce, etc.
Get back to the Word .... quit adding such silliness to what God has
already said.
In Jesus Name,
Bill
Pauls' clarifying words on Christian Marriage/Divorce (Corin. 7:10-15 )
10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the
wife depart from [her] husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put
away [his] wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother
hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let
him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be
pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified
by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is
not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.
Timothy Consodine
Gareth <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bc2883$2c43d100$4042...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>...
The Emperor Nero failed miserably (as did all the other pagan Roman
emprors). Napolean failed. The soviet Communists have failed -- in fact,
everyone in history who has tried to destroy the Catholic Church is nothing
more than a distant memory / or dust and ruins. Yet... we're still here.
Do you know why? Because Jesus Christ is true God and true man and He
promised that His church would last until the end of time:
Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will
give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven."
The Complete List of Popes
1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (April-August 309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (January-October 336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (February-November 607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (May-August 640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (January-February 708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (March 752)
93. Stephen III (752-57)
94. St. Paul I (757-67)
95. Stephen IV (767-72)
96. Adrian I (772-95)
97. St. Leo III (795-816)
98. Stephen V (816-17)
99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100. Eugene II (824-27)
101. Valentine (August-September 827)
102. Gregory IV (827-44)
103. Sergius II (844-47)
104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
105. Benedict III (855-58)
106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107. Adrian II (867-72)
108. John VIII (872-82)
109. Marinus I (882-84)
110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
111. Stephen VI (885-91)
112. Formosus (891-96)
113. Boniface VI (April 896)
114. Stephen VII (896-97)
115. Romanus (August-November 897)
116. Theodore II (November-December 897)
117. John IX (898-900)
118. Benedict IV (900-03)
119. Leo V (July-December 903)
120. Sergius III (904-11)
121. Anastasius III (911-13)
122. Lando (913-14)
123. John X (914-28)
124. Leo VI (May-December 928)
125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
126. John XI (931-35)
127. Leo VII (936-39)
128. Stephen IX (939-42)
129. Marinus II (942-46)
130. Agapetus II (946-55)
131. John XII (955-63)
132. Leo VIII (963-64)
133. Benedict V (May-June 964)
134. John XIII (965-72)
135. Benedict VI (973-74)
136. Benedict VII (974-83)
137. John XIV (983-84)
138. John XV (985-96)
139. Gregory V (996-99)
140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
141. John XVII (June-December 1003)
142. John XVIII (1003-09)
143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
144. Benedict VIII (1012-24)
145. John XIX (1024-32)
146. Benedict IX (1032-45)
147. Sylvester III (January-March 1045)
148. Benedict IX (April-May 1045)
149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
150. Clement II (1046-47)
151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
152. Damasus II (July-August 1048)
153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154. Victor II (1055-57)
155. Stephen X (1057-58)
156. Nicholas II (1058-61)
157. Alexander II (1061-73)
158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
159. Bl. Victor III (1086-87)
160. Bl. Urban II (1088-99)
161. Paschal II (1099-1118)
162. Gelasius II (1118-19)
163. Callistus II (1119-24)
164. Honorius II (1124-30)
165. Innocent II (1130-43)
166. Celestine II (1143-44)
167. Lucius II (1144-45)
168. Bl. Eugene III (1145-53)
169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
171. Alexander III (1159-81)
172. Lucius III (1181-85)
173. Urban III (1185-87)
174. Gregory VIII (1187)
175. Clement III (1187-91)
176. Celestine III (1191-98)
177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
178. Honorius III (1216-27)
179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
180. Celestine IV (October-November 1241)
181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
183. Urban IV (1261-64)
184. Clement IV (1265-68)
185. Bl. Gregory X (1271-76)
186. Bl. Innocent V (January-June 1276)
187. Adrian V (July-August 1276)
188. John XXI (1276-77)
189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
190. Martin IV (1281-85)
191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193. St. Celestine V (July-December 1294)
194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195. Bl. Benedict XI (1303-04)
196. Clement V (1305-14)
197. John XXII (1316-34)
198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
199. Clement VI (1342-52)
200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
201. Bl. Urban V (1362-70)
202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
203. Urban VI (1378-89)
204. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
205. Innocent VII (1406-06)
206. Gregory XII (1406-15)
207. Martin V (1417-31)
208. Eugene IV (1431-47)
209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
210. Callistus III (1445-58)
211. Pius II (1458-64)
212. Paul II (1464-71)
213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216. Pius III (September-October 1503)
217. Julius II (1503-13)
218. Leo X (1513-21)
219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
220. Clement VII (1523-34)
221. Paul III (1534-49)
222. Julius III (1550-55)
223. Marcellus II (April 1555)
224. Paul IV (1555-59)
225. Pius IV (1559-65)
226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
229. Urban VII (September 1590)
230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231. Innocent IX (October-November 1591)
232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233. Leo XI (April 1605)
234. Paul V (1605-21)
235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
237. Innocent X (1644-55)
238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
239. Clement IX (1667-69)
240. Clement X (1670-76)
241. Bl. Innocent XI (1676-89)
242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244. Clement XI (1700-21)
245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247. Clement XII (1730-40)
248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
251. Pius VI (1775-99)
252. Pius VII (1800-23)
253. Leo XII (1823-29)
254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256. Ven. Pius IX (1846-78)
257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
259. Benedict XV (1914-22)
260. Pius XI (1922-39)
261. Pius XII (1939-58)
262. John XXIII (1958-63)
263. Paul VI (1963-78)
264. John Paul I (August-September 1978)
265. John Paul II (1978-)
You can't destroy the church, but Jesus wants you in it for the salvation
of your soul.
Mark Hartman
>m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>
>>In article <01bc26e3$8b3a0b80$e28489d0@default>, "Suzanna"
>><sius...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The pope is preaching what Jesus Christ Himself preached (because that is
>>>> his job)
>>>>
>>>> Matt 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except
>>>on
>>>> the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a
>>>> divorced woman commits adultery.
>>>*But that's complete bullshit! If you are no longer married, then how the
>>>hell can you committ adultery???
>>
>>If you read the context, Suzanna, you'll see that Jesus is saying that
>>divorce is in fact a futile attempt to dissolve something that cannot
>>be dissolved; in other words, that they ARE still married. Which is
>>the whole point.
>>
>>>>“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against
>>>>her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
>>>>adultery.”
>>>>Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy
>>>*That's bullshit!
>>>
>>>**No wonder I have so much trouble with catholicism.....
>>
>>That's true, Suzanna; anyone who argues for their own point of view by
>>simply offering the opinion that the opposing point of view is "bullshit"
>>would have trouble with Catholicism. Refuting it, that is.
>
>Poppy-cock, Mark -
>
>Suzanna is just showing her frustration with Catholicism when it comes out
>with such silliness .....
Actually, Bill, Suzanna quotes the Bible and calls it "bullshit." Doesn't
really sound like criticism of the Catholics until what she quotes is taken
to its logical conclusion.
>The basic facts are that God hates divorce ... period.
Actually, the basic fact is that Jesus said that, divorce or no, someone
who "marries" someone who is divorced commits adultery, which is an act
which is only possible if you or the other person is married to someone
else. There is no escaping the logical conclusion of this: regardless of
the attempt to divorce, the person is still married - otherwise how could
they commit adultery?
If you disagree with this conclusion, I invite you to offer your own which
satisfies all of the facts.
>The Catholic church, in trying to "speak for God" has caused more problems
>in the area of the bedroom with marriage, whether it was the first marriage
>and now sadly the second, than any other institution on earth. There is
>no need, let alone any scriptural basis for such looney interpretations of
>marriage. Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy .... really? Who
>is this quote from ??? I certainly hope not the Vatican ... must be
>another self appointed "spokesman" for ....
Obviously you're reading a different "Scripture" than is the rest of the
Christian world, Bill.
============================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030 -+- e-mail m...@pdasolutions.com
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
============================================================================
One useless man is a disgrace; two are a law firm; three or more, a Congress
fre...@earthlink.com
Gareth wrote:
>
> Lord Gilbert T. Sullivan <ga...@hell.com> wrote in article
> <33178D...@hell.com>...
> > Robert Tully wrote:
> > >
> > > g...@nutracorps.org writes: > What do they do if they get HORNY?
> > > > Do they take matters into hand?
> > > > Do they take a Harlot to their bosom?
> > > > What?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess your supposed to shut up and go to confession
> >
> >
> > No, just go out and get laid and don't tell anybody.
> >
>
> WE SHOULD DESTROY THE VATICAN BY
> BURNING THE FUCKER DOWN!!!
It wouldn't burn too easily - it's stone and marble.
Bill Silverthorn
m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>In article <33234409...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, w...@pobox.com wrote:
>
>>m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <01bc26e3$8b3a0b80$e28489d0@default>, "Suzanna"
>>><sius...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against
>>>>>her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
>>>>>adultery.”
>>>>>Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy
>>>>*That's bullshit!
>>>>
>>>>**No wonder I have so much trouble with catholicism.....
>>>
>>>That's true, Suzanna; anyone who argues for their own point of view by
>>>simply offering the opinion that the opposing point of view is "bullshit"
>>>would have trouble with Catholicism. Refuting it, that is.
>>
>>Poppy-cock, Mark -
>>
>>Suzanna is just showing her frustration with Catholicism when it comes out
>>with such silliness .....
>
>Actually, Bill, Suzanna quotes the Bible and calls it "bullshit." Doesn't
>really sound like criticism of the Catholics until what she quotes is taken
>to its logical conclusion.
Read it again, Mark ....the rediculous statement of "Divorce and
re-marriage = serial polygamy" is what Suzanna is replying to, not the
scripture that this cute little trailer was tacked onto like some
congressional rider .... and your claim that she is replying to the
scripture is the same game that politicians play .....
Bill
bRuTUs dANgeRoUsLy
On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 10:20:51 GMT, "Gareth" <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Lord Gilbert T. Sullivan <ga...@hell.com> wrote in article
><33178D...@hell.com>...
>> Robert Tully wrote:
>> >
>> > g...@nutracorps.org writes: > What do they do if they get HORNY?
>> > > Do they take matters into hand?
>> > > Do they take a Harlot to their bosom?
>> > > What?
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > I guess your supposed to shut up and go to confession
>>
>>
>> No, just go out and get laid and don't tell anybody.
>>
>
>WE SHOULD DESTROY THE VATICAN BY
>BURNING THE FUCKER DOWN!!!
then burn all the fucking churches
& kill the xtians by beating them to death with their fucking bibbles
THOMAS J HARDEN
In <331ef1ce...@news.ime.net> bRuBRu...@dAnGERoUsLy.com (bRuTUs
I wouldn't waste my time with the christians.
I don't want to sink to their own level.
They put many people to death because of there beliefs
which they want to inflict on other people.
Timothy Consodine
Bill Silverthorn <w...@pobox.com> wrote in article
<331c5b29...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
Bill Silverthorne is a real-life example of the end product of the
Protestant Reformation:
What Is Liberalism?
Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle
of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith.
On the principle that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of
Revelation according to the dictates of private judgment, it gives birth to
endless differences and contradictions. Impelled by the law of its own
impotence, through lack of any decisive voice of authority in matters of
faith, it is forced to recognize as valid and orthodox any belief that
springs from the exercise of private judgment. Therefore does it finally
arrive, by force of its own premises, at the conclusion that one creed is
as good as another; it then seeks to shelter its inconsistency under the
false plea of liberty of conscience. Belief is not imposed by a
legitimately and divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and
freely from the unrestricted exercise of the individual's reason or caprice
upon the subject matter of Revelation. The individual or sect interprets as
it pleases--rejecting or accepting what it chooses. This is popularly
called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity, on the
same plea, rejects all Revelation, and Protestantism, which handed over the
premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for it is clear
that one who, under the plea of rational liberty, has the right to
repudiate any part of Revelation that may displease him, cannot logically
quarrel with one who, on the same ground, repudiates the whole. If one
creed is as good as another, on the plea of rational liberty, on the same
plea, no creed is as good as any. Taking the field with this fatal weapon
of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed and taken the very citadel of
Protestantism, helpless against the foe of its own making.
LIBERALISM IS A SIN
BY DR. DON FELIX SARDA Y SALVANY
TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC. Rockford, Illinois 61105
Ch. 2
Gareth
Timothy Consodine <timo...@flash.net> wrote in article
<01bc28ef$c943f4a0$c3ccb5cf@default>...
That's what you think.
GG
Gareth
bRuTUs dANgeRoUsLy <bRuBRu...@dAnGERoUsLy.com> wrote in article
<331ef1ce...@news.ime.net>...
> ><33178D...@hell.com>...
> >> Robert Tully wrote:
> >> >
> >> > g...@nutracorps.org writes: > What do they do if they get HORNY?
> >> > > Do they take matters into hand?
> >> > > Do they take a Harlot to their bosom?
> >> > > What?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I guess your supposed to shut up and go to confession
> >>
> >>
> >> No, just go out and get laid and don't tell anybody.
> >>
> >
> >WE SHOULD DESTROY THE VATICAN BY
> >BURNING THE FUCKER DOWN!!!
> & kill the xtians by beating them to death with their fucking bibbles
>
I'd prever to use a hammer but that's the kind of guy I am.
GG
Timothy Consodine
Bill Silverthorn <w...@pobox.com> wrote in article
<331c5b29...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> "Timothy Consodine" <timo...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>
be
> >joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are
no
> >longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let
not
> >man put asunder.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again
about
> >this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and
marries
> >another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her
husband
> >and marries another, she commits adultery.”
>
> All true ... up to the context that you left it .... but then you say:
>
> >Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy
>
> ARGGHGHGHGH!!!! I can't believe you said such an insulting thing!!!
> This basic mis-interpretation of scripture should be nominated to the
halls
> of "missteps of the fundamentalists" ....
Really? And what teaching authority on earth is there to back up your
"interpretation" of our Bible?
Jesus Christ speaks through His church - the one that you abandoned. Who
is Jesus talking about when He says:
Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me,
and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Is He speaking of 25,000 different sects quibbling over their own
interpretation of the Bible?
Not according to the Bible - for the Holy Spirit cannot be the author of
such confusion:
John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
that I have said to you.
John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the
truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he
will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He
will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Again, you are a prime example of the Moral Relativism which is destroying
western civilization.
"...The individual or sect interprets as it pleases--rejecting or accepting
Timothy Consodine
> > You can't destroy the church, but Jesus wants you in it for the
salvation
> > of your soul.
>
> That's what you think.
It's also true.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no
one comes to the Father, but by me. 7 If you had known me, you would have
known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.”
Aaron Able
Bill Silverthorn wrote:
>
> m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>
> >In article <01bc26e3$8b3a0b80$e28489d0@default>, "Suzanna"
> >
> >>> The pope is preaching what Jesus Christ Himself preached (because that is
> >>> his job)
> >>>
> >>> Matt 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except
> >>on
> >>> the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a
> >>> divorced woman commits adultery.
> >>hell can you committ adultery???
> >
> >If you read the context, Suzanna, you'll see that Jesus is saying that
> >divorce is in fact a futile attempt to dissolve something that cannot
> >be dissolved; in other words, that they ARE still married. Which is
> >the whole point.
> >
> >>>her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
> >>>adultery.”
> >>
> >>**No wonder I have so much trouble with catholicism.....
> >
> >That's true, Suzanna; anyone who argues for their own point of view by
> >simply offering the opinion that the opposing point of view is "bullshit"
> >would have trouble with Catholicism. Refuting it, that is.
>
> Poppy-cock, Mark -
>
> Suzanna is just showing her frustration with Catholicism when it comes out
> with such silliness .....
>
>
> in the area of the bedroom with marriage, whether it was the first marriage
> and now sadly the second, than any other institution on earth. There is
> no need, let alone any scriptural basis for such looney interpretations of
> marriage. Divorce and re-marriage = serial polygamy .... really? Who
> is this quote from ??? I certainly hope not the Vatican ... must be
> another self appointed "spokesman" for ....
>
> Bill
I will believe g-d in this maatter when I see it in his own hand, not
some relic of a book written by someone else, so go get the original
transcripe of the words please have a notory verify it
Thanks, I like facts not fiction or fairy tales,
jir...@aol.com
Whoever typed that list of Popes needs a life!
bitBASTARD
On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 13:54:39 GMT, "Gareth" <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
my kinda guy
how 'bout beating xtians to death with a crucifix
or D. all the above
Roxanne
On 5 Mar 1997 14:07:17 GMT, "Timothy Consodine" <timo...@flash.net>
wrote:
>Gareth <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><01bc296b$b4b91840$4042...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>...
>> > You can't destroy the church, but Jesus wants you in it for the
>salvation
>> > of your soul.
>>
>> That's what you think.
>
>It's also true.
>
>John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no
>one comes to the Father, but by me. 7 If you had known me, you would have
>known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.”
>
What a way to profane such a moving and eloquent idea! Jesus didn't
say, "I am the CHURCH..." He said he is "the way, the truth, and the
life"... as you so eloquently pointed out. He never said anything in
favor of the damn church. In fact at many points he was heatedly
against it!!!
You idiiots. Will you ever learn? Jesus was saying that you get to
the "Father" (i.e. the "Kingdom of God", which is "within"; it is not
a *place*) through:
the WAY,
the TRUTH,
and the LIFE...
not the JESUS or the CHURCH.
Symbolists! Why can't you make such a simple connection? It's just
a METAPHOR. Jesus sets himself up as a representative of "truth".
When you see the "truth" you will see the "Father". It's that simple.
It only has to do with "heaven" or "hell" in so far as "heaven" and
"hell" are states of being within yourself.
"The Kingdom of God (the Father) is within."
"God (the Father) is Love."
Find the Love... and you've just found the Spirit within yourself.
Find the Spirit within yourself, and you have had a rebirth of the
Spirit. It has nothing to do with accepting "Jesus" as your personal
Lord and Savior.
Here's what it is, people. Listen closely.
Accept Love as your Personal Lord and Savior. Allow love, compassion,
and concern to dominate everything you do, and to govern your
interactions with others. Not the Bible. Not the Church. Not
Christianity. Not your Minister or Pastor or Priest's interpretation
of Biblical Scriptures. Not Fear, or Anger, or Hatred, or a Lust for
Superiority. Just Love. Plain and simple.
There. That's what Jesus was trying to tell you. Choose anything
other than this, and you have not chosen Jesus. Choose anything other
than this, and you have no business calling yourself a "Christian".
The Bishop
bRuTUs dANgeRoUsLy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 10:20:51 GMT, "Gareth" <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Lord Gilbert T. Sullivan <ga...@hell.com> wrote in article
> ><33178D...@hell.com>...
> >> Robert Tully wrote:
> >> >
> >> > g...@nutracorps.org writes: > What do they do if they get HORNY?
> >> > > Do they take matters into hand?
> >> > > Do they take a Harlot to their bosom?
> >> > > What?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I guess your supposed to shut up and go to confession
> >>
> >>
> >> No, just go out and get laid and don't tell anybody.
> >>
> >
> >WE SHOULD DESTROY THE VATICAN BY
> >BURNING THE FUCKER DOWN!!!
> then burn all the fucking churches
> & kill the xtians by beating them to death with their fucking bibbles
I agree. Burn all the Church's. I like Popeye's Chicken better anyway.
(;
Roxanne
>Gareth <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><01bc296b$b4b91840$4042...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>...
>> > You can't destroy the church, but Jesus wants you in it for the
>salvation
>> > of your soul.
>>
>> That's what you think.
>
julian
Couldn't resist a few observations as I was passing through this
section. First, people who are deeply afraid of someday being called to
account for their actions often react to Christianity - and for that
matter, Judaism - with violent rhetoric, although it is hoped that such
people will someday be able to use words with more than four letters in
communicating their paranoid ideas. Second, in the major cities I have
visited, I can't remember ever once encountering a free hospital,
homeless shelter, soup kitchen, orphanage, AIDS hospice, cancer hospice
or other such establishment set up by atheists, new-agers, druid/pagan
groups or self-proclaimed intellectuals. The best example of
Christianity in action may well be Mother Teresa of Calcutta; the best
that the godless can hold up as an example is, uhh..uhh.uhh..Bill
Clinton? Madelyn Murray O'Hair? Deng Xiaou Peng? Sorry, I can't seem to
think of any of the great humanitarians who represent them. At any rate,
let us hope to see more actual dialoge on an adult level, and less "look
at meeee" ranting and obscenities. Pax vobiscum.
THOMAS J HARDEN
Talk about being rhetorical
D1:->
Ezekiel Krahlin
Speaking of burning the Vatican:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
heavenly tale gratis to anyone, anywhere, any time...under
condition that story remains intact and complete, including
title and credit to the original author: Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(ekra...@fog.net).
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE SEVEN FORBIDDEN NUMBERS
(a parable for the 21st century)
Copyright 1989 by Ezekiel Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
The Seven Forbidden Numbers have long been held secret in a dark,
locked chamber of The Vatican Library. The Pope alone possesses
a key to The Dark Chamber, but The Door has only been open
once...and that was to accept the guardianship of the papyrus
containing The Seven Numbers, some time in the year 404 A.D. The
Door has, since then, remained tightly shut in the shadow of
seven guards, seven lambs, and seven seals. The Seven Forbidden
Numbers are also sometimes referred to by Trustees as "The
Sinister Seven," "The Forty-Nine Lies," and (rarely) "The
Blasphemous Sesseract."
As the serviceman for their dehumidifier system, I was not, of
course, permitted anywhere near The Dark Chamber, to do my
necessary and usual maintenance on the air ducts. (I was not
even supposed to have any knowledge of The Dark Chamber.) But
over many years I have managed to eliminate all obstructions
between a restroom vent, and the one that opens to The Dark
Chamber. Among the many steel plates connecting one duct to
another, there now exist a number of false plates through which a
little Italian could crawl around The Labyrinth to find refuge in
The Black Room.
I say unto you: there are many, many wondrous things in There,
in addition to the Seven Forbidden Numbers! Yea, I was but a
humble laborer of modest birth and modest name (Luigi Unicorno)
with a fourth-grade education, until I stumbled into The Room and
onto The Books! The simplest Book, and therefore the first one I
studied, was called "Dick and Dick," which taught me how to Read.
Though I am known across the valley for my prowess with the boys
and ladies, I fainted many times over its fiendish illustrations,
and climaxed over each pretentious tale.
Seven years have passed since I read the Last Book and, during
that time, have risen from novice to apprentice to master to
slave to pervert. There is no Higher in this world or the next
world, than I! Yea, though there is much Golden Lore in The
Books, not one surpasses the Eternal Wisdom expressed in a single
sheet of papyrus that I found laying at the Foot of The Lamb! And
I, the Chosen, care not to keep The Seven Forbidden Numbers
secret any more...though I lose all I have gained, including my
soul!
(Warning! This is your chance to back out now. Do not, I
repeat, do not scroll down beyond this warning unless you place
no value on your immortal destiny!)
descending into
the abyss
of no
return
:( .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
yahh! oh god no!
!!! HERE THEY ARE, FOLKS !!!
THE SEVEN FORBIDDEN NUMBERS
Want to know what it's like to have a unicorn rest its head on your
shoulder? Dial 976-UNIC. (recorded)
Discover the joy of 666! Dial 976-6SIX. (recorded)
Visit the Bedroom Of The Gods (video screen required)! Dial 976-PEEP.
(recorded)
Safe sex with the Devil! Dial 976-TAIL. (live)
Steal the Family Jewels from the Halls of Valhalla! Dial 976-GRAB.
(recorded)
Watch Greek soldiers and boys prepare for the Battle of Armageddon
(video screen required)! Dial 976-TROY. (live)
Learn Jesus's and Circe's secret of turning men into pigs! Dial
976-OINK. (recorded)
---end of tale, and your innocence-------------------
---
(Hail, Athenia...brave new nation!)
Please keep our dialogues public; private mail by request only.
Hostile private replies will be re-posted in the public arena.
Lord Gilbert
Good piece!
I enjoyed reading it.
Timothy Consodine
THE TRUE CHURCH?
1. What is the Catholic idea of the Church of Christ?
The Church is that visible society of men upon earth which was founded by
Jesus Christ, guaranteed by Him to exist all days until the end of the
world, and sent by Him to teach all nations with His own authority. It is
one definite society for man's spiritual good, and its members are bound
together by the profession of the same and complete Christian faith, by the
same Sacraments and worship, and by submission to the same spiritual
authority vested in the successors of St. Peter the present successor being
the Bishop of Rome.
2. When did the Church established by Christ get the name Catholic?
Christ left the adoption of a name for His Church to those whom He
commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He
established, "My Church" (Matt. 16:18), "the Church" (Matt. 18:17). In
order to have a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to
have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors
we find St. Ignatius (50-107 A.D.) using the Greek word "Katholicos"
(universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by
Christ. St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the
Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used
for the first time. St. Augustine, when speaking about the Church of
Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings.
3. What positive proof have you that the Catholic Church is the only true
Church?
The proof lies in the fact that the Catholic Church alone corresponds
exactly to the exact religion established by Christ. Now the Christian
religion is that religion which:
(a) Was founded by Christ personally;
(b) Has existed continuously since the time of Christ;
(c) Is Catholic or universal, in accordance with Christ's command to go to
all the world and teach all nations;
(d) Demands that all her members admit the same doctrine;
(e) Exercises divine authority over her subjects, since Christ said that
if a man would not hear the Church he would be as the heathen.
Now the Catholic Church alone can claim:
(a) To have been founded by Christ personally. All other Churches
disappear as you go back through history. Christ said, "Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build My Church." (Matt. 16, 18.) There are many
claimants to the honor of being Christ's Church. But among all non-Catholic
Churches, we find one built on a John Wesley; another on a Martin Luther;
another on a Mrs. Eddy, etc. But the Catholic Church alone can possibly
claim to have been built on Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and onetime
Bishop of Rome.
(b) To have existed in all the centuries since Christ.
(c) That every one of her members admits exactly the same essential
doctrines.
(d) To be Catholic or universal.
(e) To speak with a voice of true authority in the name of God.
4. Where in Scripture does it mention that Christ founded any such system?
In general, Christ terms His Church a kingdom, which supposes some
organized authority. However the explicit steps in the establishing of an
authoritative hierachy are clear. Christ chose certain special men. "You
have not chosen Me: but I have chosen you." Jn. 15:16. He gave them His own
mission. "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send " Jn. 20:21. This
commission included His teaching authority: "Teach all nations ...
whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt. 28:19-20; His power to sanctify
"Baptising them," Matt. 28:19; forgiving sin, "Whose sins you shall
forgive, they are forgiven," Jn. 20:23; offering sacrifice, "Do this for a
commemoration of Me." 1Cor. 11:24; His legislative or disciplinary power
"He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you despises Me," Lk.
10:16; "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven,"
Matt. 18:18. "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the
heathen," Matt. 18:17. The Apostles certainly exercised these powers from
the beginning. Thus we read in the Acts of the Apostles, "They were all
persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles," 2:42. St. Paul himself did
not hesitate to excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian. 1Cor. 5:35. And he
wrote to the Hebrews, "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them." Heb.
14:17.
5. Cannot the Congregationalist make out an equally strong case for a
universal Spiritual Brotherhood, but with local independence of churches?
There is no evidence of independent local churches in Scripture, nor in
primitive documents. There is evidence that there were distinct groups of
Christians in various places, just as there are Catholics in New York under
one Bishop, and Catholics in London under another. All true Christians
certainly formed a universal spiritual brotherhood, as Catholics do today;
but local autonomy existed only in the sense that there were Bishops in
charge of various localities, the Bishops themselves being subject to St.
Peter, and after his death, to the successor of St. Peter.
6. Whilst I walk in the Spirit, I do not think it necessary to be subject
to any visible organization.
You may say that you believe it unnecessary. But pay attention to the words
of Christ I have just quoted. He thought it necessary, and He has the right
to map out the kind of religion we accept. If Christians had to accept such
disciplinary authority in the time of the Apostles, they must accept it
now. Christianity is Christianity. It does not change with the ages. If it
did, it would lose its character, and not remain the religion of Christ, to
which religion alone He attached His promises. And remember His prediction
that His flock would be one fold with one shepherd. Jn. 10:14-16. You would
have sheep, not gathered into one fold, but straying anywhere and
everywhere, having no shepherd with any real authority over them.
7. Why do you reserve the Hierarchical authority to men? Why not give
women a chance?
Nowhere did Christ ever commission women to teach in His name and with His
authority. St. Paul explicitly forbids women to attempt to exercise such
functions. People who would ordain women in the Church seem to believe that
they know more about Christianity than St. Paul. 1Cor. 14, 34-35, says:
"Let women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted them to
speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn
anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a
woman to speak in the Church." America is today a marvelous example of how
people obey the Bible. 1Tim. 11, 11-12 says, "Let the women learn in
silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use
authority over the man; but to be in silence."
8. Protestant principles demand that the Catholic Church is wrong. They
must say that the Catholic Church is wrong or else why are they
Protestants?
Yet they must also admit that not one of their denominations has any right
to declare itself to be the one True Church. And that, for the simple
reason that Christ did not establish any institution which could be known
by men to be His Church.
9. You Catholics claim to see what cannot be seen.
We Catholics claim that Christ did establish a visible and discoverable
Church. You Protestants do not deny that Christ established a church of
some kind. But you must deny that the Catholic Church is the True Church
prior to the Reformation, or there could be no excuse for setting up the
Protestant Churches. Yet, since these Protestant Churches did not exist
prior to the Reformation, where was the True Church then? There is but one
way out. It was there invisible! And it is here today invisible.
10. Luther said that the True Church consisted of the Saints, the Saints
being true believers whose sins are not imputed to them, but who have the
merits of Christ imputed to them instead. People belong to the True Church
by the invisible bond of grace. And as no man can judge who are in God's
grace and who are not, no man can definitely locate the True Church in this
world. From this we can say that the Catholic Church must be wrong in her
claim to be the True Church precisely because she can be identified and
located in this world. The Protestant Churches must at least be more right
because they don't claim to be right. For although the Church is for men,
it is undiscoverable by men. The only right answer to the question, "Where
is the True Church?" is that nobody can say.
Luther's idea is not antiquated by any means. Recently I read a Protestant
clergyman's article in a Sunday newspaper, maintaining that "the Church
does not make saints; saints make the Church." But alas for the theory!
Those alone would then be members of the Church who are in a state of
grace. "Fall into sin and you fall out of the Church" would then be the
rule! Yet Christ says clearly that many not in the grace and friendship of
God will belong to His Church. He likened that Church to a net holding good
and bad fish. Matt. 13:47-48. The net was to be quite good, but there would
be bad fish within it. It was to be as a field with cockle and wheat
growing side by side. Matt. 13:24-30. Or again, the members of the Church
would be like the ten virgins, five with oil in their lamps, and five
without. Matt. 25:1-12. It is certain, then, that the Church is not
composed only of those with God's grace within their souls. Some other bond
must be found which unites men within the fold of the Church of Christ.
11. How about the invisible theory?
The invisible theory is useless, unreasonable, and against the teachings of
Christ. That any Protestant Church 'is the visible Church of Christ, the
authorized guide of all nations, directly established, commissioned, and
guaranteed by Him, will not bear examination. The Catholic Church alone
fulfills requirements. Christ certainly intended that men of good will
should be able to find and become members of the True Church of this world.
His Church was to be a visible organization.
12. What do you mean by a visible organization?
When I say that the True Church must be a visible Church I intend the word
in a very special sense. As I can find the visible brick building
representing a Presbyterian, Episcopalian or Lutheran Church in the same
sense I can certainly discover the visible building used by the community.
But that is not the sense I intend when speaking of the visibility of the
True Church. I mean that the True Church must be obviously existent in this
world, and that it must always have obvious signs distinguishing it as the
True Church from all other claimants.
13. Did Christ establish any Church?
Christ certainly intended His Church to be visible and discoverable, not
only as an existent fact in this world but as being His. Talk of a purely
invisible bond of grace fails utterly in the presence of Christ's words
likening His Church to a city which, set upon a hill, "cannot be hidden."
Matt. 5:14. If He establishes a Church to which He invites all men to come,
it must be a Church discernible as His. The Apostles and the early Fathers
condemn schism, which can only mean separation from a visible, historical,
and organized Church. Were the Church not a discernible Church, the
forbidding of schism would be absurd. No man would know whether he had left
the True Church or not. St. Cyprian who died as early as 258 A. D. had no
misgivings on the subject. "Whoever is separated from the Church," he
wrote, "is separated from the promises of Christ; nor will he who leaves
the Church of Christ obtain the salvation of Christ. He becomes a foreigner
and an enemy. One cannot have God as a Father who has not the Church as his
mother." If a man who is separated from the Church is separated from the
promises of Christ, it is of the utmost importance that he should be able
to know which is the True Church to which he must cling.
14. You Catholics seem to be dead sure that the Catholic Church is the one
Church of Christ and that all others are mistaken.
I can reply that they do not only seem to be so, but that they actually are
dead sure. What would be the use of any bureau for the dispensing of
authentic information, if the officials had to am inquirers that there was
not even certainty as to whether they had gone to the right inquiry office!
No. The True Church which is really Christ's own bureau for the dispensing
of authentic information to mankind in His name, must be visibly
discernible as His. The invisible and indiscernible Church theory is
impossible, and, as I have said, opposed to the will of Christ.
15. Are not Protestants brought up with the idea that it is not possible
for any human being to locate the True Church?
Yes, they are all brought up with that impression and so they continue in
religious matters to wander where they will, like people in a forest, who
follow any line of tracks without bothering to ask where it leads. And they
so love the risky adventure of experimenting for themselves that they
search Scripture for every possible text which they think will support
them.
16. Give us a sample of their Scriptural texts.
They will say that the Church is to be like, "a treasure hidden in the
field," Matt. 13:44, quite overlooking the fact that Christ was not then
speaking of the nature of the Church, but of the zeal one should have in
searching for it. And the treasure was certainly visibly discernible when
the digger came across it, or he would dig forever in vain. Again, they
will cry in triumph, "Christ said that His kingdom is not of this world,"
as though that denies its existence in this world. They have urged too,
that the Church must be essentially a spiritual society, and that a
spiritual society is not visible. But they speak as if the Church were a
society of purely spiritual beings such as angels. The Church is spiritual
in its origin, means, and purpose, to a great extent. But it is composed of
visible, human beings, united by external profession of the same worship
and submission to the same discipline. Those who are united with these
things within the Catholic Church are alone members of the visible Church
established by Christ. Those who are not, are outside the True Church.
Infidels and pagans who have never been baptized are outside the True
Church. So also are heretics who do not profess externally the same faith
with the Catholics. Schismatics, too, who reject the discipline of the
Catholic Church, are outside of the True Fold. The True Church can be
discovered and there are external tests by which we can discover who do and
who do not belong to it.
17. Is not one religion as good as another?
That seems like a nice broad-minded principle. Common logic tells us that
it is unsound. I could better understand the ignorance of all religion. I
know, too, that very few of those who use the explanation really believe
that one religion is as good as another. Nonbelievers usually meant that
one religion is as bad as another, generally intending that Catholicism was
the worst of the lot. But Christ in His wisdom foresaw the rise of false
Christs and substituted forms of professing Christianity. He must have
endowed His Church with certain notable characteristics.
18. Then what are the certain distinguishing signs and characteristics of
a True Church?
Unity, holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity are the signs of a True
Church. There can be no doubt that Christ at least intended Unity to be one
of the outstanding signs of His True Church. Even Protestants admit that.
Yet since they want to be regarded as members of Christ's Church even while
they are divided externally from each other, and above all from the
Catholic Church, they have to think out a special scheme of Unity adjusted
to their circumstances. If only we can believe that all Christ's references
to Unity are concerned with invisible bonds of grace, and love, and good
intentions all will be well. So they kept repeating such expressions as,
"We all intended to serve Christ," or "We are all going the one road," as
though the one Christ or the one road idea perfectly safeguarded the unity
intended by the Founder of Christianity. Let us be one in the desire to
serve Christ, and we need not bother about the way in which we do so. Unity
in belief does not matter. The Episcopalian who believes in Episcopacy and
the Presbyterian who emphatically does not believe in Episcopacy rejoices
in all the unity that's required. The Seventh Day Adventist who believes
that the Pope is the 666 of Revelation, and the Catholic who believes that
he is the very Vicar of Christ but no, that won't do. It is hardly fair to
bring the Catholic Church into it. Our Protestant forefathers had to leave
Roman Catholicism, and any talk of unity with Catholicism is, of course,
absurd. We Protestants mean unity amongst ourselves only, and in that
unity, unity of belief does not matter.
19. Does unity in faith imply unity in worship?
If we turn from unity in fait to unity in worship we find the same loose
principles. Catholics may believe that the essential form of Christian
worship consists in the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass; Protestants
may believe that is essentially wrong, and that the preaching of the Word
of God is the essential thing. Yet, despite this, the acceptance of neither
the one nor of the other is important to unity. Let us be kind to each
other, united with good intentions, and it matters not whether we go north,
south, east, or west in the matters of worship.
20. How about discipline?
The same idea holds good where discipline is concerned. Unity does not
require subjection to the same religious authority. Rome insists upon
telling her subjects what they are to do, It is fatal to freedom when all
Catholics are held down in intellectual slavery with a Pope doing all the
thinking for the entire Catholic world. How can a man wander where he
pleases if tied by obedience to a guide? Catholics seem to think that unity
means negation in a desire to get to Heaven, without our having to walk
along any particular road to get there! Let each man be a law to himself.
If a man wishes to lose his way, he must be free to lose his way. Where is
the element of "glorious adventure" in submitting to the cut and dried
discipline of the Catholic Church?
21. Did Christ intend a unity?
All Christians admit that Christ intended a unity of some kind to prevail
amongst His followers. But we cannot deny for ourselves what type of unity
must prevail. The "all going the one way" type of unity, whilst each goes
his own way, is useless if it be quite foreign to the mind of Christ. Who
can accept the invention of Protestants who, noting the numberless ways in
which they are divided, define the unity required to suit themselves in
their present circumstances and in such a way that they may remain where
they are.
22. What then is the unity insisted upon by Christ?
Christ commissioned His 'Church to teach all things whatsoever He
commanded, Matt. 28:20, and He taught a definite something, not a bundle of
contradictions. Those who believed all that He had taught would at least be
one in faith. Again, He demanded unity in worship. "One Lord, one faith,
one baptism," Eph. 4:46, was to be the rule and baptism belongs to worship.
The early Christians were told distinctly by St. Paul that participation in
the same Eucharistic worship probably was essential to the unity. "We,
being many, are one bread, one body; all that partake of one bread." 1 Cor.
10:17. In other words, "The one Christ is to be found in Holy Communion,
and we, however numerous we may be, are one in Him if we partake of the
same Holy Communion."
23. Has discipline in government anything to do with unity'?
Unity in discipline in government stands out above all. Our Lord has said,
"I will build My Church," Matt. 16:18, not, "My Churches." He had expressed
His view of divisions when He said, "Every kingdom divided against itself
shall be made desolate," Matt. 12:25, and in establishing His own Kingdom,
the Church, He took good care to insist upon the authority necessary for
the continued existence of any society. His prayer "that they may be one as
Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee," Jn. 17: 21, and His prediction, "There
shall be one fold and one shepherd," John 10:16, leave no room for doubt as
to His mind.
24. You believe therefore in unity of faith, worship, and discipline?
Yes, we do, and Protestants proclaim their divergence from the Catholic
Church in all three points and even among themselves. Yet no one can deny
the existence of this unity within the Catholic fold. Catholics of all
nationalities receive exactly the same teachings; their worship is
essentially the same in all countries; they obey the same authority. I have
heard men condemning this rigid unity of the Catholic Church, and I have
heard others admire it. "Poor Catholics," people will say, "they have to
follow instructions." Or again, men have said to me, "Your Church is a
marvelous piece of organization."
25. How do you preserve your unity of faith, worship and discipline?
That question awakens the obvious reply that it is Just too marvelous to
have done it at all. The formation of the unity of intelligences and wills
among men of various nationalities, perpetually antagonistic and contending
about everything but the faith, worship, and discipline demanded by the
Catholic Church is a work self-evidently divine. Robert Hugh Benson Wisely
remarked, "It is impossible to make men of one nation agree even on
political matters; yet the Catholic Church makes men of all nations agree
on religious doctrines. As a student at Cambridge University I found in one
lecture hall men of one nation and ten religions. As a student at the
University in Rome I found men of ten nations and one religion. Is it
conceivable that merely human power makes such a thing possible?"
26. Has the Catholic Church alone this remarkable unity?
I have studied Protestantism through and through. It has no efficacious
principle of unity. In falling back on the Bible as each may interpret it
for himself, it is falling back, not upon a cause of unity but upon the
very cause of divisions. Thus we find a different Protestantism in
countries, and even in the same countries. And within the same individual
Protestant denominations we find diversity amongst members as regards
doctrine, worship, and discipline. The only unity which one can concede to
Protestantism is a negative unity, in so far as its supporters unite in
rejecting the Catholic Church. The difference is in the unity Christ
promises, and it could not possibly identify Protestantism as the true form
of Christianity since it is common to Protestants, Jews, Schismatics,
Atheists, and Pagans the world over. It is only by positive unity in faith
and discipline that we have one of the signs by which Christ's True Church
can be located in this world.
27. Would you say that Catholicism is all holy and Protestantism is
unholy?
I cannot but maintain that Protestantism is devoid of that holiness which
Christ appointed as one of the signs of the True Church. Christ certainly
intended a quite evident holiness to be a sign whereby men might surely
locate the genuine institution He established. "I sanctity Myself," He
said, "that they may be sanctified in truth." (Jn. 16:1-19.) "I have
appointed you, that you should bring forth fruit." (Jn. 15:16.) St. Paul
tells us very clearly of our Lord's intention. "Christ loved the Church and
delivered Himself up for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the
laver of water in the word of life; that He might present it to Himself a
glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it
should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5:25-27.) Holiness, therefore,
is to be a sign of the True Church.
28. And so the Catholic Church is the only holy church?
Yes. I am not saying this because I feel that I have to justify the
Catholic Church by hook or by crook. Truth for its own sake compels me to
say so. But today I see the Catholic Church as the one great guardian of
morality and virtue. There is not a single dogma in her teaching which does
not tend to confirm in us the will to serve God, whether it be the dogma of
our creation by God, or of our redemption by His Son, or of our going back
to God and to our judgment. The dogma of hell certainly has never yet been
an inducement to sin; nor has the desire to serve God ever prompted its
denial. The dogma of Purgatory is a constant reminded of the necessity of
purifying ourselves from all traces of sin by Christian mortification and
self-denial. If we turn from dogmatic teachings to moral laws, I challenge
any man to keep the laws of the Catholic Church, and not be the better man
for it; or to violate them without degenerating. No one sincerely joins the
Catholic Church without desiring a loftier standard of living; no one
leaves save for a lower standard. People point to ex-Priests and to lapsed
Catholics. But why have they gone? It is not that they have found the
Church untrue, but because they were untrue to their own obligations. They
do not leave because they understand her, for the Church today is suffering
most from intellectual opposition. The Catholic Church has labored as no
other to lift men above the natural and the sensual, fighting for purity of
morals, the holiness of marriage, and the rights of God and conscience in
every department of life. Outward respectability and mere humanitarianism
can never, in her eyes, replace that true supernatural virtue and charity
which demand that the daily life of a Christian, personal, domestic, and
social, must be inspired by love of God.
29. Do you claim that all Catholics are saints?
it would be a lie to say that every Catholic individual is necessarily
better than every individual Protestant. But the Catholic Church is holy in
her teachings and principles, and in a remarkable way in her members in
general. At least ordinary holiness is evident from the fact that Catholics
do try to keep God's laws conscientiously, often making great sacrifices to
do so. They are often ridiculed as fools for their efforts to do so, by
those who regard themselves as advocates of liberty. If, through frailty,
they sin, they are aware of their sin, and are uneasy until they recover
God's grace and friendship. They can never accept the idea of being in sin
with equanimity.
30. If Catholicism is so good, what of bad Catholics? And if Protestantism
is evil, what of good Protestants?
Yet the solution of this problem is not so very difficult. As regards bad
Catholics, it is not necessary to the holiness of the Catholic Church that
every single member must be holy. Christ predicted that sinners would be
found in the True Church. There will be bad fish in the good net. Worthless
cockle will be found growing side by side with the good wheat. But bad
Catholics are those who are not living up to the teachings of their Church.
I can account for the bad Catholics without injury to the holiness of the
Church. I cannot account for the canonized Saints without admitting that
holiness. The Saints themselves will attribute their goodness to the
influence of the Church. Not a Saint has ever wished to leave the Church.
No Catholic ever leaves the Catholic Church to join another Church that
will make him more holy. That would have been the very last thought which
could have entered his head. If Catholics are evil, then, it is in spite of
their Church, not because of it. On the other hand, if Protestants are
good, as so many undoubtedly are, it is in spite of their Protestantism,
not because of it.
31. Who do you say Protestantism is devoid of the holiness indicated by
Christ for His Church?
I am setting down the simple truth. Even today, Protestantism cannot
preserve Christian standards intact. Articles of faith have gone overboard.
Mortification and fasting are not required. The evangelical counsels of
poverty, chastity, and obedience, with their consequent inspiration of
monastic life are ignored. Protestant writings excuse, and even approve,
laxity in moral practice. Protestantism has not produced anything
equivalent to the canonized Catholic Saint. Many of the Sacraments of
Christ are not even acknowledged by Protestantism, whilst the heart has
been torn out of its worship by the loss of Christ's presence in the
Blessed Eucharist. Of spiritual authority there is scarcely a trace. The
very clergy are not trained in moral law, and cannot advise the laity as
they should, even were the laity willing to accept advice. The prevalent
notion,"Believe on Christ and be saved," tends of its very nature to lessen
the sense of necessity of personal virtue.
32. What about good holy Protestants ?
I say that their goodness was not due to their Protestantism, but was due
precisely to their refusal to follow Protestant principles. They were
illogically good.
33. Was Catholicism flourishing as a Holy Church when Protestantism began?
Protestantism was a movement of heated dissent. Error and rebellion took
the first Protestants from the Catholic Church, the various forms of error,
or the various countries in which the rebellion occurred, giving rise to
the various sects. But any goodness which the first Protestants took as
doctrinal baggage with them was derived from the Church they left. And any
apparent goodness in the teachings of Protestantism is still to be found in
the Catholic Church. Where, in the Catholic Church, cockle sown by the
enemy is found here and there amidst the wheat, Satan was wise enough to
allow some wheat here and there to remain amidst the cockle of
Protestantism. And it is the presence of this wheat which accounts for the
continued existence of Protestantism. But the wheat does not really belong
to Protestantism. It is a relic of Catholicism growing in alien soil. A
Catholic is good when he lives up to Catholic principles, refusing to
depart from them. A Protestant is good when he unconsciously acts on
Catholic principles, departing from those which are purely Protestant.
34. Do you deny any kind of movement for holiness in Protestantism?
If any Protestant Church makes any move toward the higher and more heroic
life by establishing, for instance, Religious Orders and Sisterhoods, it is
due to the reluctant admission into Protestantism of Catholic doctrines and
practices. It is due to an infiltration of Catholic ideals. Catholicism,
and not Protestantism, is responsible for such aspirations. In fact, the
loftier their aspirations, the less Protestant becomes the outlook of these
people upon Christianity; so much so, that the real Protestant protests
that such ideas are out of harmony with Protestantism altogether.
35. You trace the goodness of Protestants, then, to things not essentially
Protestant. Fidelity to the promptings of natural conscience partly
accounts for it, but that is not essentially Protestant. It is common to
all good men. The study of the Gospels, leading to a love of Christ and a
desire of virtue contributes its share also. But the Gospel is not proper
to Protestantism. It was not written by Protestants nor committed to their
keeping. But for the Catholic Church they would never have had the Gospels.
The goodness of Protestants, too, is partly due to God's grace, given to
them not because they are Protestants, but because they know no better, and
are of goodwill. God's mercy will not deprive them of the necessary means
of salvation when the fault is not their own.
36. You admit then that the really Protestant thing in Protestantism is
its spirit of independence of, and rebellion against, the authority of
Christ vested by Him in the Catholic Church.
Protestants who, by God's grace, become Catholics, have not to renounce a
single good principle. They renounce only what is evil, the principles
proper to Protestantism as such. They renounce its basic element of
protest, and submit to the directions of the Catholic Church. They enter
that one fold under one shepherd, which has inspired the lives of the
Saints, and which is ever urging all her members to bring forth that fruit
of holiness which she herself possesses. As the mother of spirituality, and
the agent of supernatural holiness in this world, the Catholic Church
stands out as the one accredited ambassador of Christ.
37. What do you mean by Apostolicity of the True Church?
We feel instinctively that the True Church ought to be Apostolic in origin.
Unfortunately, however, most non Catholics just take their religion for
granted, and do not see the difficulties of their own position until they
are pointed out to them. Above all is this the case with Apostolicity. Yet
there are few of them who do not see the difficulty when it is pointed out.
The thought that Protestantism did not begin until the year 1517, which is
just 1517 years too late for the man looking for the religion founded by
Christ Himself, can never lose its weight. But that simple statement of the
problem does not do full justice to the idea of Apostolicity, and we must
go more deeply into it.
38. Then how would you define the sign of Apostolicity? Apostolicity is
"That special characteristic by which the lawful, public, and uninterrupted
succession of Bishops, from the Apostles is continued in the Church; faith,
worship, and discipline remaining ever the same in all essential matters."
Without this it is impossible to maintain the identity of any given Church
today with that of the Apostles. Episcopal succession must be legitimate as
opposed to unlawful usurpation. It must be public, because we are dealing
with a public and visible 'society. It must be uninterrupted, because any
gaps would destroy all hopes of validly transmitted supernatural power. How
futile would be the attempts of a man to transmit a power confided to the
Apostles, if he himself had never received it!
39. What is the opinion of the early Fathers on Apostolicity?
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who died in the year 202 A.D., had no doubts
on this subject. "We must obey those in the Church," he wrote, "who have
true succession from the Apostles; for with their episcopal succession they
have received the gift of certainty in the truth according to God's holy
will. We must suspect all those who are cut off from this original
succession, whoever they may be." The mere fact that history speaks of such
things as schisms is a constant testimony to the necessity of submission to
Apostolic authority in the Church established by Christ. Schism or
division, is absolutely unintelligible without the admission of a lawful
authority from which it implies separation.
40. Does the Greek Church and the Anglican Church admit the necessity of
Apostolicity?
Yes, but ignore the conditions of true succession in order to maintain
their possession of it. But neither the Greeks nor Anglicans deny the
Apostolic succession of the Catholic Church. That Church rejoices in a
public, historically evident, and lawful continuation of power and
authority derived from the Apostles. A regressive study of history shows
that she can trace herself back through all the ages to the Apostles. Every
single name of the Bishops of Rome, from the present reigning Pontiff, Plus
XI, to St. Peter stands out in clear relief. Since the Pope is the head of
the Church, and those Bishops alone are lawful successors of the Apostles
who are in communion with him, the documentary history of Papal succession
is sufficient of itself to prove the Catholic position.
41. But those who wish above all to be free from the "irksome restraint"
of Papal jurisdiction will not so easily accept it. I have read with deep
curiosity and interest the efforts of Protestant writers to escape the
logical conclusion. They have employed all their power and research in
their attempts to account for the origin of the Catholic Church in times
subsequent to the Apostles. Some were wont to say that the present Catholic
Church is but a corruption of the original Apostolic Church, a corruption
which occurred in the middle ages, and which led to the Reformation. This
is the prevalent view amongst the uncritical but it is quite untenable
theologically and historically. Theologically the plain blunt Catholic
wharf laborer was right when he said, "What's the good of telling me that
the Catholic Church ever went bung when Christ said that it wouldn't go
bung? He said He would be with His Church all days till the end of the
world, and being God, He could do what He said He would do. And in any case
your Protestantism hasn't been all days in the world." If the Church were
guilty of teaching error for hundreds of years before the Reformation
reformed the Church then we must admit the world was 1,500 years without a
True Church and Christ failed to live up to his promise of not allowing the
gates of hell (the gates of error) to prevail against His Church. Matt.
16:18.
42. Has history forced Protestant scholars to change opinions?
Historically, critical scholars of Protestantism have been compelled to
"shift camp." History scouts the idea that the Catholic Church at the time
of the Reformation was but a corruption brought about in the middle ages.
Age after age prior to that time reveals an identical Church. Harnack, the
German critic, was forced back to the second century, and said that the
Catholic Church acquired its present form then. Seeberg, another of the
German critics, said that the idea of the Catholic Church as we know it now
arose with the Apostles themselves, but quite independently of the will of
Christ. They without warrant, imposed their Jewish notions of authority
upon the Christian Church. These theories are denials of documentary
evidence, or are supported by distortions of the sense of the evidence. The
one motive is ever present. Somehow or other, submission to the Apostolic
authority of the Catholic Church must he avoided! Few non-Catholics,
however, go so deeply into history as these more learned men. They are
content with more shallow objections, and cling to the idea of corruption
in the middle ages despite the abandoning of that position by their own
Protestant scholars as historically unsound. The average Protestant will
accuse the Catholic Church of the crime of change, of having added dogmas,
and of having built up a complex and superstitious worship. He does not
understand that a dogma is not a new doctrine, but simply a new and
definite statement of the original Apostolic doctrine. He does not see that
worship need not be absolutely immutable in every least secondary detail.
And he quite misses the question of lawful, public, and uninterrupted
transmission of Apostolic jurisdiction and authority.
43. Has the Church changed in her essential principles of faith, worship,
and discipline?
In her essential principles of faith, worship, and discipline, of course,
the Church is unchangeable. But she is a vital and organic society. She
must grow and develop even as a tree from a mustard seed. And the foliage
and blossoms of the tree do not interfere with its continuity from,
and identity with, the original seed. Such objections merely prove that
the Catholic Church is not dead and stagnant. But I have always found such
objections, very strange in these days, from people who are always
insisting upon progress. Of course, I know where the trouble lies. They
really do want progress without the retention of identity, and that is
where they part company with the Catholic position. the Catholic Church
insists upon identity with the Apostolic Church, steadily keeping her vital
evolution within the limits of principles laid down by Christ and the
Apostles.
44. Has Protestantism reformed Catholicism?
Protestantism involved an essential constitutional change. At best it
claims to have resuscitated an Apostolic Church which had perished an idea
quite foreign to the notion of Apostolicity. Apostolic doctrine has
suffered sadly, also, at its hands. Protestants deny today what they
taught yesterday. Episcopalians may have retained Hierarchical form, but
Episcopalian Bishops are not in the least conscious of Apostolic authority,
nor can they claim uninterrupted legitimate succession. To rebel against
the lawful authority of the Church, abandon it, and set up for oneself, is
no way to succeed by legitimate title to transmitted jurisdiction.
45. What do you mean by the schism of the Greek Church?
The very schism of the Greek Church means secession from the Universal
Church in direct violation of the constitution of that Church. prior to
their secession, the Greeks admitted the absolute necessity of union in the
bond of Apostolic authority with Rome. They admitted it at the Council of
Lyons in 1274, and again at the Council of Florence in 1439. But national
pride and political reasons accounted both for the original schism and the
refusal to heal it.
46. What does the term "Road to Rome" mean?
"The Road to Rome" means the "Apostolic road" which leads only to the
Catholic Church, and one who desires to find the True Church rapidly should
take that road. For the True Church is Apostolic in origin and continuity,
and must remain so till the end of time. Protestants broke with the
Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church on the core of corruptions in
teachings and practices. Yet more and more we notice Protestants borrowing
Catholic teachings and practices, urging that it was a great mistake to
abandon them at the Reformation! What they fail to see is this: the more
they prove that the Reformation was not justified, the more they increase
the guilt of their separation from the Apostolic jurisdiction legitimately
transmitted in the Catholic Church. Nor will the borrowing of Catholic
externals ever succeed in making them Catholics. There is no Catholicity
without genuine Apostolicity. There is but one way to be Catholic, and that
is to submit to the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church. To be a
Catholic, a man must become one; and no attempts which wander from the
"Apostolic Road" will ever succeed in leading anyone to the True Church of
Jesus Christ.
47. The fourth sign of the True Church is universality. Do you mean by
that "Catholicity"?
Minds are becoming less clouded. The old anti-Catholic bitterness is dying.
The word "Catholic" in the Creed is awakening a vague idea that somehow or
other we ought to be Catholics. Protestants, therefore, are beginning to
take their profession of belief in the Holy Catholic Church seriously. And
great is the confusion. Imagine the confusion if men came in the night and
planted at some crossroads a dozen sign posts with the same inscription,
but pointing in as many different directions, where hitherto there had been
but one! The wayfarer could not but be bewildered, unless he managed to
detect the more recently planted posts, and was thus able to discover the
direction indicated by the original sign post.
48. Has Catholicity lost its value as a sign of the True Church?
It cannot do so. And non-Catholic Churches which fondly believe that they
can share the privilege of inclusion in the Catholic Church can base their
claim only upon a misinterpretation of all that the word means. In its
right meaning, it can apply only to the Church of which I am a priest at
the present moment, and as I shall be for the rest of my life, of course.
Protestants have protested against our restricting the word to the "Roman
Catholic Church,"and they ask indignantly, "Where do we come in?" to which
we can make but one sincere reply, "You don't come in. You went out, and
one doesn't come in by going out!" The sign still exists, and but one
Church can rightly lay claim to it.
49. Did our Lord intend His Church to be Catholic?
By "Catholicity" I mean that characteristic of the True Church by which,
whilst remaining ever one and the same, it is adapted to the needs of all
nations, and has become conspicuously numerous and universal in this world.
That our Lord intended His Church to be Catholic in this sense is most
evident in Scripture. He died for all men, and His Church must be for all
men. His Commission to the Apostles was that they should teach all nations,
being witnesses to Him to the uttermost parts of the earth. Acts 1, 8.
"This Gospel," He said, "will be preached in the whole world fora testimony
to all nations." Matt. XXIV, 14. St. Paul expressly declares the intention
of the Church to obey Christ by preaching to all nationalities, and no
longer in a restricted way to the Jews alone. But always he insisted upon
the retention of strict unity, forbidding heresy and schism."Let there be
no schisms among you." I Cor. 1, 10, and, "a man that is a heretic avoid,"
Titus III, 10, leave no doubts as to his mind.
50. Is universal diffusion necessary as a sign of the True Church?
A universal diffusion of a united Church will be a distinctive sign of the
True Church. The actual diffusion, of course, had to be gradual. Christ
Himself indicated this by His parables of the mustard seed, and of the
leaven in the bread. But always the Church had the right and the power of
universal expansion as surely within herself as the acorn contains all the
principles necessary for its evolution into an oak tree. Actual expansion
commenced on the very day of Pentecost, and has been going on ever since.
Indeed the promises of Christ imply that His Church will be conspicuously
numerous more numerous, and more widespread than any rival institution set
up by the false Christs of the ages.
51. How many belong to your Church?
Our Church has practically [431 million subjects in 1937; est. 1 billion in
1995], a number not attained by all the Greek and Protestant Churches taken
together. And today we are confronted by the spectacle of the Catholic
Church still expanding, whilst even in Protestant countries, Protestantism
is losing its power over the souls of men. In the Catholic Church God has
inspired an ever burning interest in the foreign missions, and the Pope is
insisting upon the training and consolidating of a native clergy as soon as
possible, that missionaries may be free to move on to yet other regions.
And always identity of faith and worship is preserved. Such a unified
dispersion is of its very nature a miracle, for the greater the diffusion,
the more humanly impossible becomes the task of preservation from
corruptions of doctrine.
52. Do not Protestants resent the reservation of the word "Catholic" to
the Church of Rome?
I know that this reservation of the word "Catholic" to the Church of Rome
is resented by many Protestants. They insist that ours is the "Roman
Catholic Church." And they read into this expression a meaning of their
own, as if there were other kinds of Catholic Churches. But "Rome" does not
mean any sense of limitation. It is rather a mark of identification. The
genuine Catholic Church is that which has its administrative center at
Rome. And, after all, that center has to be somewhere! However, they are
driven to regard our allegiance to the Bishop of Rome as a restriction,
because if it be not so they are excluded from the one True Church of Jesus
Christ. "To be Catholic," they say to us, "you should not exclude
Christians who merely interpret Christian doctrine in a different way!"
Forgetting their onetime desire to be entirely separated from the Roman
Church, they wish now to be one with her. But they have to water down the
sense of the word Catholic, forgetting that it is an attribute of a Church
which must be one and the same everywhere. It is necessarily linked with
unity. Christ never intended His Church to be the mother of error. He
intended it to be the teacher and preserver of truth. Heretical movements
may carry off multitudes, but they cannot reject the Catholic Church and
still belong to it. And it is absurd to say that the True Church must still
include those who left it!
53. Did the early Christians make any distinction between the words
"Christian" and "Catholic"?
The term, "The Catholic Church," appears in extant Christian literature for
the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch who succeeded St.
Polycarp who in turn was the immediate successor of St. John the Apostle.
In a letter written to the people of Smyrna in the year 110 he says,
"Wheresoever the bishop is found there likewise let the people be found,
even as where Jesus may be, there is the Catholic Church."In the fourth
century Pacian had declared that he possessed two names, "Christian" and
"Catholic." He did not wish to be mistaken for one of those who protested
against the True Church, yet who still called themselves Christians. "If
you want to know what I am," he said,"Christian is my name, Catholic is my
surname." Yet would heretics leave him in possession of this distinction?
In the fourth century we find St. Augustine writing, "All heretics want to
call themselves Catholics, but ask any one of them to direct you to a
Catholic Church, and he will not direct you to his own Church." How history
is repeating itself! Those early heretical sects went through the same
phases as the modern sects are experiencing. And the modern sects will die
even as the ancient heresies have disappeared, leaving the Catholic Church
still in this world, even though she will have to deal with yet new forms
of error to come.
54. Is there any similarity between the modern sect and ancient heresies?
Those very modem sects reflect all the characteristics of the ancient
heresies. They vary with national tendencies, and nationality in religion
is opposed to Catholicity. St. Augustine said, "There are heretics
everywhere, but the heretics of one region have nothing to do with the
heretics of another region. There are some heretics in Africa; quite others
in Palestine, or in Egypt, etc." So also we can say today, "There are some
heretics in America, quite others in Germany and England, etc."
55. Cannot great numbers signify Catholicity?
Let us take all the Protestant sects together. Even though they embrace 285
millions collectively, such numbers cannot indicate Catholicity. Apart from
the multitude of those who are merely nominal members of their Churches, it
is not possible to see anything supernatural, or any need of divine power,
in a multitude of men disagreeing with the Catholic Church and amongst
themselves. Nor can confusion and diversity be attributed to the prayer of
Christ for the unity of His Church.
56. It was the Catholic Church which early departed from the doctrines of
Christ, and thus forfeited the claim to be the true Church.
If you think that, by departing from the truth, the Catholic Church
forfeited the claim to be the True Church, then you believe that the
infallible retention of the teachings of Christ must be a mark of the True
Church. Is your own Church, therefore, infallible? Does it even claim to be
so? I admit that if the Catholic Church has failed in witnessing to the
truth she is not true, and I would at once leave her. But as this would
mean that Christ was unable to keep His promise, I would also abandon
belief in Christ. Certainly, wherever else I might go, I would not return
to a Protestant Church based upon the doctrine that Christ has failed to
keep His promise.
57. We Protestants believe that Christian doctrine has kept pure as long
as the Apostles lived, but after their deaths, errors crept in.
You err both in fact and in doctrine. In fact, for the Apostles complained
of errors, not of the Church, but of individual processing Christians even
in their own days. In doctrine, because you practically assert that Christ
failed to preserve His Church, Matt. 28:20; that the Holy Spirit did not
remain with her, John 14: 16-17; and that the gates of hell did prevail
against her, Matt. 16:18. In other words, your doctrine is that Christ
could not do what He said He would do. No. Individuals in all ages have
befallen into error insofar as they departed from the teachings of the
Church, even as the Protestant Reformers themselves.
58. But you cannot tell me that the Catholic religion is carried out today
in accordance with the quite simple teaching of Jesus! Catholicity does not
differ from what you call the simple teachings of Jesus, although they were
not so simple as you suppose. However, the Catholic Church teaches all that
Christ taught, whether His teaching was explicit or implicit. Essentially
she exists just as He would have her exist. There may have been many
secondary developments during the ages, but they were all foreseen and
approved by Christ. After all, Christ established a living Church, and a
living Church grows. He likened it to a seed. Even as a boy grows into a
man with exactly the same personality, yet with many secondary changes in
size, knowledge, and manners, so, too, has the Church rightly developed.
59. The constantly changing laws of the Catholic Church show that her
principles are manmade.
The principles of the Catholic Church are not manmade, nor can her
constitution, given her by Christ, ever be changed. But just as many small
bylaws can be made and repealed in a country without any essential
constitutional change, so in the Catholic Church special disciplinary laws
can be enacted at special times to meet special needs without any
constitutional change of the religion. At the Reformation, however, men
left the Catholic Church and set up new constitutions for themselves, and
their sects can be called indeed manmade religions.
60. 1 don't see how the fact that your Church has stood for so long proves
its truth. Other religions have stood longer, and have perished.
The mere fact that the Catholic Church has stood for so long does not prove
its truth. The fact considered in the light of her teachings, moral
obligations, and obstacles does. Indefectibility can be claimed as a proof
for the Catholic Church alone. She demands humility, mortification, rigid
duty, and subjection to God things human nature dislikes. Protestantism
abolished most of the things difficult for human nature, and is content
with a more or less sentimental religion. Nor has any pagan religion
demanded the consistent virtue demanded by the Catholic Church. Finally,
reasons can be found for the life of non-Catholic religions, and for their
death. But no natural reasons can be found for the continued vitality of
the Catholic Church despite her difficult doctrines, and her enemies within
and without. The protection of God alone accounts for her persistence.
61. The Catholic Church is Satan's organization.
Then she is a very poor agent indeed. She would be far more efficient if
she cried out, "Sin does not matter go ahead. Confession is nonsense. Eat
anything you like on Fridays, the day on which Christ died. Marriage does
not bind, divorce yourselves whenever you like. Continence is absurd.
Artificial birth control is progress. Don't believe in Christ, or God, or
Heaven, or Hell. Away with religion in the schools. The chief thing is to
be comfortable. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you die. Then get
cremated, and that ends everything." Don't you see how ridiculous your
statement is? All these things are the exact opposite of Catholic teaching.
62. Then where was the protection of Christ if your Church was led by bad
Popes? With His Church, preserving her as a Church, in spite of the
personal iniquity of these men, I have never claimed that the Pope can do
no wrong. As a man he will have temptations like other men, and he will be
free to resist those temptations, or consent to them. After all, he must
save his soul like anyone else. He is not going to be preserved from sin in
spite of himself. Why should he be compelled to be good? Goodness results
in Heaven, and Heaven must be earned. Every man, infallible or not, must
have his own struggle to be good and to save his soul. The Pope is not, and
has never, claimed to be impeccable. But for our sake, not for his own, God
endows him with infallibility that he may tell us with certainty what we
must believe and do in order to save ourselves; whether he lives up to it
himself is quite another matter and his own business. It is quite possible
to give splendid advice and not live up to it oneself.
63. Will not the Catholic Church have to part with many of its doctrines
in deference to modern thought, if it is to last till the end of time?
No. The Catholic Church is living today precisely because she has ever
refused to part with her doctrines, which are the doctrines of Christ. The
heresies of the centuries parted with doctrines of Christian faith in
deference to human opinions, and they died in turn through the ages.
Protestantism is dying visibly today. Any attempt to adjust Christianity to
men's fallible speculations is suicidal. The Catholic Church adjusts men's
ideas to Christian doctrine, and she stands, and will stand. Catholic
doctrines are offensive to modern thought only because modern thought has
ceased to be Christian, and the Catholic Church refuses to cease to be
Christian. If men insist upon walking along the wrong track, the only way
the Catholic Church could keep in their right company would be to take the
wrong track with them. But she prefers the right track. If modern thought
does not harmonize with the Catholic Church, so much the worse for modern
thought. However, modem thought, as you call it, is chiefly the result of
not thinking. Its authors are only too prone to ignore evidence and take
that to be true which they would like to be true.
64. Do you maintain that one is obliged to. join your infallible, one,
holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and indefectible Church, if he wished to be
saved?
If a man realizes that the Catholic Church is the True Church, he must join
it if he wishes to save his soul. That is the normal law. But if he does
not realize this obligation, is true to his conscience, even though it be
erroneous, and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience, he will
get to Heaven. In such a case, it would not have been his fault that he was
a non-Catholic and God makes every allowance for good faith.
65. What are the conditions for the salvation of such a good Protestant?
He must have Baptism at least of desire; he must be ignorant of the fact
that the Catholic Church is the only True Church; he must not be
responsible for that ignorance by deliberately neglecting to inquire when
doubts have perhaps come to him about his position; and he must die with
perfect contrition for his sins, and with sincere love of God. But such
good dispositions are an implicit will to be a Catholic. For the will to do
God's will is the will to fulfill all that He commands. Such a man would
Join the Catholic Church did he realize that was part of God's will. In
this sense the Catholic Church is the only road to Heaven, all who are
saved belonging to her either actually or implicitly.
66. Since Protestants can be saved, and it is ever so much easier to be a
Protestant, where is the advantage in being Catholic?
Firstly, remember the conditions of salvation for a Protestant. If he has
never suspected his obligation to join the Catholic Church, it is possible
for him to be saved. But it is necessary to become a Catholic or be lost if
one has the claims of the Catholic Church sufficiently put before him. I
myself could not attain salvation did I leave the Catholic Church, unless,
of course, I repented sincerely of so sinful a step before I died.
Secondly, it is easier to live up to Protestant requirements than to live
up to Catholic requirements. Non-Catholic Churches do not exact so high a
standard of their followers as does the Catholic Church of hers. But that
is not the question. It is much easier to be a really good Christian in the
full sense of the word as a Catholic than as a Protestant, and surely that
is what we wish. What advantages contribute to this? They are really too
many to enumerate in a brief reply. The Catholic is a member of the one
True Church established by Christ. He has the glorious certainty of the
true Faith, and complete knowledge of the whole of Christian truth is much
better than partial information, if not erroneous information. By
submission to the authority of Christ in His Church he has the advantage of
doing God's will just as God desires. If he fails at times by sin, he has
the certainty of forgiveness by sacramental absolution in the Confessional.
He has the privilege of attending Holy Mass Sunday after Sunday, and the
immense help of Holy Communion by which he may receive our Lord Himself as
the food of his soul. He has the privilege of sharing in the sufferings of
Christ, by observing the precepts of fasting and mortification. He receives
innumerable graces from Sacramentals and from the special blessings of the
Church. He may gain very useful indulgences, and cancelling much of the
expiation of his sins which would otherwise have to be endured in
Purgatory. And he is more loved by God in virtue of his being a Christian
rather than a pagan, so there is an immense advantage in being a true
Christian and belonging to the one True Church rather than to some false
form of Christianity. Thus a good Catholic has many advantages over and
above those possessed by a good and sincere Protestant. But, as I have
remarked, if a Protestant begins to suspect his own Church to be defective,
inquiries into the matter, and becomes convinced that the Catholic Church
is the True Church, he has no option but to Join that Church if he desires
to avoid the risk of eternal loss.
67. I cannot believe that the Church was founded upon Peter. It was built
upon Christ, who is the true foundation stone. No one claims that St. Peter
was the principal foundation stone. But that Church which is in communion
with St. Peter and his successors is the genuine Church built upon the
foundation of Christ. Christ Himself said to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build My Church." Christ is the solid rock upon which
the Church is built. But the first rock laid upon this foundation is Peter,
Christ being the principal foundation stone. Peter being the secondary
foundation chosen by Christ.
68. Christ said, upon this rock," meaning Himself, not Peter.
That is erroneous. In Jn. 1:42, we find Christ saying to Peter, "Thou art
Simon ... thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." Christ
had a special purpose in thus changing his name to Cephas or rock, a
purpose manifested later on as recorded by Matt. 16:18, "Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build My Church." Let us it this way. Supposing
that your name were Brown, and put I said to you, "They call you Brown, but
I am going to call you Stone. And upon this stone I shall build up a
special society I have in mind to establish," would you believe that I was
alluding to you, or to myself? Now Peter's name was Simon, and Christ
changed it to Peter, or in the original Aramaic language, Kepha, which was
the word for rock or stone, and which was never used as a proper name in
that language. Thus He said, "Thou are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will
build My Church." In modern English it would sound like this, "Thou art Mr.
Stone, and upon this stone I 'II build My Church." The word could not
possibly refer to Christ in this text.
69. But in the Greek text the word for Peter is Petros, and for stone,
Petra. They are not the same. There is no value in pointing out the
differences of form in this word according to the Latin or Greek languages,
in which they are accommodated to the masculine for Peter as a man, and to
the feminine for stone. Our Lord spoke in Aramaic, in which the form is the
same in both cases, simply Kepha.
70. You appeal to the Aramaic. I know nothing of that, nor of the Latin,
nor of the Greek. I accept the Bible in its English form, in which the two
words are Peter and rock, and nothing whatever alike.
How can you appeal to the English form, if the English translation does not
adequately express what Christ meant? Surely you want the exact teaching of
Christ! The English version is not an infallible rendering, nor does anyone
versed in these matters claim that the English language fully expressed the
sense of the originals. But apparently you are content to be without the
truth, if it is not to be discovered superficially by the reading of your
talismanic English version.
71. Have not many authorities held that Christ intended to build His
Church not upon Peter, but Peter's confession of faith in His divinity?
That is an antiquated interpretation abandoned by all the best scholars,
Protestants included. Christ did demand a profession of faith from Peter as
a prerequired condition, after that, conferring the fundamental primacy
upon him personally. But to say that the profession itself was the rock has
not a single valid reason in its favor. Those who adopted such an
interpretation did so from their desire to avoid the Catholic doctrine.
Grammatically the Catholic interpretation is alone possible. Contextually
the whole passage obviously refers to Peter's person. "Blessed are Thou ...
I say to Thee ... Thou art Peter ... I will give to thee the keys, etc.,"
nor could the Church be built upon one article of faith. All the articles
of faith are essential Christianity. The Protestant Scripture scholar,
Hastings, says that the confession theory must undoubtedly be excluded. The
German Protestant Kuinoel writes, "Those who wrongly interpret this passage
as referring to the confession and not to Peter himself would have never
taken refuge in this distorted interpretation if the Popes had not wrongly
tried to claim for themselves the privilege that was given to Peter." You
see, he does not believe that the Pope inherits Peter's privileges, but he
does know that Peter was personally the foundation stone. Loisy, the French
Rationalist, rejected the historical sense of the Gospels, but he says that
it is absurd to accept that sense as do Protestants and then violate that
sense in order to avoid what they do no wish to admit.
72. Even were the office of head of the Church conferred in Matt. 16:18,
surely it was withdrawn in Matt. 16:23, where Christ said to Peter, "Get
thee behind Me, Satan!"
The fact that the office was not withdrawn is clear from the later words of
Christ to Peter, "And do thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren."
Lk.22:32; and again, from the commission to feed the whole flock given to
Peter after our Lord's resurrection, as recorded in Jn. 21:15-18. Prompted
by love and reverence for Christ, Peter had protested that Christ ought not
to suffer. And Christ would have been the first to appreciate such motives.
However harsh the English may seem to be, Christ really replied gently, as
if to say, "Peter, you do not yet understand the plan of God. You are
letting your human affection sway your judgment. But such thoughts are
opposed to My vocation. Get thee behind Me, Satan." The word Satan is not
used personally here, as of the devil, but in the sense of adversary,
Christ intending merely, "I cannot accept the natural promptings of your
affection for me." No withdrawal of office is involved.
73. I have heard it said that St. Peter never was in Rome.
You may have heard that stated, but you have never heard any proof advanced
in its favor. It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the
year 43 A. D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time,
and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He
died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140
A. D., "Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by
his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom."
Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, "The presence of St. Peter in
Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental
evidence."
74. 1 want proof outside your Catholic tradition. Does Scripture say that
St. Peter was ever in Rome?
Catholic tradition is not a mere matter of rumor and report. It is down in
black and white in documents as historical as any other documents,
beginning from the year 97 with the declaration of the fact by Clement. It
would not matter if Scripture did not give any evidence on this point.
However, it does. St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, "The
Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark." All
reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome
Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from
Rome. St. Paul wrote to the Colossians from Rome, sending the kind wishes
of Mark, thus also indicating Mark's presence in Rome.
75. Of course, as a Catholic, you have to try to prove it.
The point is, have I succeeded in doing so? Anyway, not only Catholics
admit the fact. No single writer ever denied it until the 13th century.
Then it was denied by the Waldenses, heretics who had a purpose in view,
yet who could produce no evidence that he died anywhere else. No other
place has ever disputed this honor with Rome. Wycliffe, Luther, and other
Protestants took up the Waldensian assertion, thinking it a good argument
against Rome. But enlightened Protestant scholars today are ashamed that
such an argument, with all the evidence against it, should ever have been
used. Cave, a Protestant writer, says, "That Peter was at Rome we
fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of the ancients." Dean Milman
admits the fact as incontestable. Dr. Lardner, in his history of the
Apostles and Evangelists, says that it is the general uncontradicted and
disinterested testimony of ancient writers. The Protestant Whiston, in his
memoirs, remarks, "It is a shame for any Protestant to have to confess that
any Protestant ever denied it."
76. Does Scripture say that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome?
Scripture tells us that he was head of the Church, which implicitly demands
that he was universal Bishop, and it also tells us, as I have said, that he
was in Rome.
77. How can you prove that he was the first Pope?
The word Pope means Father or Head of the Church as an ordinary father is
head of a family. St. Peter was certainly in Rome, and died there as
Bishop. By legitimate succession the one who succeeded as Bishop of Rome
after Peter's death inherited the office of Head of the Church, or if you
wish, as Father of the whole Christian family he was Pope. All the Bishops
of Rome right through the centuries have belonged to the Catholic Church.
No one disputes that. They are known as the Popes and as St. Peter was
first of that long line, Catholics rightly regard him as the first Pope.
78. Was Peter told by Christ to establish a Roman Catholic Church?
He was not told to establish the Church. Christ established the Church,
choosing Peter as the foundation stone. The Apostles were told to propagate
the Church Christ had established, and, of course, according to the
constitution given it by Himself. Wherever Peter went he remained Head of
that Church, and as he went to Rome and died there whilst still exercising
his office, that office is necessarily attached to the See of Rome. This
was not by mere accident. We have to admit the guidance of the Holy Spirit
in the choice made by St. Peter in a matter of such moment to the Church.
79. We Protestants can equally claim Peter with Catholics.
Protestants cannot make that claim. Protestantism is essentially a protest
against the Catholic Church, and therefore supposes that Church as
previously existing. If Peter had not consolidated and built up the
Catholic Church there would be no Protestantism to oppose it. In any case,
Protestantism was unheard of until 1,500 years after St. Peter's death.
80. Anyway I want no Pope or priest.
Will you go to Christ on his conditions, or on your own conditions? Christ
decided that priests were necessary to His religion, gave to His Church the
Sacrament of Orders, and authority to His priests. You profess to believe
in Christ, yet regard His appointments as a nonsensical farce.
81. But you cannot escape the fact that the Catholic Church is a kingdom
of this world, although Christ said that His kingdom was not of this world.
The Catholic Church is not a kingdom of this world. It is the Kingdom of
Christ in this world. And the Pope as Pope is not monarch of the Church in
any national sense. No national considerations sway his rule over the
millions of Catholics of every race and clime. He has temporal authority
today in Vatican City, but that is merely that he may secure complete
immunity from the interference of worldly powers.
82. You say that the Pope is not swayed by national considerations. In a
war between Italy and England, would not his sympathies he with Italy?
The Pope as Pope must forget his nationality. As a man his sympathies might
be with Italy. But he could not favor Italy in his official capacity.
Despite his national sympathies, the Pope has insisted upon being perfectly
independent of Italian authority. If an English Pope had done this many
would have ascribed it to anti-Italian prejudices. But when an Italian Pope
insists upon it, whose national sympathies are all with Italy, there is no
explanation except that in his official capacity the Pope refuses to be an
Italian. If an unjust war broke out between Italy and England, and Italy
was in the wrong, the Pope would condemn the unjust policy of Italy.
83. But the great objection to your Church remains, in that it divides a
man's loyalty from his country.
Loyalty to the Catholic Church does not divide a man's loyalty from his
country. In religious matters a Catholic obeys his Church; in temporal
affairs, the laws of his country. They are services in two different
spheres.
84. Did not Christ say, "No man can serve two masters?"
He did. And we Catholics have but one Master: Christ. And we are serving
Him even by the fulfillment of our lesser civic duties insofar as we do
them for the love of Him. It is the man who gives himself up to worldly
affairs in such a way as to separate them from the service of God who is
attempting to serve two masters.
85. The Church means an assembly of men united in prayer, not a building.
The word Church has a twofold sense. Its proper meaning is a union or
assembly of men united not only in prayer, but also in a definite creed,
worship, and obedience. In that sense I speak of the Catholic Church. Or
again, it can refer to a building erected for purposes of worship by
members of the Catholic Church, and in that sense I speak of a Catholic
Church.
86. I admit your tests of a Church founded by Christ, continuously
existing, united, universal, and authoritative. But I cannot admit the
machine made organization with its hard and fast rules, which you call the
Catholic Church, to be that Church.
If the Catholic Church is not it, no other can be it. However, the Catholic
Church is not a machine-made organization. It is just as established by
Christ. Were the Catholic Church a man-made system, it would have gone the
way of all man-made kingdoms and empires which have come and gone, whereas
it has serenely kept going with a humanly inexplicable vitality.
87. I admit that the way Catholics are taught by their Hierarchy is a most
successful policy.
The Catholic method is not a method of human policy. We accept it because
Christ imposed it. Yet the mere fact that Christ chose such a method is a
guarantee of its wisdom. And the skepticism and irreligion which are the
fruits of non-Catholic systems are but a further tribute to the wisdom of
Christ.
88. You claim, of course, that the Pope is supreme head of this organized
Hierarchy. Yet was it not the Emperor Phocas who first gave the Pope his
title and universal jurisdiction? History records this as having happened
in 607 A. D.
It does not. It records that, at the request of the Pope, the Emperor made
it illegal for any other Bishop to usurp the title which had always
belonged to the Bishop of Rome. To forbid others to take a title which has
ever been the rightful possession of one is not to confer the title upon
that one. And if the Pope did not possess universal jurisdiction until 607,
how could St. Clement, third successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome,
write to the Christians at Corinth, "If any disobey the words spoken by God
through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in
transgression and no small danger, but we shall be clear of this sin." Thus
the fourth Pope demanded obedience under pain of sin from Christians living
abroad. Again, how could St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, and who
died in the year 202, say that all churches were subject to, and must agree
with the Church at Rome, because St. Peter had founded the Church there,
and the Bishops of that city were his lawful successors, beginning with
Linus? Irenaeus died over 400 years before the date you give. The Council
of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome,
decreed, "No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter,
Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church,
received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this
day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment." This was
176 years earlier than the date you give.
89. Was not the title of universal Bishop much sought after, the Bishop of
Rome winning it because he had the largest number of adherents?
No. Whatever abuse arose in later times, the early saintly Popes, nearly
all of them martyrs for Christ, were not the men to seek after office, and
dignities which they knew to be spurious.
90. Who gives the Pope his jurisdiction, if he is elected by men and not
by God?
God ratifies the choice of those who elect him. When Matthias was elected
as an Apostle by the other Apostles he was elected by men, and not directly
by God, but God ratified their choice and granted to him also Apostolic
power.
91. The servant of the servants of God! Is not the Pope rather the beast
predicted by Dan. VII? Certainly not. He would be a very peculiar
representative of the Beast, so given to the love of God and man, and to
prayer. I have met the present Pope (Pius XI) several times, and he is one
of the gentlest men I have ever met. He scarcely opens his lips save to
bless and praise God in the name of Jesus Christ.
Written by
Fr. Charles M. Carty
Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC.
P.O. Box 424
Rockford, Illinois 61105
Master C-Baoth
I feel truly sorry for those who believe in this type of tyrannical
B.S. There is No One Way to anything! There are always other
alternatives equally valid than what I see below
Master C-Baoth
On 5 Mar 1997 14:07:17 GMT, "Timothy Consodine" <timo...@flash.net>
wrote:
>Gareth <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><01bc296b$b4b91840$4042...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>...
>> > You can't destroy the church, but Jesus wants you in it for the
>salvation
>> > of your soul.
>>
>> That's what you think.
>
Master C-Baoth
I prefer to either use my mallet or a 12 gauge shotgun.
Master C-Baoth
On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 13:54:39 GMT, "Gareth" <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>bRuTUs dANgeRoUsLy <bRuBRu...@dAnGERoUsLy.com> wrote in article
><331ef1ce...@news.ime.net>...
>> On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 10:20:51 GMT, "Gareth" <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Lord Gilbert T. Sullivan <ga...@hell.com> wrote in article
>> ><33178D...@hell.com>...
>> >> Robert Tully wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > g...@nutracorps.org writes: > What do they do if they get HORNY?
>> >> > > Do they take matters into hand?
>> >> > > Do they take a Harlot to their bosom?
>> >> > > What?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess your supposed to shut up and go to confession
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, just go out and get laid and don't tell anybody.
>> >>
>> >
>> >WE SHOULD DESTROY THE VATICAN BY
>> >BURNING THE FUCKER DOWN!!!
>> then burn all the fucking churches
>> & kill the xtians by beating them to death with their fucking bibbles
>>
>
Conster
> "...The individual or sect interprets as it pleases--rejecting or
accepting
> what it chooses. This is popularly called liberty of conscience.
Accepting
> this principle, Infidelity, on the same plea, rejects all Revelation, and
> Protestantism, which handed over the premise, is powerless to protest
> against the conclusion; for it is clear that one who, under the plea of
> rational liberty, has the right to repudiate any part of Revelation that
> may displease him, cannot logically quarrel with one who, on the same
> ground, repudiates the whole. If one creed is as good as another, on the
> plea of rational liberty, on the same plea, no creed is as good as any.
> Taking the field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has
> stormed and taken the very citadel of Protestantism, helpless against the
> foe of its own making."
>
>
I have no argument against Church teaching. but what if you're married to
someone
who doesn't care about your sex desires, who doesn't bother about your
feelings in any
way but you know they'll get mad if they even think you're heading toward
someone
who does.
just curious.
Conster
Gabriel
On 4 Mar 1997 07:47:01 -0700, m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark
Hartman) wrote:
>In article <01bc26e3$8b3a0b80$e28489d0@default>, "Suzanna"
><sius...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>
>>> The pope is preaching what Jesus Christ Himself preached (because that is
>>> his job)
No he's not. He's making it up as he goes. I know that's the case
because he has never actually asked me.
>>> Matt 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except
>>> on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a
>>> divorced woman commits adultery.
>>*But that's complete bullshit! If you are no longer married, then how the
>>hell can you committ adultery???
The point I was trying to make is that it is not possible to simply
undo an intimate relationship simply by buying a divorce (which, as I
recall, was the standard practice of the day). Dissolving a
relationship with another human is best done with consideration given
to the long-range implications ... especially since others (like
children and other family) are almost invariably involved.
It doesn't surprise me, though, that the church, in their infinite
wisdom, has twisted that teaching into a meaning that increases their
ability to control people ... considering what they have done to even
more basic teachings!
>If you read the context, Suzanna, you'll see that Jesus is saying that
>divorce is in fact a futile attempt to dissolve something that cannot
>be dissolved; in other words, that they ARE still married.
Sorry. There are, indeed, *other* "other words" other than what you
present.
>Which is the whole point.
No. The "whole point" is to put love and consideration of others above
convenience and whim. is that so difficult a concept to grasp?
----
Peace, Light & Love
Gabriel, Archangel
Gabriel
On 4 Mar 1997 23:30:41 GMT, "Timothy Consodine" <timo...@flash.net>
wrote:
[snip]
>
>The Emperor Nero failed miserably (as did all the other pagan Roman
>emprors). Napolean failed. The soviet Communists have failed -- in fact,
>everyone in history who has tried to destroy the Catholic Church is nothing
>more than a distant memory / or dust and ruins. Yet... we're still here.
>Do you know why? Because Jesus Christ is true God
No, I'm not ... and I never claimed to be. That's part of the myth
built by the church.
>and true man and He promised that His church would last until the end of time:
The only source of such a promise was the church itself. Rather a
conflict of interest, in my opinion. Jesus never had a church ... I
never wanted one, and never intended to "start" one.
>Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
>church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will
>give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth
>shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed
>in heaven."
This passage was clearly added later by the church itself.
>The Complete List of Popes
>
[snip of list (if you want to see it, check a good reference book.)]
>You can't destroy the church, but Jesus wants you in it for the salvation
>of your soul.
No, I don't. In the first place, I taught that souls did not need
"salvation." Everyone is perfect, just as they are. In the second, I
find very little that would be useful for a person's spiritual journey
in any of today's churches ... and virtually nothing about the concept
of "sin" that is even close to what I actually taught. In the third
place, I would never want a human to go into a place so devoid of
Spirit as the churches I have experienced in this lifetime.
Timothy Consodine
Master C-Baoth <cba...@xmission.com> wrote in article
<3321cd8a...@NNTP.IX.NETCOM.COM>...
> I feel truly sorry for those who believe in this type of tyrannical
> B.S. There is No One Way to anything! There are always other
> alternatives equally valid than what I see below
> >John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life;
no
> >one comes to the Father, but by me. 7 If you had known me, you would
have
> >known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.”
Really? Like what?
Timothy Consodine
Gabriel <ang...@inreach.com> wrote in article
<3329fdc1...@news.inreach.com>...
> On 4 Mar 1997 23:30:41 GMT, "Timothy Consodine" <timo...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> No, I don't. In the first place, I taught that souls did not need
> "salvation." Everyone is perfect, just as they are.
Even Josef Stalin? How about Adolf Hitler?
> In the second, I
> find very little that would be useful for a person's spiritual journey
> in any of today's churches ... and virtually nothing about the concept
> of "sin" that is even close to what I actually taught. In the third
> place, I would never want a human to go into a place so devoid of
> Spirit as the churches I have experienced in this lifetime.
Well, if you're lost to such a degree to believe this nonsense, I'll have
to post a basic outline that will point you in the right direction:
GOD
1. Who is God?
God is the great Spirit who has always existed and has made all things.
2. Can we see God?
No, for He is a Spirit and a spirit cannot be seen (we cannot see a man's
mind nor even the wind).
3. How do we know that God exists?
a.) By sound reasoning. A watch did not make itself. Its parts are too
cleverly and practically arranged. Someone who is intelligent must have
made it. Now, plants, animals and men are put together in a way that is
much more beautiful. All that must have been made by a great and powerful
mind.
b.) But God has also spoken to men (Revelation): To the first human couple
when He created them; later, through the Patriarchs and the Prophets;
finally, through Jesus Christ.
4. Is God perfect?
Yes. He is infinitely perfect. He is infinitely good. He is the best Father
that exists. He is wonderfully fond of us, human beings. He has created us
to make us eternally happy. He is infinitely just. He rewards what is good
and punishes what is bad. He is infinitely merciful. If someone has done
what is bad, but he is sorry about it, then God pardons the sin.
God is almighty. He can do everything that He wills to do.
God is all-knowing. He knows and sees everything that happens, what every
man thinks, says and does.
God is present everywhere. He keeps His creation in existence and therefore
He is present everywhere.
5. Why do we call God Creator?
Because He has brought everything into existence where there was nothing.
He had only to will and it existed. That is why we say that God has created
everything.
6. Name the most important beings that God has created.
The Angels and men.
7. What are Angels?
They are exalted, immortal spirits. They praise and serve God and carry out
His orders. Every human being receives from God an Angel who in a
particular way protects him (Guardian Angel).
8. What are devils?
They are Angels who refused to serve God and on that account are forever in
Hell. They are also called evil spirits, demons. They hate God, hate and
envy us and seek to lead us into sin.
9. What are human beings?
Human beings are persons who have a mortal body and an immortal spirit.
Man's spirit is called a soul. When the human being dies, only the body
begins to corrupt but the soul lives on forever.
10. Why did God create man?
God made man to serve Him on earth and later to be perfectly happy with God
in Heaven.
11. Who were the first men?
The first men were Adam and Eve. When God made them they were in the state
of sanctifying grace. This means they lived in friendship with God and on
that account they would eventually enter Heaven, if they remained faithful
to God.
They would not have to suffer or die. This was a special privilege. And
that privilege would be passed on to all their descendants.
12. Did Adam and Eve remain in that happy state?
No, they sinned grievously. As a punishment they then had to suffer
henceforth and would die and they would no longer enter Heaven. But God
promised in His mercy that He would some day send a Savior to reopen
Heaven.
13. Did the sin of Adam have consequences also for other men?
Yes, for Adam was the ancestor of the whole human species. When a man is
raised to become a nobleman, all his children likewise become noble. But if
the nobility is taken away from that man as a punishment, his children also
cease to be noble. They are then only ordinary citizens.
In a similar way the children born even today are without sanctifying
grace; they are without the special friendship of God. They will suffer and
will die. Heaven is closed to them until they share in the salvation which
was brought to us by the Savior (Baptism).
14. What is the name of the sin of Adam that is passed on to all men?
That sin is called original sin. A child that is born has not committed any
personal sin, but it inherits the sin of its ancestor Adam.
15. Who remained free from original sin?
The Holy Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin through a special
privilege. From the very first moment of her existence she was wholly pure
and filled with grace. This we call the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
16. What Savior has God sent to save us men?
God loved men so much that He sent His own Son to earth to save us. His
Name is Jesus Christ.
17. So, has God a Son?
Yes, for God exists in three Persons: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit - three Persons who nevertheless are one Being, one God. That is
something we cannot understand; it is a Mystery. But we know that it is so
because God has revealed ft to us. We call that mystery of faith the Most
Holy Trinity or the Blessed Trinity.
18. How are the three Divine Persons distinguished?
God the Father exists of Himself from all eternity.
God the Son is born of the Father, by the fact that (from all eternity) the
Father perfectly knows and understands Himself. He, as it were, expresses
Himself. That is why the Son is also called the Word of the Father.
The Father loves the Son with unspeakable goodwill and so does the Son in
turn love the Father. From that love towards each other proceeds the Holy
Spirit. That is why the Holy Spirit is called the substantial Love of
Father and Son. He pours God's Love into our hearts and is the Helper
(Paraclete) whom Christ promised and who was sent to assist the Church, to
sanctify her and preserve her from error.
19. How did Jesus Christ come upon earth?
By becoming man. The Holy Spirit caused a child to be conceived in the womb
of the Virgin Mary, and the Son of God became man in it from the moment
that this child was to be formed. In this way the Son of God united a human
nature with His Divine Person: He is both God and man, the God-man.
20. Are there then two Persons in Christ?
No, Christ is only one Person, the Divine Person, but He has two natures:
one Divine, the other human. Jesus, Mary's Son, is the same Person as the
Divine Word. He is God. The man born of her is God and so the Church
rightly calls Mary "the Mother of God."
21. How did Christ save us?
By suffering for us and dying on a cross. Of His own free will He offered
Himself as a victim to His Heavenly Father to obtain pardon for all men.
Thanks to Jesus' death on the cross we can be freed from original sin,
obtain pardon for all personal sins and reach Heaven.
22. How do we know that Jesus is the promised Savior?
First because all that the Prophets had foretold about the Savior was
fulfilled in Jesus. But Jesus also proved by miracles that He has truly
been sent by God the Father. He cured the deaf, the lame and the blind, He
multiplied food and brought dead persons back to life. But the greatest
miracle that goes to prove His mission was His Resurrection. As He had
foretold, three days after His death on the cross He rose alive from the
grave by His own power.
23. Did Jesus become man only to save us?
No, He came also to point out to us the way to Heaven, by His example and
His teaching, and He came particularly to found His Church.
THE HOLY SPIRIT
24. Who is the Holy Spirit?
He is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, proceeding from Father and
Son with whom He is equal. He is the Love of God personified.
25. Who particularly revealed the Holy Spirit?
Jesus Christ who promised, "When the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide
you in all truth" (Jn 16, 13).
26. Mention some of the names given to the Holy Spirit.
Christ called Him Paraclete, translated as Advocate, as "Coach" by Fr.
Hopkins the poet, because He exhorts, comforts. The liturgy calls Him
Father of the poor, Giver of gifts, Light of hearts....
27. Where and when was He particularly manifested?
At Christ's Baptism, and at Pentecost.
28. Is Pentecost the Feast of the Holy Spirit?
No, just as there is no Feast of the Father, nor of the Eternal Son, so
there is no Feast of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost is the Feast that recalls
the marvelous reception of the Holy Spirit by the Infant Church.
29. Is it important to teach the truth of the abiding presence and work of
the Spirit of Truth in the Church and in the life of her members? Yes. This
point is underscored in Basic Teachings for Catholic Religious Education
(No. 9). Pope John wanted the Council to prepare for a New Pentecost.
30. But we can neither see Him nor imagine Him?
That is true. Neither can we see nor imagine the spiritual principle of
life in us which we usually call the soul. And yet, it is the soul which
animates, vivifies us, enables us to think and will and imagine.
31. What then does the Holy Spirit do for the Church?
a.) He remains with the Church to sanctify her.
b.) He dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful as in a
temple.
c.) He prays in the faithful making them realize they are indeed beloved
adopted sons of God.
d.) He guides the Church in the way of all truth; hence the frequent
invocation of the Holy Spirit, and Masses of the Holy Spirit at Church
Councils.
e.) He imparts charismatic gifts.
f.) He constantly works for the spiritual renewal of the Church, leading
her to perfect union with her Spouse. "The Spirit and the Bride (the
Church) say, 'Come"' (Rv 22, 17).
g.) He is the "heart of the Missionary Church." Recall the missionary
spirit of the Church after the first Pentecost novena of prayer "with one
mind and one heart."
h.) Recall His relationship with Mary, Mother of the Church, and with
Christ the Head of the Church.
32. But is God's activity in His creation not common to the three Divine
Persons?
Yes. But Scripture attributes certain activities particularly to the Holy
Spirit (by appropriation) because of the Holy Spirit's particular role in
the Trinity. And so St. Paul tells us: "The charity of God is poured into
our souls by the Holy Spirit who is given to us." As Fr. Leen said: He is
the Love (or Charity) of God personified.
33. What are some of the things attributed to the Holy Spirit with respect
to individual Christians?
a.) We were born again of water and the Holy Spirit.
b.) We received a sort of personal Pentecost in confirmation: "May the
Holy Spirit descend upon you and the power of the Most High preserve you
from sin" (in Rite of Confirmation).
c.) He helps us to make a good confession (know, detest our sins, renounce
them out of love of God above all and resolve to change our lives). Recall
the Easter gift: "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive,
they are forgiven (Jn 20, 23).
d.) He will make us appreciate the Word of God (Holy Scripture) inspired
by Him, and it is in that "Spirit" that we must read it.
e.) He will likewise make us appreciate the unique value of the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass and the reception of Christ in Holy Communion.
f.) He enlightens our minds, strengthens our wills, guides us in making
important decisions regarding vocation, overcoming habitual faults, living
a life of faith and hope and charity, charity toward God and our neighbor.
34. What then is the value of true Devotion to the Holy Spirit?
When Cardinal Mercier was asked during a Retreat in Brussels what was the
"secret of Sanctity" he answered: "Every day for five minutes enter into
yourself, casting out all distracting thoughts, and in the temple of the
Holy Spirit which you are, adore the Holy Spirit. Ask Him to enlighten you,
guide, strengthen and console you. Promise Him to submit to that guidance,
and with His help to accept all that He permits to happen to you. Ask Him
only: "Make Your will known to me." This is the secret not only of
sanctity, but of happiness which the world cannot give.
35. When should I invoke the Holy Spirit?
From what has been said above: You can invoke Him for any spiritual and
secular work, for proper reception of the Sacraments, for proper choices,
for proper reading of the Scriptures. And to use the words of Fr. Leen,
author of the book The Holy Ghost, "may you acquire a tender devotion to
Him, appreciating His intimate role in Christian life."
THE CHURCH
36. What is the Church of Christ?
The Church, which was founded by Christ, is an Institution into which He
calls together all who believe in Him in order to bring them to eternal
blessedness. This Church is instituted as a visible society and it is found
in the Catholic Church (Vatican II).
37. is the Church of Christ only a "visible" Institution?
No, the members of the Church form one spiritual body with Christ. It is
the so-called Mystical Body of Christ. He is its invisible Head and the
believers are its members. The life of Christ is poured into the believers,
in that Body. Through the sacraments that Body is united with Christ Who
died and rose from the dead, in a way that is real though hidden (Vat. II).
Christ said to His disciples: "I am the Vine, you are the branches" (Jn 15,
5).
38. What is the Church of Christ also called?
The Kingdom of God; the believers are the People of God with whom God has
made an eternal Covenant.
39. Who are those whom Christ appointed to govern His Church?
The twelve Apostles, whom He chose, and their lawful successors, the
Bishops.
40. Whom did Christ appoint as the Head of His Church?
He appointed the Apostle Peter. Christ is and remains the invisible Head of
the Church. But when Jesus ascended into Heaven, He left Peter on earth as
His visible substitute (Vicar).
41. Who is the lawful successor of Peter?
Peter went to Rome and there he established his diocese. His successor in
the bishop's see of Rome is his lawful successor, and this is the Pope.
Hence the Pope is the Head of the whole Church and Christ's Vicar on earth.
42. What charge did Christ give to His Apostles?
Christ gave them this commission: "Full authority has been given to me both
in heaven and on earth; go, therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you" (Mt
28:18-20).
43. What follows from that?
That all men are called to the Church of Jesus Christ. That they must
accept to be baptized. That the apostles and also their lawful successors,
the Bishops together with the Pope, are the Teaching Authority
(Magisterium) of the Church. Because the Pope is the Head of the whole
Church and the Vicar of Christ, he has the Supreme Teaching Authority in
the Church.
44. Can the Teaching Authority err when it teaches us the faith and the
commandments of God?
No, for Christ has promised that He would always assist His Apostles to
transmit His doctrine in its purity. He also promised that the Holy Spirit,
the Spirit of Truth, would always remain with them. This we call the
infallibility of the Church.
45. Through whom does the Church make her infallible pronouncements?
Through the Pope, when as Head of the Church, he makes a decisive
pronouncement in matters of faith and morals. But also through the Bishops
when together with the Pope they make such a decisive pronouncement (Vat.
II).
46. Which church is the true Church of Christ?
The Roman Catholic Church, because the Pope of Rome and the Bishops who are
in union with him are the lawful successors of Peter and the other
Apostles.
47. How does one become a member of the Church?
By Holy Baptism.
48. Is Holy Baptism sufficient to attain salvation?
No, we must also believe all that God has revealed and we must live
according to the commandments He has given us.
49. How do we know what God has revealed and what commandments He has
given us?
This is taught us by Mother Church. She draws her teaching from Holy
Scripture (the Bible) and from Holy Tradition.
50. What do we mean by Holy Scripture or the Bible?
We mean holy Books that were written under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. The Church decides which books are inspired that way.
51. What is meant by Holy Tradition?
The Apostles have handed on Christ's teaching to their lawful successors by
preaching and some times by writing. The transmission that is still going
on is called Tradition. The Holy Spirit sees to it that the Revelation is
transmitted intact, and the Teaching Authority of the Church points out
what is contained in Tradition and how it must be understood (Vat. II)
MAN'S LAST ENDS
52. What happens at the death of a human being?
The principle of life (soul) is separated from the body. The body returns
to dust, but someday it will rise again. Immediately the soul is judged by
God.
53. What do we call the judgment of a man after death?
The particular judgment. Jesus Christ, who knows everything, lets the
departed know what he or she has merited: Heaven, Hell or Purgatory.
54. Who go directly to Heaven?
All who have died in the state of grace (in friendship with God) and no
longer have to do penance for any sins.
55. What is Heaven?
It is God's abode where the blessed are perfectly happy as they
contemplate, love and possess the God of Love. It is blessedness without
end.
56. Who go to Hell?
Those who die in the state of mortal sin-in other words, all who are
unrepentant unto the end.
57. What is Hell?
Hell is the place where the damned suffer eternally. Christ calls Hell the
eternal fire whose flames are never extinguished. There is weeping and
gnashing of teeth (remorse).
58. Who go to Purgatory?
Those who died in friendship with God but had still to do penance for
certain sins.
59. What is Purgatory?
It is a place of expiation (Trent) where those who have died in the state
of grace satisfy God's justice. They ardently long for union with God,
while already enjoying the certainty of reaching Heaven.
Here upon earth. we can help the souls in Purgatory by doing penance for
them, praying for them, gaining indulgences for them, but above all by
assisting at Mass for them or having Masses offered for them.
60. What is an indulgence?
When God has given us forgiveness for our sins, most of the time we have
still to pay a debt of expiation. Christ by His suffering and death on the
Cross has merited infinite satisfaction for men. The Church received
special power with respect to that infinite satisfaction of Christ and also
the superabundant satisfactions of the Saints. She can apply those
satisfactions to cancel the punishment that is due to us, either wholly or
in part. In other words, the Church grants a full or a partial indulgence.
The Church prescribes definite good works as a condition for gaining
indulgences.
61. Besides the particular judgment is there also another?
Yes, at the end of the world, Christ will come to earth with great power
and majesty to judge all mankind. This is called the General or Last
Judgment.
62. When shall the world come to an end?
This no man knows. That day will come unexpectedly. There will be great
disturbances in the heavenly bodies, great conflagrations. And then will
appear the Son of Man, Jesus Christ. Through His power all the departed
will rise, the blessed with glorious bodies, the damned in shame and
bearing the horrible marks of eternal perdition.
63. What judgment will be pronounced by Christ?
Good men will be admitted forever to Heaven:
"Come. You have My Father's blessing! Inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from the creation of the world" (Mt 25:34). To evil men he will say:
"Out of My sight, you condemned, into that everlasting fire prepared for
the devil and his angels" (Mt 25:41).
64. Are any of the departed already in Heaven with body and soul?
Yes, the Lord Jesus rose from the grave on the third day in a glorified
body. After appearing to the Apostles and teaching them for several days
he disappeared before their eyes and sits hence-forth at the right hand of
His Heavenly Father, which means: now also as a man He shares the glory of
God the Father.
The Virgin Mary too was taken up body and soul into Heaven after her
earthly life. The ever faithful Mother of God is Queen of Angels and
Saints and is our powerful intercessor with her Divine Son.
65. Have we a relationship with the Angels and the Blessed in Heaven?
Yes, we can invoke them and they then pray for us. Just as here on earth we
can pray for one an-other, so the Angels and the Blessed can pray for us.
After all, we are all members of a large family, children of God, our
Heavenly Father. We particularly invoke those the Church honors as Saints.
They lived a holy life on earth. They are great friends of God.
OUR LIFE ON EARTH
66. What is our life here upon earth?
An opportunity God gives us to walk the way that leads us to eternal
happiness in Heaven. That opportunity we receive only once upon eternity.
Our way of life upon earth leads irrevocably to eternal blessedness or to
never-ending loss of God.
67. What is necessary for entering Heaven?
1.) We must be baptized.
2.) We must believe everything that God has revealed and the Church holds
before us for our belief.
3.) We must perform good works. We must truly merit Heaven.
4.) We must appear in the state of grace before God after this earthly
life.
68. What is the State of Grace?
Through Holy Baptism, original sin (and personal sins) are remitted and we
enter into a "state of grace." This means we become special friends of God.
More than that: God makes us share in His Divine Life, so that we become
children of God. And as children of God He gives us a title to Heaven.
69. How do we lose the State of Grace?
By committing a mortal sin. We commit a sin when knowingly and willingly
we act against the Will of God. When it is but a small evil, we call that
a venial or daily fault because men so often commit small faults. By
venial sins we do not lose the state of grace. But when we break God's law
with sufficient knowledge and free will in a serious matter, we offend Him
greatly. That kind of sin kills the love for God in our souls; that is why
it is called "mortal" sin. Through a mortal sin we lose sanctifying grace
and the right to Heaven, and merit the eternal punishment of Hell.
70. How can we recover the State of Grace?
1.) By a good confession in which we are sorry for our sins.
2.) By an act of contrition with the intention of going to confession
later on, and being sorry for "having offended God who is worthy of all our
love because He is infinitely good."
71. What is an act of perfect contrition?
We can be sorry for having offended God because we have deserved to be
punished and because we have received so many good things from God. That
is a good contrition but it is not perfect. In it there is too much
interest in ourselves. But when we are truly sorry because God is
infinitely perfect and infinitely worthy of all our love, we then have a
true sorrow for sin out of pure love for God.
God likes this so much that He then forgives all our sins, even the
greatest. But, as we said above, we still have to confess our mortal sins
when we go to confession.
72. What commandments must we observe?
The Ten Commandments and the Commandments of the Church.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF GOD
73. How did God give His Ten Commandments?
God made man know His Commandments from the beginning of creation. This
means that man knows by nature that he must live according to God's Will,
God's Commandments.
Later on God gave the "Ten Commandments" to the Jewish People through
Moses, and Christ has reaffirmed them in the New Testament.
74. Which are the Ten Commandments of God?
I am the Lord, your God:
1.) You shall not worship false gods, but adore Me alone and love Me above
all things.
2.) You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, without respect.
3.) Remember that you keep holy the Lord's Day.
4.) Honor your father and your mother.
5.) You shall not kill.
6.) You shall not commit adultery.
7.) You shall not steal.
8.) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9.) You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10.) You shall not unjustly desire what belongs to your neighbor.
75. What is commanded by the first Commandment?
We must recognize God as the one, true God and love Him with our whole
heart. For that reason we must also love our fellow-man, for he too is
created to glorify God forever in Heaven. That is why we must, out of love
for God, love and help our neighbor. And when he has done wrong to us, we
must forgive him and not render evil for evil.
76. What is forbidden by the first Commandment?
Idolatry (worshipping the sun, animals and images); superstition (e.g.
ouija board) and sacrilege (dishonoring persons, things and places that are
consecrated to God).
77. Should we disapprove the veneration of statues of Saints?
No, for we do not adore those statues or images but want to venerate the
persons whom they represent (think of a statue of Washington, or a
photograph of father and mother).
78. How do we sin against the second Commandment?
1.) By using God's Name disrespectfully.
2.) By blasphemy (saying something ugly about God or His Saints or about
holy things).
3.) By perjury (calling God to witness that something we say is true when
we are lying, or when we do not mean to fulfill what we promise). This is
also called taking a false oath. It is a great evil.
4.) By cursing (in the sense of calling down evil upon oneself or others).
Most of the time, one does not really mean it and then it is not a great
evil.
79. What must we do according to the third Commandment?
We must sanctify Sunday (the Lord's Day) and the holy days of obligation.
We must then assist at the Mass (the liturgy of the Word as well as that of
the Eucharist). The Sunday must be a day of rest from unnecessary work,
and of joy (Vat. II).
80. What is demanded by the fourth Commandment?
We must honor our parents by loving them, by respecting them, and by
helping them when they are in need. God has attached a special blessing to
that. Children must also obey their parents, as long as they remain under
their authority. The parents, on their part, must give a Catholic
education to their children, and take care of their spiritual and corporal
welfare.
81. Must we respect only the authority of parents?
No, all authority comes from God. That is why we must honor and obey also
our spiritual and civil authorities, when they lawfully make commands.
Thus we must obey the Pope and the Bishop of the diocese to which we
belong. We must also obey the civil authorities of our county, insofar as
they oblige us in conscience, and their commands are not in conflict with
the laws of God. For what comes first is: We must obey God more than men.
82. What is forbidden by the fifth Commandment?
It forbids harming our own bodies or those of others (suicide, mutilation,
recklessly endangering our health, striking another, wounding or killing
another, shortening his life; intemperance drunkenness, using harmful
drugs).
83. What is forbidden by the sixth Commandment?
God gave man powers to propagate the human race, to beget children, to
people the earth and Heaven later on. This is permitted to take place only
in marriage which God has instituted to that purpose. To use those powers
outside marriage is a great evil. In marriage it must be done in such a
way that God's purpose is not intentionally excluded.
Now, the sixth Commandment prohibits all external sins against chastity:
unchaste actions, alone or with others, unchaste conversation and
everything by which we unnecessarily put our-selves or others in serious
danger of committing a sin against chastity (dangerous reading, immoral
movies and plays, indecent clothes). He who in that way leads others into
sin offends not only against the sixth Commandment but also against love of
the neighbor.
84. What is forbidden by the ninth Commandment?
It forbids all interior sins against chastity (unchaste desires, taking
unchaste pleasure in impure thoughts).
85. Why does God so greatly abhor sins of impurity?
The Holy Spirit has come to dwell in us through Holy Baptism. Our body is
a temple of the Holy Spirit. That is why we must have respect for our
body. By impurity we dishonor the temple of the Holy Spirit.
86. What is forbidden by the seventh Commandment?
It forbids stealing from someone or dealing with him in an unjust way. We
sin against that Commandment when we steal or help others in their
stealing; when we buy or accept stolen goods. It prohibits idling, usury,
retaining what was lost or was borrowed, not paying our debts, refusing to
pay a just wage, hurting someone unnecessarily as to his good name.
87. What is ordered by the seventh Commandment?
To return the stolen goods as soon as possible; and we must try to repair
the damage we have willfully done to another. He who refuses to do that
gets no pardon for the sin.
88. When do we sin against the tenth Commandment?
When we do not actually commit those sins against justice but would like to
commit them: for instance when we want to steal, when we want to do harm to
someone, etc.
89. What is forbidden by the eighth Commandment?
It forbids lying and slandering. Lying is expressing something as being
true when one knows it is false. To slander or calumniate is to tell
something evil about another that he has not committed, or to exaggerate
the evil another has done. When we have done unjust harm to someone, we
are obliged to repair the damage the best we can.
THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE CHURCH
90. Name some of the Commandments of the Church.
1.) To assist at Mass and refrain from forbidden works on Sundays and holy
days of obligation (Christmas, January 1, Ascension, Assumption, All
Saints, Immaculate Conception).
2.) To observe the days of abstinence (no meat):
Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and all Fridays of Lent, for those over 14. To
observe the fast days (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) for those over 21 and
below 60.
3.) To confess our sins at least once a year; to receive Holy Communion
during the Easter time; to contribute to the support of the Church; to
observe the Church's marriage laws.
91. Do the Commandments of the Church oblige under pain of sin? Yes, but
there may be valid excuses. For instance illness may be a valid excuse for
not going to Mass on Sunday. We have seen that if we wish to go to Heaven,
we must merit it by doing good. And in order that we may do meritorious
good works, God helps us with the supernatural virtues.
92. What are supernatural virtues?
They are powers that are granted to us together with the inpouring of
sanctifying grace, and they enable us to perform supernatural acts. An
example: in order to see we must have the power of sight. This is a
natural power. But in order that we may be able to believe
(supernaturally) we must have a kind of spiritual power of sight, and this
we call the supernatural virtue of faith.
93. Name the most important (supernatural) virtues.
They are the so-called three theological (God-centered) virtues: Faith,
Hope and Love (also called Charity).They are called theological virtues
because they are directly related to God. We believe God-We hope in God-We
love God.
94. What is the virtue of faith?
It is a supernatural gift, a light which God gives to our mind and which
enables us to believe, that is, firmly to accept as true what God has
revealed and the Church presents to us for our belief.
95. By what sign do we profess our faith?
Among other things, by the sign of the Cross. By it we profess that there
exists one God, that there is a Most Holy Trinity and that we have been
redeemed by the death, on the Cross, of the Son of God. The best sign, of
course, is living always in accordance with what we believe by being
witnesses to Christ by a Christlike life.
96. What is the virtue of hope?
It is a supernatural gift from God by which we firmly trust that God will
grant us eternal salvation and all the graces necessary to attain it.
97. What is the virtue of love (charity)?
It is a supernatural gift of God enabling us to love God above all things
and our neighbor as our-selves for the love of God.
98. When do we love God?
When we keep His commandments. And we love Him above all things when we
would rather die than offend Him by a mortal sin.
99. Why must we love God above all things? Because He has created us and
because He is infinitely perfect in goodness and love and, on that account,
is infinitely worthy of all our love.
100. When do we love our neighbor as ourselves?
When we wish and grant him what is good and treat him as we want him to
treat us.
101. How do we show our love for our fellowman?
By helping him for the love of God, by helping him when he is in need (in
poverty, sickness, etc.) and by being solicitous for his spiritual
well-being.
102. When do we sin against love towards our neighbor?
When we truly fail to practice charity towards him, for instance by not
helping him when he is in need and we can offer assistance, by hating him,
by leading him into sin through our evil conduct, by being an occasion to
him for committing grievous sins, because of our improper language and our
indecent clothes.
THE HOLY SACRAMENTS
The Sacraments are great sources of power Christ gives us to enable us to
exercise the virtues and avoid sin. By these Sacraments the Church
professes her faith, exercises a divine service (liturgy) and is constantly
renewed (Vat. II).
103. What is a Sacrament?
It is an external sign instituted by Christ that signifies and imparts the
grace that is granted to man for his sanctification.
For instance, in Baptism water is poured over the head of the recipient.
That goes to show that a purification takes place. The words pronounced by
the one who baptizes at the same time as the pouring of the water indicate
that a spiritual cleansing is taking place.
104. How many Sacraments were instituted by Christ?
Seven Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, the
Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Marriage.
105. Which graces are imparted by the Sacraments? All Sacraments give
sanctifying grace or an in-crease of it.
Over and above that, each Sacrament gives a grace that is specific for the
particular Sacrament that is administered. It is called "sacramental
grace."
106. What is Actual Grace (Grace of Assistance)? Actual grace is a
supernatural help by which the Holy Spirit enlightens our mind and
strengthens and moves our will to do good and avoid evil.
107. Do all men who receive the Sacraments also receive grace?
All those who receive the Sacraments worthily receive grace. Those who
receive them unworthily do not.
108. When is a Sacrament received unworthily? When the recipient is in
the state of mortal sin. But this does not apply to a person who receives
Baptism or goes to Confession. These Sacraments can be received by those
who are in mortal sin provided they have contrition for their sins. Those
two Sacraments are instituted precisely to wash away sins.
109. Which Sacraments can be received only once in a lifetime?
Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders, for these Sacraments imprint a
permanent mark (character) in the soul.
110. Which among the Sacraments is the first and the necessary one?
Holy Baptism is the first, because one cannot receive any other Sacrament
if one is not baptized. It is the most necessary Sacrament, because no one
can receive remission of original sin and attain salvation without Baptism
(this is the general rule)
111. What is Holy Baptism?
It is the Sacrament which removes original and personal sin through the
washing with water and the invocation of the Three Divine Persons, and
makes the recipient a child of God and a member of the Church.
112. Who is the one who administers Baptism? The priest. But in case of
necessity any person can and ought to baptize.
We must pour water over the head of the recipient (or, if that is
impossible, over another part of the body) and at the same time pronounce
the words; while pouring the water, we must say: "I baptize you in the Name
of the Father AND of the Son AND of the Holy Spirit." The one who pours the
water must be the same as the one who pronounces the words (so we must not
let anyone else say the words).
113. What do we receive through Holy Baptism?
1.) Forgiveness of original sin and of all sins we have committed before
Baptism.
2.) Sanctifying grace.
3.) AU the supernatural virtues.
4.) Actual graces to live a Christian life.
5.) Remission of all punishment due for sins.
114. What is Baptism of Desire?
A person who cannot receive Baptism or is in good faith and does not know
that he must be baptized can obtain forgiveness from original sin and
attain salvation through Perfect Love for God.
(this means, to love God because He is infinitely perfect, for instance:
infinitely good and infinitely worthy of love.) He who loves God in that
way wants to do everything that God desires and therefore he wants to be
baptized, although he may not know that God requires this. This is called
the Baptism of Desire.
115. What is Confirmation?
Holy Confirmation is the Sacrament by which the Holy Spirit comes to us in
a special way to strengthen us in the Faith and to enable us to profess it
courageously in deed and in word.
116. Who administers Confirmation?
The Bishop. But on special occasions a priest can confirm.
117. What is the Holy Eucharist?
The Holy Eucharist or Holy Sacrament of the Altar, is the Sacrament in
which Christ becomes and remains present under the appearances of bread and
wine.
118. In virtue of what does Christ become present in the Blessed Sacrament
of the Eucharist?
Through the words of the Consecration which the priest pronounces over the
bread and the wine during Mass. Bread and wine are changed into the Body
and Blood of Christ. Only the appearances of bread and wine (color, taste,
etc.) remain.
119. In what way does Christ become present In the Holy Eucharist?
The way He is now: glorified, with Divinity and humanity, with soul and
body, with flesh and blood. So is Christ wholly present under the
appearance of bread, and wholly present under the appearance of wine.
120. How long does Christ remain present In the Holy Eucharist?
As long as the appearances of bread and wine remain.
121. How did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist? On the eve of His
Passion, at the Last Supper, Christ took bread into His hands and said to
the Apostles: "Take this, all of you, and eat it: This is My Body which
will be given up for you." Later on He took a cup of wine and said to His
Apostles:
"Take this, all of you, and drink from it: This is the cup of My Blood, the
Blood of the New Covenant. It will be shed for all men, so that sins may
be for-given." And Jesus added: "DO THIS in memory of me" (d. Lk 22:19).
122. What power did Christ give with those words: Do this In memory of Me?
The power to do that same thing which Christ had done: to change bread and
wine into the Body and the Blood of Christ.
123. For what purpose did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist?
1.) To offer Himself over and over again for us in the Holy Sacrifice of
the Mass, and to remind us of His great Act of Love: His death on the Cross
for our salvation.
2.) To unite Himself most intimately with us in Holy Communion, and to
preserve and foster our supernatural life.
3.) To remain always with us even with His sacred humanity and make us to
be united with one an-other.
124. What is Holy Mass?
It is the Most Holy Sacrifice of the New Covenant. It is Most Holy because
in it Christ offers Himself as Victim to His Heavenly Father, as He did on
the Cross, though in the Mass it is no longer in a bloody manner. Holy
Mass makes the Sacrifice of Calvary sacramentally present on our altars
(Pope Paul VI). And the graces Christ has merited on the Cross are applied
to us through the Sacrifice of the Mass.
125. In what way ought we to assist at Holy Mass?
1.) By actively taking part in it and offering it up to the Heavenly
Father as a most pleasing sacrifice, together with the ordained
priest-celebrant.
2.) By offering ourselves as a sacrifice together with Christ, which
means: by completely giving ourselves up to God's will.
126. How can we participate even more perfectly in Holy Mass?
By going to Communion during Mass and thus taking part in the Divine and
Sacrificial Banquet.
127. What do we receive in Holy Communion?
The Body and the Blood of Christ as our super-natural food.
128. What graces do we receive through Holy Communion?
1.) An increase of sanctifying grace.
2.) A protection against mortal sin by receiving power in our struggle
against unruly passions.
3.) A pledge (earnest) of our glorious resurrection and eternal salvation.
129. What is required for receiving Holy Communion worthily?
1.) Being in the state of grace.
2.) Having fasted for one hour before Holy Communion, which means: having
not eaten anything or drunk anything (water is always allowed) for one
hour. The sick are allowed to take medicine and non-alcoholic beverages
all the time before Communion. In danger of death the law of fast does not
apply. (This is the general rule.)
3.) First to go to confession when we have committed a mortal sin. Except
in special cases a perfect contrition does not suffice.
130. What should we do after Holy Communion? It is most becoming, when
circumstances permit to spend some time in thanksgiving after Mass: holding
an intimate conversation with our Divine and most loving Master (Mediator
Dei).
131. When are we obliged to receive Holy Communion?
1.) Once a year around Easter time.
2.) When we are in danger of death.
It is recommended that we receive Holy Communion frequently, even daily.
Frequent Communion can even become an obligation for those who otherwise do
not have the necessary strength to remain in the state of grace.
132. Why are consecrated Hosts kept In the Tabernacle after Mass?
Not only for the sick, but also that we be able to pay visits to Jesus in
the Blessed Eucharist, adore Him and manifest our love for Him.
133. What Is the Sacrament of Penance (Confession)?
It is the Sacrament in which the priest in God's name forgives the sins of
a person and reconciles him or her with God and with Mother Church.
134. Does the priest have that power?
Yes, for Christ said to His Apostles: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you
forgive men's sins, they are for-given them; if you hold them bound, they
are held bound" (Jn 20, 23). That power was passed on to the Bishops and
to priests, their helpers.
135. Who are obliged to go to confession?
Everyone who has committed a mortal sin must go to confession within the
year, and earlier, when he is in danger of death. But it is greatly
recommended to go regularly to confession, even when one has committed only
venial sins. For Confession gives sanctifying grace or the increase of it
and also sacramental grace (of assistance) to en-able us to sin no more.
It is very dangerous to continue to live in the state of mortal sin, for
Jesus has warned us that He can come when we do not expect it; hence we
must always be ready to appear before Him.
136. What is demanded of the penitent?
1.) He must make an act of sincere repentance (sorrow for sin).
2.) He must confess his sins to the confessor.
3.) He must do his penance; he must accept and fulfill what the confessor
has imposed upon him.
137. What kind of sorrow must we have for our sins?
We must be truly sorry for having offended God, detest sin as the greatest
evil, and firmly resolve not to sin again. Sins for which we are not sorry
are not forgiven.
138. Which sins must we confess?
All mortal sins which we have not confessed in a good confession. We must
confess them with their number and with their circumstances. With their
number: how often we have committed such sins.
With their circumstances: that means with a circumstance that adds a new
sin. An example: he who cruelly strikes another sins against the fifth
Commandment. He who strikes his father or mother sins also against the
fourth Commandment.
139. Must we confess all our venial sins?
No, but it is often useful to confess them to make us get rid of a bad
habit. And let us always mention some sins of our past life for which we
are sorry.
140. What kind of sin do we commit when we knowingly do not confess a
grievous sin?
That is a grievous sin of sacrilege, and then we get no pardon for the sins
that we now have confessed. However, when we merely forget to confess a
grievous sin, the confession remains good. But in the next confession, the
forgotten mortal sin must be confessed.
141. What is the obligation of the confessor regarding what he has heard
in confession? He must keep "the seal," keep secret what has been
confessed to him, even if he is threatened with death unless he reveals it.
142. What must we do before confession?
1.) We must ask the Holy Spirit to help us to make a good confession.
2.) We must examine our conscience: ask our-selves what sins we have
committed since our last confession.
3.) We must carefully and sincerely make an act of contrition, of sorrow
for our sins.
143. What must we do after confession?
We must thank God for that wonderful gift of forgiveness, and do our
penance. It is better to do it immediately; otherwise we shall forget it.
Let us never be in a hurry to get away after confession.
144. If we have committed a mortal sin and a priest gives a general
absolution to a group to which we belong, have we nothing more to do?
We are still obliged to confess our mortal sin to a confessor. Christ made
priests judges and a judge must know the case (Council of Trent).
145. What are the characteristics of the new Rite of Penance?
The new Rite emphasizes more completely the social aspect of reconciliation
and makes use of the living Word of God in the Bible. This Rite includes:
reception of the penitent and sign of the cross; exhortation to trust in
God; reading from Scripture; confession of sins; manifestation of
repentance; petition for God's pardon through the ministry of the Church,
and the priest's absolution; thanksgiving and dismissal in peace. (Some of
these parts are optional.)
146. What is the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick?
It is the Sacrament administered with Holy Oil and the prayer of the priest
to give a special grace and strength to the sick.
147. When is the Sacrament of the Sick administered?
The proper time to administer it is when a Christian begins to be in danger
of death because of sickness or old age (Vat. II).
148. In what state must a Christian receive the Sacrament of the Sick?
When that person is conscious he must be in the state of grace. He who is
in the state of mortal sin, and cannot confess his sins, receives pardon
for his sins through the Sacrament of Anointing, if he, at least, has a
sufficient sorrow for his sins; for, without sorrow, no sin can be
forgiven.
149. What is the particular effect of the Sacrament of Anointing?
1.) By the anointing and the prayer of the priest the sick person is given
courage and sometimes health of body.
2.) But if God considers it better not to grant a cure, He will give the
sick person assistance to suffer patiently and die a holy death.
150. What is the priesthood?
The ministerial priesthood is the Sacrament which makes the recipient share
in a special way in the Priesthood of Christ and endows him with specific
powers.
151. What are the principal powers of the priest?
Offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Forgiving sins. Preaching the
Word of God.
152. Who ordains priests?
The Bishop, for the Bishop has received the fullness of the Power of Holy
Orders. He places his hands on the candidate and pronounces the prescribed
words.
153. What is the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony (Marriage)?
It is the Sacrament by which a baptized man and woman bind themselves to
live together as husband and wife for their whole life, for the propagation
of the human race, and for mutual loving sup-port.
154. Who has instituted marriage?
God Himself, when He made Adam and Eve. And Jesus raised it to the dignity
of a Holy Sacrament.
155. What special grace is given by Holy Matrimony?
That Sacrament gives partners the power to fulfill their duties toward one
another and their children, to sanctify one another and their offspring and
so glorify God (Vat. II).
156. How is a marriage contracted?
Man and woman administer the Sacrament to each other by giving their
consent. This must (ordinarily) take place before the pastor (or his
lawful delegate) and two witnesses.
157. Can and may a Catholic marry anyone?
No. There are impediments which make a marriage invalid or illicit
(forbidden).
It is an invalid marriage (no marriage at all) when a Catholic marries a
non-baptized person, or one who is married, or is a relative
(blood-relationship or affinity) within the forbidden degrees.
Bishops have powers to dispense from some impediments for valid reasons,
except when one of the persons is truly married.
Belonging to different Faiths can often be an obstacle to mutual
understanding and a happy marriage.
158. Is a Marriage before a civil magistrate or before a Protestant
minister a valid Marriage?
Not for a Catholic. A Catholic must be married (ordinarily) before the
Church, before the pastor (or his delegate) and two witnesses.
159. When is a marriage dissolved?
With respect to the Church, a marriage validly contracted and consummated
is dissolved only through the death of one of the partners. Divorce before
the civil authority does not dissolve a marriage.
160. Besides the Sacraments, what is the great means to obtain graces?
That great means is Prayer. For Christ has said:
"Ask and you shall receive" (Lk 11:9).
161. How must we pray?
With respect, attention, confidence and perseverance.
162. Why do we not always receive what we ask for?
Because we do not pray as we ought, or because we ask for something that is
not useful for our eternal happiness.
163. When does our prayer acquire a special power?
1.) When we ask God for something in the Name of Jesus, which means:
because of Christ's infinite merits.
2.) When we pray together, for Christ has promised: "Where two or three
are assembled in my name, I am in the midst of them." That is why family
prayer is so greatly recommended. "A family that prays together stays
together."
164. When ought we to pray?
1.) When we get up and when we go to bed (morning and evening prayer).
2.) Before and after meals (thanksgiving for God's good gifts).
3.) In time of temptation and danger.
165. What Prayer did Christ Himself teach us?
The Our Father (the Lord's Prayer). In it is found all that we need for
body and soul and all we should pray for.
166. What is Liturgical Prayer?
It is the Public Worship of the Church. Man must not be satisfied with
honoring and petitioning God only as an individual and for himself alone.
But we must also honor God together with others and ad-dress prayers of
petition to Him. This we do by adoration, thanksgiving, reparation and
supplication, which the Church presents to God in the name of the
believers, particularly by the Celebration of the Eucharist, by the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass.
THE MOST IMPORTANT PRAYERS
The Sign of the Cross
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
The Lord's Prayer
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy
will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily
bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass
against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Amen.
The Hail Mary
Hail Mary, full of grace! The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among
women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of
God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
The Twelve Articles of the Creed (Apostles')
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord;
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell;
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand Of God, the Father
Almighty.
From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Catholic Church,
The Communion of Saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the body,
And life everlasting. Amen.
An Act of Faith
O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three Divine Persons,
Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost; I believe that Thy divine Son became man, and died for our sins, and
that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and
all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast
revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.
An Act of Hope
O my God, relying on Thy almighty power and in-finite mercy and promises, I
hope to obtain pardon of my sins, the help of Thy grace, and life
everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Redeemer.
An Act of Love
O my God, I love Thee above all things, with my whole heart and soul,
because Thou art all good and worthy of all love. I love my neighbor as
myself for the love of Thee. I forgive all who have injured me, and ask
pardon of all whom I have in-jured.
Act of Contrition
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my
sins, because of Thy just punishments, but most of all because they have
of-fended Thee, my God, Who art all-good and de-serving of all my love. I
firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more and to avoid the
near occasions of sin.
Glory Be to the Father (Gloria) Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and
to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen.
Morning Prayer
1. Sign of the Cross (best with Holy Water).
2. My Lord and my God, I kneel before You and adore Your Supreme Majesty.
I thank You for all your gifts and particularly because You have preserved
me during this night. To You I consecrate my soul and my body and all that
I possess. I offer you all the works that I shall perform this day. I
want to do them for your honor and for the salvation of my soul.
Safeguard me, most loving Father, against sins and dangers.
Say 3 Hail Marys, and 3 times: O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us,
who have recourse to You.
Evening Prayer
1. Sign of the Cross (best with Holy Water).
2. My Lord and my God, I kneel before You and adore Your Sovereign
Majesty. I thank You for all Your gifts, especially because you have
preserved me this day.
I ask you to forgive me for everything I have done this day that was evil.
Safeguard me, most loving Father, against sins and dangers. Say 3 Hail
Marys.
Prayers Before and After Meals
1. Before Meals: Bless us, O Lord, and these Your gifts which we are about
to receive from Your Bounty. Through Christ, our Lord. Amen. (Hail Mary.)
2. After Meals: Almighty God, we thank You for all Your gifts, You who
live and reign, world with-out end. Amen. (Our Father.)
THE MYSTERIES OF THE ROSARY
The Prayer of the Rosary is an ancient form of prayer that has been
cherished by innumerable saintly Christians. It has been praised by very
many Popes, has been recited daily in many families, and was greatly
recommended by the Blessed Virgin, particularly at Lourdes and at Fatima.
The complete Rosary has fifteen decades. Each decade begins and ends with
one Glory Be to the Father, one Our Father; and then 10 Hail Mary's are
said. All important are the particular mysteries recalled at the beginning
of each decade; we are invited to meditate devoutly upon each. Such
meditation may suggest particular resolutions and special intentions.
The Joyful Mysteries
I .The Angel Gabriel brings the joyful message to Mary.
2. Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth.
3. Jesus is born in a stable in Bethlehem.
4. Jesus is offered in the Temple.
5. Jesus is found again in the Temple.
The Sorrowful Mysteries
1. Jesus prays in agony to His Heavenly Father.
2. Jesus is scourged.
3. Jesus is crowned with thorns.
4. Jesus carries His Cross to Calvary.
5. Jesus dies on the Cross.
The Glorious Mysteries
1. Jesus rises from death.
2. Jesus ascends to Heaven.
3. The Holy Spirit descends upon the Apostles.
4. Mary is taken up to Heaven in body and soul.
5. Mary is crowned in Heaven.
Enoch Leung
hi,
I see a problem in the statement:
LIBERALISM IS A SIN
BY DR. DON FELIX SARDA Y SALVANY
TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC. Rockford, Illinois 61105
Ch. 2
IF Liberalism is a sin, THEN...
Who gives me the capability of making decisions?
The one who gives me the thinking power is the cause of sin...
Enoch
Post and Mail Reply, PLS!!!
Master C-Baoth
Let's see:
Wicca
Meditation
Paganism
Occultism
Just depends on what you're into and what you choose to believe in.
Master C-Baoth
On 9 Mar 1997 02:28:42 GMT, "Timothy Consodine" <timo...@flash.net>
wrote:
>Master C-Baoth <cba...@xmission.com> wrote in article
MONICA KELLY
Someone explain why if you are not married in the Catholic Church, a
marrage that the Catholic Church does not recognize, you were married by
the state then you get divorced and then wish to marry someone in the
Catholic Church. Why do you have to pay them to "annull" (forgive
spelling) what they didn't recognize to begin with so you can then marry
in the Church.
Monica
bitBASTARD
On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 19:52:17 -0600, julian <jul...@wwisp.com> wrote:
>Couldn't resist a few observations as I was passing through this
>section. First, people who are deeply afraid of someday being called to
>account for their actions often react to Christianity - and for that
>matter, Judaism - with violent rhetoric, although it is hoped that such
>people will someday be able to use words with more than four letters in
>communicating their paranoid ideas. Second, in the major cities I have
>visited, I can't remember ever once encountering a free hospital,
>homeless shelter, soup kitchen, orphanage, AIDS hospice, cancer hospice
>or other such establishment set up by atheists, new-agers, druid/pagan
>groups or self-proclaimed intellectuals. The best example of
>Christianity in action may well be Mother Teresa of Calcutta; the best
i saw mother teresa selling t-shirts in harvard square
they read "i hung out with the homeless" on the front
& had an ad for the charles hotel on the back
it's sniveling little gutless toad sucking pussies like you that make
the world what it is: a place ruled by assholes
fucking xtianity! end the reign of the weak!
Mark Hartman
1. Nobody ever said that the Church does not recognize civil marriages.
A civil marriage is never licit (i.e., done according to the rules),
but it can be valid, since matrimony is a sacrament that the bride and
groom confer upon each other. Whether the putative marriage does in
fact meet all the qualifications for a sacramental marriage is a
question that the Church does not get involved in unless the question
is brought up by the participants.
2. The above implies that a civil marriage has the presumption of validity,
albeit a lesser one than a marriage in the Church. This being the case,
proof that it is NOT a valid marriage is what must be demonstrated, as
it's assumed that the participants entered into their marriage with the
intent of actually being married.
3. No one is denied the annulment process because of a true inability to
pay the expenses of the tribunal. However, the expenses are real, and
there may only be a certain amount of extra money to fund cases which
cannot otherwise have their expenses paid. Therefore, those cases may
tend to languish a bit until money is available to do the research needed
to make a determination.
I hope that this answers your question.
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
Did you know that Win95 sold barely HALF of its sales forecast?
Anthony M Annett
In article <5gc64a$q...@wak.netbiz.net>,
MONICA KELLY <mon...@netbiz.net> wrote:
>Someone explain why if you are not married in the Catholic Church, a
>marrage that the Catholic Church does not recognize, you were married by
>the state then you get divorced and then wish to marry someone in the
>Catholic Church. Why do you have to pay them to "annull" (forgive
>spelling) what they didn't recognize to begin with so you can then marry
>in the Church.
Personally, I think the concept of marriage should be totally separate in
church and state. I believe that the state should marry anybody who wants
to be united in such as manner-- including gays-- while the church should
offer the sacrament only to those who will treat it with the respect it
deserves. No overlap.
Tony
"The lunatic...doesn't concern himself at all with logic; he works by
short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else...You can tell
him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of
inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars"
bRuTUs dANgeRoUsLy
On 14 Mar 1997 18:41:14 GMT, MONICA KELLY <mon...@netbiz.net> wrote:
>Someone explain why if you are not married in the Catholic Church, a
>marrage that the Catholic Church does not recognize, you were married by
>the state then you get divorced and then wish to marry someone in the
>Catholic Church. Why do you have to pay them to "annull" (forgive
>spelling) what they didn't recognize to begin with so you can then marry
>in the Church.
>
>Monica
>
cause the catholic church is a bunch of money-grubbing bloodsucking parasites
fuck the church
Robert F Underhill
q...@wak.netbiz.net> <mh-140397...@192.168.1.1>
Organization: The World, Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA
Distribution:
I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF CONSTERNATION HAVING SOMEONE CLAIN THAT A CIVIL
MARRIAGE IS A SACRAMENT.
If that were the case, then when Jesus said "What you join together . . .",
he was not talking to the Apostles only; he was not creating One Church only.
And the last two millenium have been for naught.
--
Mark Hartman
In article <E743C...@world.std.com>, por...@world.std.com (Robert F
Underhill) wrote:
Sigh.
Once again - the sacrament of matrimony is conferred by the bride and groom
upon each other, not by the Church upon either of them. The rules of the
Church require that, whenever possible, a minister of the Church (priest or
deacon) witness the actual ceremony, but a man and a woman stranded on a
desert island who decide, before God, to marry, are as married as any couple
who marry in a church before a priest.
A civil marriage when a priest is available may not be licit, but can be
valid.
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
Macintosh: Where do you want to be tomorrow? And next year?
Sam Finlay
bRuTUs dANgeRoUsLy wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 1997 18:41:14 GMT, MONICA KELLY <mon...@netbiz.net> wrote:
>
> >Someone explain why if you are not married in the Catholic Church, a
> >marrage that the Catholic Church does not recognize, you were married by
> >the state then you get divorced and then wish to marry someone in the
> >Catholic Church. Why do you have to pay them to "annull" (forgive
> >spelling) what they didn't recognize to begin with so you can then marry
> >in the Church.
> >
> >Monica
> >
Assuming that this is an honest request for info....
AFAIK the Catholic church recognizes other marriages as valid. If
a couple later joins the Catholic church they do not have to remarry.
The idea of " paying to anull" a marriage is something of a red herring.
A hearing is held ( & the money is used to cover the costs ) to
determine if the previous marriage was valid or not. If it was found to
be valid then no ammount of money will invalidate the marriage. A
marriage is invalid ( if memory serves ) only on the grounds of
insanity, refusal to have children, of the emotional immaturity of one
or both of the participants ( includes but not limited to, the inability
to understand the concept of commitment ). I'm working from a somewhat
unreliable memory here, so perhaps someone out there can fill in the
details.
Sam
Emmanuel C.
I'm going to complaint about you and have your email revoke because of
your insults against Mother Theresa and the Vatican.
In Christ,
Emmanuel C.
Emmanuel C.
PAZUZU wrote:
>
> Timothy Consodine wrote:
> >
> > Gareth <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> > <01bc296b$b4b91840$4042...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>...
> > salvation
> > > > of your soul.
> > >
> >
> > It's also true.
> >
> > one comes in the Father's ass, but by me.If you had fucked me, you would have
> > known my Father.
>
> Oh your so right.
> --
>
> ____ ___ _____ __ _______ __ __
> / __ \ / |__ / / / / /__ / / / / /
> / /_/ / / /| | / / / / / / / / / / / /
> / ____/ / ___ |/ /__ /_/ / / /__ /_/ /
> /_/ /_/ |_|____/____/ /____/____/
I'm forwarding this email to the FBI and you arrested for insults!!!!!!
MONICA KELLY
Yes, it was a genuine request. Thanks
MONICA KELLY
>
>Once again - the sacrament of matrimony is conferred by the bride and groom
>upon each other, not by the Church upon either of them. The rules of the
>Church require that, whenever possible, a minister of the Church (priest or
>deacon) witness the actual ceremony, but a man and a woman stranded on a
>desert island who decide, before God, to marry, are as married as any couple
>who marry in a church before a priest.
>
>A civil marriage when a priest is available may not be licit, but can be
>valid.
When a couple dedicate their lives to each other soley forsaking all
others (to quote) Is not that union blessed by God?
Monica
bRuTUs dANgeRoUsLy
manny, baby,
you obviously became a xtian because of your inability to structure
a coherent sentence. can you say, conjugate? no, i didn't think so
yet another proof that xtians are idiots
or more accurately, that idiots are xtians
Jerry Tribe
Emmanuel C. wrote:
[snip]
> I'm forwarding this email to the FBI and you arrested for insults!!!!!!
As a matter of interest, it is still possible to be prosecuted for
blasphamy (Sp?) in the UK. I think there was an erotic poem in
Gay News some years ago that attracted the attention of Mary
Whitehouse to the tune of a provate prosecution. On the other
hand the death peanalty still exists for having sex with the
heir to the thrones wife.... One understands that Mr Carling
is not worried.
--
------ ------
Hell is a city much like Dis, and it's Pandemonium,
for why, "this is Hell, nor am I out of it".
------
j-ca...@nwu.edu
> bitBASTARD wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 19:52:17 -0600, julian <jul...@wwisp.com> wrote:
> >
> > fucking xtianity! end the reign of the weak!
>
>
> I'm going to complaint about you and have your email revoke because of
> your insults against Mother Theresa and the Vatican.
>
> In Christ,
>
> Emmanuel C.
Trading vindictiveness for vindictiveness. Cute. Anybody ever get the idea
that radical atheist agitators and radical fundamentalist cranks should be
given some little island somewhere to beat each other silly on, and leave
the rest of us alone?
Roxanne
>PAZUZU wrote:
>>
>> Timothy Consodine wrote:
>> >
>> > Gareth <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>> > <01bc296b$b4b91840$4042...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>...
>> > > > You can't destroy the church, but Jesus wants you in it for the
>> > salvation
>> > > > of your soul.
>> > >
>> > > That's what you think.
>> >
>> > It's also true.
>> >
>> > John 14:6 Jesus said to him, 的 am the cocksucker, and the homo, and no
>> > one comes in the Father's ass, but by me.If you had fucked me, you would have
>> > known my Father.
>>
>> Oh your so right.
>I'm forwarding this email to the FBI and you arrested for insults!!!!!!
Silly Christian. Intellectual discourse is for human beings.
Roxanne
P.S. The FBI! Hahahahahah!!! That's a good one! Tell me another!
Bwahahah!
E-mail address altered to thwart automatic replies and
knee-jerk responses.
Carol and David Birks
In Christ,
Nate
Bill
>> > John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the cocksucker, and the homo, and
no
>> > one comes in the Father's ass, but by me.If you had fucked me, you
would have
>> > known my Father.
>>
>> Oh your so right.
> >I'm forwarding this email to the FBI and you arrested for insults!!!!!!
There's no law as of yet prohibiting the language used on the internet.
There is a current court case that is deciding on it right now. IIt
doesn't look good for the censorship law, and THANK GOD. The only reason
people want a law like that is because they can't ignore stupid shit like
that and if you can't you're not mature enough to be on the internet
anyway. And I'm sooo sure you have the FBI's email address.
Ben C Davis
Bill <re...@web-net.com> wrote in article <01bc35f0$64112680$7a0dfbcc@rene>...
> > >I'm forwarding this email to the FBI and you arrested for insults!!!!!!
>
>
>
> There's no law as of yet prohibiting the language used on the internet.
> There is a current court case that is deciding on it right now. IIt
> doesn't look good for the censorship law, and THANK GOD. The only reason
> people want a law like that is because they can't ignore stupid shit like
> that and if you can't you're not mature enough to be on the internet
> anyway. And I'm sooo sure you have the FBI's email address.
Well they can start at http://www.fbi.gov. ;-)
Ben 8)
We can't all be heroes because someone has to sit on the curb and clap
as they go by. _Will Rogers
Larry Welk
22 Mar 97
Actually, the Catholic church has it's own unique views to marriage that
fall outside the guidelines of the bible. Recently the Pope agreed to
divorced people getting remarried so long as they did not continue to
have sex.
The issue becomes even more clouded because the pope has no authority on
earth or in heaven since even his title as Holy Father is a statement of
sin. Matt 23:9
The fact is, marriage is a gift to mankind and the basic building block
for any society. For the Catholic Church to demand control of this and
charge fees in relation to annulments etc in order to satisfy their view
of God's requirement is without any biblical support. They are in fact
sinning and causing others to stumble and sin by lying about there
authority to request these monies etc.
The hard truth is to be found in Matt 5:32. However there is grace and
many other considerations. However, this is something all Catholics
should review, look at 1 Timothy 4:1-5. Catholicism is not
Christianity, it is Catholicism.
eralink
Mark Hartman
>22 Mar 97
>
>Actually, the Catholic church has it's own unique views to marriage that
>fall outside the guidelines of the bible. Recently the Pope agreed to
>divorced people getting remarried so long as they did not continue to
>have sex.
Actually, the Church agreed to let Catholics who have received a civil
divorce and have attempted marriage under civil jurisdiction continue to
live together so long as they renounced living in an obstinate state of
adultery.
>The issue becomes even more clouded because the pope has no authority on
>earth or in heaven since even his title as Holy Father is a statement of
>sin. Matt 23:9
Then I guess that Paul was guilty of the same statement of sin. 1Cor 4:15.
A typical Protestant take-it-out-of-context trick.
>The fact is, marriage is a gift to mankind and the basic building block
>for any society. For the Catholic Church to demand control of this and
>charge fees in relation to annulments etc in order to satisfy their view
>of God's requirement is without any biblical support. They are in fact
>sinning and causing others to stumble and sin by lying about there
>authority to request these monies etc.
The Church only controls what Christ gave it to control and, unfortunately
for your point of view, marriage is included.
The Church only asks that people pay the expenses of the tribunal if it is
possible for them to do so; no one is ever denied a hearing merely for lack
of funds. Your accusation is either made out of ignorance, or is a deliberate
lie on your part.
>The hard truth is to be found in Matt 5:32. However there is grace and
>many other considerations.
The word there translated "immorality" has a meaning much closer to "blatant
and persistent promiscuity or prostitution," according to those more
knowledgable about the subject than I; I do not read the original languages
of the Bible. This condition would be considered by the Church to demonstrate
a lack of intention to make a lifelong and exclusive committment, and therefore
would invalidate the marriage. The Church, therefore, follows the teaching
of Christ. You, however, seem to want to make other conditions apply without
any authority to do so; at least the Church HAS the authority, see Matt
16:18-20.
>However, this is something all Catholics should review, look at 1 Timothy
>4:1-5.
You, who spread lies about the Church, and take things out of context to
change their meaning to something entirely different than has been taught
by authentic Christianity for almost 2000 years - you DARE to point out this
passage which describes you so well?
It is to laugh.
>Catholicism is not Christianity, it is Catholicism.
Catholicism _defines_ Christianity. The closer you are to the Church that
Christ Himself founded, the closer you are to Him.
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
A virus for Windows '95? Isn't that a bit redundant?
Reyn
Emmanuel C. wrote:
>
> bitBASTARD wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 19:52:17 -0600, julian <jul...@wwisp.com> wrote:
> >
> > >section. First, people who are deeply afraid of someday being called to
> > >account for their actions often react to Christianity - and for that
> > >matter, Judaism - with violent rhetoric, although it is hoped that such
> > >people will someday be able to use words with more than four letters in
> > >communicating their paranoid ideas. Second, in the major cities I have
> > >visited, I can't remember ever once encountering a free hospital,
> > >homeless shelter, soup kitchen, orphanage, AIDS hospice, cancer hospice
> > >or other such establishment set up by atheists, new-agers, druid/pagan
> > >groups or self-proclaimed intellectuals. The best example of
> > >Christianity in action may well be Mother Teresa of Calcutta; the best
> >
> > i saw mother teresa selling t-shirts in harvard square
> > they read "i hung out with the homeless" on the front
> > & had an ad for the charles hotel on the back
> >
> > it's sniveling little gutless toad sucking pussies like you that make
> > the world what it is: a place ruled by assholes
> >
>
> I'm going to complaint about you and have your email revoke because of
> your insults against Mother Theresa and the Vatican.
>
> In Christ,
>
> Emmanuel C.
Excuse me Mr. C. People have a right to their views. WHile I believe
that fundamentalism is a cult which worships a book, and I certainly
believe that elevating the bishop of Rome to the statis the Romans do is
silly, I do not interfere in your right to believe as you do. YOU DO
NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOR THE POWER TO INTERFERE WITH OTHERS>
Thanks,
Reyn
Reyn
Emmanuel C. wrote:
> =
> PAZUZU wrote:
> >
> > Timothy Consodine wrote:
> > >
> > > Gareth <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> > > <01bc296b$b4b91840$4042...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>...
> > > > > You can't destroy the church, but Jesus wants you in it for the=
> > > salvation
> > > > > of your soul.
> > > >
> > > > That's what you think.
> > >
> > > It's also true.
> > >
> > > John 14:6 Jesus said to him, =93I am the cocksucker, and the homo, =
and no
> > > one comes in the Father's ass, but by me.If you had fucked me, you =
would have
> > > known my Father.
> >
> > Oh your so right.
> > --
> >
> > ____ ___ _____ __ _______ __ __
> > / __ \ / |__ / / / / /__ / / / / /
> > / /_/ / / /| | / / / / / / / / / / / /
> > / ____/ / ___ |/ /__ /_/ / / /__ /_/ /
> > /_/ /_/ |_|____/____/ /____/____/
> =
> I'm forwarding this email to the FBI and you arrested for insults!!!!!!=
Are you out of your mind? The Internet is all about free speech. Just
as I, despite the fact that I am a leftist/radical refused to sign
petitions against the neo-Nazis and loonie racists, because they have a
right to their evil and their insults and anything else they'd like on
the Net, so too does this man have a right to say ANYTHING to you he
wants, and the FBI won't care unless he threatens your life or does
something else illegal. That's what being American is all about, that
is why I love my country.
Regards,
Reyn
ly...@aol.com
Reyn wrote:
>
> Emmanuel C. wrote:
> >
> > PAZUZU wrote:
> > >
> > > Timothy Consodine wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Gareth <Gar...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> > > > <01bc296b$b4b91840$4042...@j-sltd.demon.co.uk>...
> > > > > > You can't destroy the church, but Jesus wants you in it for the
> > > > > > of your soul.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's what you think.
> > > >
> > > > It's also true.
> > > >
> > > > one comes in the Father's ass, but by me.If you had fucked me, you would have
> > > > known my Father.
> > >
> > > Oh your so right.
> > > --
> > >
> > > ____ ___ _____ __ _______ __ __
> > > / __ \ / |__ / / / / /__ / / / / /
> > > / /_/ / / /| | / / / / / / / / / / / /
> > > / ____/ / ___ |/ /__ /_/ / / /__ /_/ /
> > > /_/ /_/ |_|____/____/ /____/____/
> >
>
> as I, despite the fact that I am a leftist/radical refused to sign
> petitions against the neo-Nazis and loonie racists, because they have a
> right to their evil and their insults and anything else they'd like on
> the Net, so too does this man have a right to say ANYTHING to you he
> wants, and the FBI won't care unless he threatens your life or does
> something else illegal. That's what being American is all about, that
> is why I love my country.
>
> Regards,
>
> Reyn
Some of these Christians are so provincial that they have never heard
anyone counter their pathetic Christian apologetics before. It's great
to watch them get flummoxed! Too bad they didn't have a more open mind
so that they could debate the issues intellectually, not biblically or
emotionally!!
Josh Yates-Walker
> > I'm forwarding this email to the FBI and you arrested for insults!!!!!!
> Are you out of your mind? The Internet is all about free speech. Just
> as I, despite the fact that I am a leftist/radical refused to sign
> petitions against the neo-Nazis and loonie racists, because they have a
> right to their evil and their insults and anything else they'd like on
> the Net, so too does this man have a right to say ANYTHING to you he
> wants, and the FBI won't care unless he threatens your life or does
> something else illegal. That's what being American is all about, that
> is why I love my country.
>
> Regards,
>
> Reyn
The Internet is also about the transending national boundries. It's not just in America that there's free speach. So less of the Americancentric views please
Josh
--
gdsgf