Paul and Eugene

God bless! I would like to ask these questions to both because it seems you got authority in this forum and practically have all the answers. It the last subject of predestination, You drilled in my head that I was inncorrect but for me to understand the salavation of the Bible the way you teach it you avoided to answer some key questions. And Eugene be nice, no character assasination please. Just answer the questions. OK, You guys said that Jesus died for the whole world. For every man. If they do not choose salvation then they will go to hell.

1) When Jesus died on the cross, did His blood cover some of their sins or all of the sins of the people that "CHOOSE"?

2) Did He take their place at the judgement thrown and cover every sin til their last day?

3) Could they fall away and lose their salvation?

That's all. If you can clear up these questions then I will understand your views. God Bless!

-- Christian Soldier (Embasador333@yahoo.com), May 31, 2003

Answers

Dear Christian,

The blood of Jesus was sufficient for the forgiveness of every sin that every human being ever committed, is committing now, and ever will commit. But that doesn't mean that every sin is thereby automatically forgiven. Let me offer an analogy. Let's say a remote village is in a drought area where there has been no rain for many months. All the vegetation has died, and the people are awaiting starvation. They are lost, and there is nothing any of them can do to save themselves. It is out of their hands, and if they are to be saved it will have to be by the intervention of a "higher power" than themselves. Suddenly a huge airplane appears, and drops tons of food, water, medical supplies, and everything else they need to sustain themselves for a long time. The "savior" who dropped the supplies made sure there was more than enough for every person. The needs of the entire village were covered, many times over. There was no designation of who could or could not partake of what was offered, for each life is as valuable as any other, and what was given was given to all as a free and unconditional gift. So, the whole village was saved! Well, not necessarily. Even though the needs of each person were covered many times over, one thing remains. Each person must individually choose to accept what has been offered, take it, eat it, assimilate it, make it part of himself. Anyone who chooses not to do so, who rejects the free offer of salvation, will still die, in spite of the fact that the savior provided salvation for all. And so it is with the Bread of Life. His death on the cross provided all the grace and all the forgiveness that any human being could ever need, many times over; and it is offered freely and abundantly to all. But it does no- one any good unless they choose to accept it and make it part of themselves. Any time we go to Him seeking forgiveness, that limitless fund of grace and forgiveness which He won for us by His death is there, ready to be dispensed to us in whatever measure we need. But if we don't go to the source, don't seek grace and forgiveness, how can we expect to receive it?

Jesus does sit at the right hand of the Father, where He represents us, as one of us, at judgment. But Jesus is not just one of us. He is also Almighty God. He is our advocate, and what an advocate!, but He is also the just judge. Unlike earthly lawyers, he will not try to get an unjust and ungodly person off the hook by trickery and deception. He will represent us, but only in perfect truth and perfect justice. To be represented by such a formidable advocate is reason for peace and confidence - if we are coming to judgment in a state of grace and innocence, genuinely repentent for our transgressions. But it is reason for terror if we have spent our earthly lives in rejection and disdain, or even hatred, of the very One Who will be our judge.

The Bible never speaks of "losing" one's salvation, and for good reason. To "lose" something, you first must "have" it. And the Bible says, repeatedly, that no-one is assured of their salvation while still on this earth. "The one who endures to the end, he will be saved". (Matthew 24:13) Note the future tense here ... he WILL be saved, once he has endured to the END of his life. He is not saved now, because anyone can fall away. Those who have accepted Christ still have free will, and therefore can later choose to abandon Him. One who does so will FORFEIT salvation, but will not LOSE something he never had. This reality caused Paul to write "I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified". (1 Corinthians 9:27) By Protestant standards, surely Paul was among those who were "saved". But he knew he was NOT saved, and might never be saved unless he was vigilant in avoiding sin and continuing to live his life in a godly way, until the end. He expressed this same idea in 1 Corinthians 9:24 - "Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win". This analogy makes the point well. Obviously the prize in a race is given only at the END of the race, not while the participants are still running, because any runner might drop out at any time, for any number of reasons, and fail to finish, thereby forfeiting the prize. And again, Paul states "I do not regard myself as having yet laid hold of it; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus". (Philippians 3:14) Once the race is over, and the prize is awarded, it THEN belongs forever to the one who received it. Once we are truly saved, in heaven, once we actually have our salvation - we cannot lose it. But there is much we can do here on earth to forfeit salvation, right up to the moment of our death. This is true of every person, those who have (so far) accepted Christ, and those who have (so far) rejected Him. "But Jesus said to him, "No one, after putting his hand to the plow and then looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:62)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 31, 2003.

Hi Christian Soldier and Paul.

Paul- Your explanation has to be the clearest and most convincing that I have ever encountered. I cannot understand why any person cannot understand such clarity in God's will.

Thank you, Paul. .........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 31, 2003.

Bravo, Paul!
If only Soldier accepts your unselfish words, and lets his heart truly reflect on them a while.

We haven't any so-called ''authority'', CS. All we ever say in this place is taught us in the Catholic Church. She is here by the working of the Holy Spirit Who is the AUTHORITY.

Let me simply recall one of Jesus Christ's most authoritative, holy commands, Soldier-- ''If anyone would be my disciple, let him take up his cross and follow me.''

I see Jesus has not indicated who would and who wouldn't take up the cross. Some have and some haven't. The cross of His salvation, Christian Soldier. Not some unalterable destiny.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 31, 2003.

Soldier,

I would like to hear your answers to these questions as well. My reason is that I have heard one guy (protestant) say that because of Christ's sacrifice we are all saved no matter what! Hard to believe but true. By that standard even someone who spent his whole life trying to turn souls AWAY from God would be saved!

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2003.

Frank yes I will attempt to answer them but before I do,

Paul, the way you have described salvation, how can you explain the way Apostle Paul Got saved?

When he was called Saul he was very well educated in the scriptures and probably one of the most respected pharasies in the Jewish temple. He definitely thought he was worshipping God the right way. Paul was killing the Christians because he thought they were teaching heresies. Paul would have never come to Christ if Jesus didn't intervein. Can you explain through your analogy how Saul/Paul turned to Christ?

-- Christian Soldier (embasador333@yahoo.com), June 01, 2003.

Rod Please you don't have to thank me, I am glad you were blessed by this information. Every thing came from the scriptures. The Spirit helped me sift them out. If we do understand scriptures, we need to give God all the glory because the Holy Spirit guides us to all truth. So if God is giving you eyes to see and ears to hear, thank HIM! We must remain hummble and never get upset at others and always continue to pray for them, never boast and be patient! Peace.

-- C.S (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 01, 2003.

Dear Christian,

Paul got saved the same way any Christian does - by accepting Jesus Christ, living according to His teaching, and remaining faithful until the end. As far as how he came to first accept Christ, God provided him with a special moment of grace, a conversion experience, that convinced him of the reality of Jesus and His message. God has done the same for many others, including people I know personally. But Paul, just like anyone else, still had to voluntarily choose to accept Christ. I'll grant you that God put a bit more pressure on him than on most people, but then again God had greater plans for him than for most people. Still, God did not override his free will. Saul could have said "okay you knocked me off my horse, spoke to me, and blinded me, but I'm stilll going to pursue and kill your followers to the ends of the earth". He didn't.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 01, 2003.

Paul You see! You said it yourself, God did all the work! Paul would have never chose to go to Christ!!!! Paul was an elect and God gave him a will to believe in Christ. Now how about an un born Child? How could a baby who can't speak turn to Christ?

-- C.S (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 01, 2003.

C.S.,

Better reread my post. Saul DID choose to go to Christ of his own free will. Obviously one does not make that choice until Christ has been revealed. But once He is revealed, a person has the option of accepting Him or rejecting Him. Saul chose to accept Him after seeing the evidence God provided. Others have been given evidence much like Saul, but still decided to reject Him.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 01, 2003.

Paul In actuality you are saying that God needs to intervein for us to go to him. As many Christians that preached to Saul/Paul, He wouldn't of listened. Matter of fact he was going to Damascus to really get busy in persecuting Christians.

No way he cared for Christ. So how does a baby turn to Christ if he can't speak or actknowledge Jesus?

-- C.S (embasador333@yahoo.com), June 01, 2003.

Dear C.S.,

God must reveal Himself to men if men are to know Him. That's why there were so many different pagan religions before God revealed Himself to the Jews, and through them, revealed Himself more fully in His Son. Pagan religions were futile attempts by men to find God by their own efforts, which is impossible. Obviously men cannot freely decide to accept or to reject something until it has been revealed to them. You can choose to buy a particular house, or to reject that house, but not until you identify it and find it. It's the same with God. God chose to reveal Himself to men at a particular point in time. That action by God made it possible for men to exercise their free will and to make personal decisions, either to accept God as revealed, or to reject Him. Each person must make that decision individually, regardless of the specific circumstances by which that person became aware of God and His invitation.

Who said that a baby turns to Christ? Your question comes from a 16th century manmade tradition that no Christian before then ever heard of - the notion that baptism is something we do, to express our devotion and commitment to God. However, baptism as understood by the universal Christian Church for 2,000 years, is a sacrament - an action of God, something HE does TO us, not something we do for Him, which results in an outpouring of grace upon us, transforming us into children of God and making us heirs of heaven. Those who have abandoned this essential Christian truth naturally have difficulty understanding or appreciating other Christian truths, since all truth is interconnected. The Bible tells us that NO-ONE can enter the kingdom without being born of water AND the spirit. Manmade sects typically reject the part about being born of water (or provide some absurd interpretation in an effort to exclude it) and emphasize birth in the spirit. But the Catholic Church, which never waters down the Word of God, and accepts each and every word as written, recognizes that both aspects are of equal importance. Otherwise Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could not have said "Baptism now saves you". (1 Peter 3:21) A newly baptized child is a member of the Church, just as surely as a newly born child is a member of a family. Both have a lot of growing and learning to do, but that doesn't negate their identity as a human being, or as a child of God.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 01, 2003.

Paul

What you are teaching is very dangerous. You continue to contradict the scriptures too. You are teaching a grace pluse works gospel.

Be patient with me I trying to understand how you teach salvation. In your post you said:

“The Bible never speaks of "losing" one's salvation, and for good reason. To "lose" something, you first must "have" it. And the Bible says, repeatedly, that no-one is assured of their salvation while still on this earth.”… “He is not saved now, because anyone can fall away. Those who have accepted Christ still have free will, and therefore can later choose to abandon Him. One who does so will FORFEIT salvation, but will not LOSE something he never had. This reality caused Paul to write "I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified". (1 Corinthians 9:27) By Protestant standards, surely Paul was among those who were "saved". But he knew he was NOT saved, and might never be saved unless he was vigilant in avoiding sin and continuing to live his life in a godly way, until the end. He expressed this same idea in 1 Corinthians 9:24 - "Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win"

I think I understand how you perceive salvation. You are teaching that nobody knows they are saved and/or salvation is giving to those who make it to the end! So at any time they can drop out of “the race” and fall away. Boy, are we reading the same Bible? You are making a monster out of Christ, no offense. It sounds like we are working to be saved. This means we are still under the curse of the law. What do you think the Jews are doing? Trying to get themselves saved by following all the Old Testament traditions.

Let us think about it for a moment. What did Christ do to keep us from the wrath of God? God's law declares in Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The "death" that God has in mind is eternal damnation. The Bible teaches that any sin that we have committed can send us to hell for evermore. God also teaches that He put all the sins of those whom He planned to save upon the Lord Jesus Christ; He laid upon Him our iniquities. Therefore, every sin of those who become saved (every sin they have done or ever will do) was put upon the Lord Jesus, and Jesus stood before the judgment throne of God; this is the atonement. Jesus was guilty for our sins, and God poured out His wrath upon Him in such a way that it was equivalent to or equal to what the believers deserve, and because of God's justice, we deserve eternal damnation.

Christ paid the penalty, which means He paid for all of my sins and all of the sins of every true believer. Now, what sin could I commit that would cause me to lose my salvation? Christ can forgive me because He paid for all my sins. Is there any sin I could commit that would cause me to lose my salvation? The answer is, "no. There is no sin because He has paid for every sin." So, of course, I cannot lose my salvation. The Bible says that when Christ saves us, He gives us eternal life, not just life, but eternal life. John 10:27-28 tells us: ”My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

Eternal life means that it never ends. God says that no one can snatch us out of His hand. We are held by the Father; we are held by the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible says that Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. God tells us in Hebrews 12:2: “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

The Bible gives us a ton of assurance that if we have really become saved, we can never lose our salvation. The Bible says it so , in Romans 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Or in John 5:24 it says, "those who hear His words and believe on Him HAVE eternal life, and they DO NOT come into judgment. They HAVE PASSED from death into life." If you could think of a sin that I could commit that could make me lose this salvation, then it would mean that God is lying to me.

Then it would mean that He didn't really become sin for me. He hadn't really paid for all of my sins; because there was one sin He didn't cover. The fact is that when we actually have become born again, we have become a brand new creature in our souls. We have experienced the resurrection of our souls. God has removed our stony hearts and given us a heart of flesh. And in our spirit essence, which is an integral part of our bodies, we become a new person. God does give us the evidence and assurance that we have become saved!

Now in our new soul, we never want to sin again. in I John 3:6- 9:”Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed [Christ] remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

This teaches that, which is born of God cannot sin. The only reason we still sin as believers is that our body (flesh) hasn't been saved yet. That will happen on the last day where we will receive a new resurrected body to become glorified as one incorruptible body and soul. One of the evidence that tells us we have become saved is an ongoing earnest desire to do the will of God, because I have my new soul, to live for Him. This is the desire of my heart, to live for Christ. It's as natural with me now as it was once natural, with every fiber of my body, to want to live in sin.

Now in my soul I want to live for Christ. In my body I still lust after sin. So there's a conflict going on. So what happens? Let's say that I begin to sin. I tell a lie, or I begin to have lustful thoughts, or whatever. Immediately I feel very uncomfortable. In my soul I'm doing what is contrary to my new nature, and there's a struggle that's going on. And I can't stay with this sin very long before I begin to cry out to God, "Oh God, have mercy on me. Father, help me to get victory over this sin. How can I live this way?" Now the path of the believer, however, is a path of growing in sanctification.

The Bible constantly warns us, "Crucify the flesh and its desires." Exercise control over your body. Put to death that which is fleshly within you. We are to pummel our bodies, or to beat our bodies, so that these sinful things will not gain the upper hand. And so, to put it in plain language, when we see a sin that continues again and again, we are not to live with that sin. We're to get victory over it.

We are to repent of it, to turn away from it, and ask God to strengthen us that this sin might not continue. And God will give us that victory if we mean business. This experience is seen with Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:27, and also the thorn in the flesh in 2 Corinthians 12:7. In 1 Corinthians 9:24, the only ones who win the race are the ones who were elected by God.

God also speaks about this struggle in the life of the child of God, in Romans 7:21-24: “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

When we realize that the child of God has experienced the resurrection, we can understand the conflict that continues in the life of the one who has been saved. We can also understand why the Bible declares in I Peter 4:6 that believers were among those who were preached to when they were spiritually dead and now "live according to God in the spirit."

As a born again believer, I don't want to live in sin. More than that, if I would persist in sin, I must remember that God has bought me by the price of His blood. I am His possession, and He indwells me in the Person of the Holy Spirit. And God has something to say about this. And so He would begin to chastise. He'll begin to deal with me, in order that I'll straighten this matter out. It is not God's program that I am to live in sin.

And I don't want to live in sin, either, even though I am troubled by it because I still have a body that lust after sin. You see, the Gospel is not one of fear. A lot of people are led to believe, "Now look. You' re saved. But you watch out now. You be sure that you keep all the commandments, because if you don't keep all the commandments, you're going to lose your salvation." Now that isn't what the Bible teaches. We aren't under fear. We're not under duress. We keep the commandments because we love to keep the commandments, because we belong to Christ.

We read in the Bible, as a born again believer, if we've really become born again, it's not a threat to us. We read God's Word knowing that it reveals sin in our lives, and we'll never be perfect. But we're glad that it does. And we have a real desire to be obedient to it as we read it.

I'll pray for you brother, Love in Christ.....Peace!

P.S. if you want me to help you understand that verse of baptism I can show you some scriptures that may help you understand that verse. {humbly speaking}

-- Christian soldier (embasador333@yahoo.com), June 01, 2003.

You pray for us, CS. We will surely pray for you. You think you have cornered the Holy Spirit. But He hasn't spoken to you at all. He is not the Spirit of heretical sects, He's the Spirit of truth. Listen to what YOU think the Holy S

pirit is teaching you:''You are making a monster out of Christ, no offense. It sounds like we are working to be saved. This means we are still under the curse of the law. What do you think the Jews are doing? Trying to get themselves saved by following all the Old Testament traditions.'' Of course, yours is just biblical failure. You have the truth before your eyes and can't read it. Is Jesus a ''monster'' when He states we must keep the commandments? He does that, several times. ''Not everyone who says to me Lord, lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven shall enter the kingdom of heaven,'' (Matt 8, :21).

Paul meant the Law of Moses. That was the ''law'' he said could not save you. He named the Hebrews specifically, and particularly the rule of circumcision.

He never intended us to forget about keeping God's commandments, Soldier. If so, Paul would not constantly warn us about overconfidence, thinking we stand, ''lest you fall.'' And in 2 Tim, :12-13, ''If we endure we shall also reign with Him; if we disown Him, He will also disown us.'' Have you somehow got it from scripture we can live sinfully and yet have salvation? What a foolish Bible reading!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 02, 2003.

Paul & Eugene:

Wow. Amen!

CS:

Your doctrine has some interesting logical consequences, as follows:

1. You are predestined to heaven or hell and you have no idea which, though hell is way more likely than heaven because of your "total depravity".

2. If you are predestined to heaven, then God gives you "irresistible grace" so that you can never resist salvation, even if you want to. In other words, you just can't sin after baptism, because the Spirit of God is predestined to always win its war with the spirit of your flesh.

3. However, you very likely have committed some sin after baptism, since you told us that you were a "filthy sinner". From 2., this means that you are not predestined to heaven.

4. From 3., you can be absolutely CERTAIN THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 02, 2003.

I'm new to this forum but I wanted to clarify something.

"You are teaching a grace pluse works gospel."

Actually, (as I understand it- correct me if I'm wrong) the Church teaches that one is saved through grace alone- not faith alone, or "grace and works." God's free gift of grace allows us to have faith and perform works- you can't separate them.

James 2:26 "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead."

CCC par.2022: "The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man." (Emphasis mine.)

Galations 5:4 "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law [i.e. receiving circumcision]; you have fallen away from grace."

There are Biblical quotes that explain how grace allows men to have faith and perform meritable works- I'll look them up for you if you're interested.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 02, 2003.

Paul, Eugene Stephen

God Bless! I love you guys and it is ok to feel the way you do. You are perfectly right Stephen, when you said I should go to hell. I truely do not deserve slavation and I honestly say this because God has opened up my eyes and showed me my total depravation. God broke me, and I go to the Father beeseaching Him with a contrite heart. No way in the world I would have turned to God in this fashion. If there is any good in my heart, it is all Christ who wills in me to do good, I don't take the credit. I guess you have to experience this miracle to understand what I am talking about.

I have this great desire to do the will of God and I intensly enjoy reading the Bible because I know God supernaturally gave me a new heart and I do not boast about it. Blindness is a terrible thing. Yes I follow God's commandments because I enjoy doing so. AND

I do not do good works to get myself saved. The "will" has been written already and God's heirs have been elected. The only thing I learned from this discussion is that we have to work our way to heaven and finally when we are ready to die, we don't even know if we will make it. So keep running that race! It is peculiar that the pharasies also tried to do works, and they thought they were right with God? The law is the whole Bible and not just the 10 commandments. Of course Christ forefilled the cerimonial laws which we don't do any more.

Don't forget God speaks in parables. I had to at least try to explain some of the truths that the Spirit reveals to me through the Bible. It is Christ who seeks His lost Sheep, I can only pray that there would be some here and God can use this material to draw some of you.

P.S. According to your salvation, how does the old Testement believers get saved? Or Did They? The only way your salvation could hold water is if we take away parts of the Bible. Anything Paul said doesn't harmonizes with the scriptures. He finds one or two verses and ignors 50 other scriptures. Does anybody read the Bible? Eugene no character assisnation please, just scriptures. That is all I want to hear. No analogies that has nothing to do what the Bible teaches.

May God give us wisdom...Peace.

-- Christian Soldier (embasador333@yahoo.com), June 02, 2003.

Catherine:

You're right. The main differences between us and CS are that

(a) he denies free will and

(b) he believes in a limited atonement, i.e., Jesus died only for a few randomly selected persons, and the punishment he bore was calculated to be exactly equal to the punishment due for their sins.

CS has moreover persuaded himself that he is one of the select few, and so any sins he may commit don't matter because they've already been paid for, and are not really his fault anyway because he has no free will.

Here's an article summarizing the Calvinist doctrine and pointing out the areas where Catholics disagree.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 02, 2003.

I hear you C-S,
''Does anybody read the Bible? --Eugene no character assassination please, just scriptures. That is all I want to hear. No analogies that has nothing to do what the Bible teaches.''

Yes, we all read the scriptures. Why is it an assassination of character to say you haven't any light from the Holy Spirit? We would be promoting your falsehood if we agreed with you, CS. Your character may be fine; your Bible study is wasted on you. For a number of reasons.

One, you follow the heretical teaching of John Calvin. He is anathemized by the Catholic Church. Two, you espouse a discredited system of faith. Or anti-faith; this is sola scriptura. The total departure from Catholic doctrine as your belief is heresy. You may well be in sin, calling sola scriptura something the Holy Spirit participates in.

Thirdly; how foolish is it to participate in a discussion with you, adhering with the discredited system? You demand that we discard all ''analogies having nothing to do [with] what the Bible teaches--''

Is this fair? No. Is it scriptural? No; the scriptures do not support faith by sola scriptura. PERIOD.

What all this means is you're totally disarmed. You come here and ask others to give in to your false doctrine as if only scripture has the right to overturn it. But let this be perfectly clear, once & for all:

The Catholic Church DOES overturn false doctrines. Calvinist, Baptist and all other false doctrine. The Church can condemn your false doctrine with no need for the proof-text, she is the apostle's only legitimate, genuine, True Church. If she says you're mistaken, you're mistaken! -- You have no right to complain. The Bible doesn't support sola scriptura.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 03, 2003.

For the really very interested,Here and here are links to a debate between Robert Sungenis and James White on predestination.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 03, 2003.

You know, Christian Soldier, I'm getting interested in your ideas. You asked a couple questions at the beginning of this post, and I'd like to return the favour. (Canadian spelling, eh?)

Can you give me a brief outline of the Christian Church's (i.e. your ecclesiastical community's) history since Christ initiated it?

Is the Bible the only source of truth in any particular area?

Can someone be saved if they believe in Jesus but do not read the Bible?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 03, 2003.

Soldier,

You said this Is there any sin I could commit that would cause me to lose my salvation? The answer is, "no. There is no sin because He has paid for every sin." So, of course, I cannot lose my salvation.

So it's your interpretation of Christianity that you can live your life committing murder, renouncing God, etc. because of Christ's sacrifice? If so what is the point of Christ telling his disciples to do *anything*? That's got to be the most nihilistic philosophy I've ever heard.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 03, 2003.

We have an important point to realise about sins.

The usual sin is a venial sin. These are punishable (purgatory) but forgiven. Serious, mortal sins are unacceptable, however. No one can be saved if he/she dies in mortal sin.

Yet; no sin will ever bring us damnation after a perfect contrite confession. If we show God we are truly sorry for our gravest sin, with a firm intention never to return to the sin, He will forgive us. We will be saved.

I never considered it at all. Maybe this is really the rationale of protestants who believe in eternal security? Sin as much as it seems inevitable; but repent in the end?

It's entirely heretical, of course, as Luther's theory was; ''Sin boldly, but with a bold faith.''

To sin with impugnity is to endanger your immortal soul. To go ahead with your sinful existence under the impression that a last minute repentence can satisfy God is another sin: the sin of presumption. Will presumption damn you? It will.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 04, 2003.

Some caution should be exercised in attacking CS's postion, because from a Catholic point of view, his arguments are a mix of correct and wrong doctrines. A blanket condemnation of everything he says is sure to lead to error.

Firstly, to assert that people choose to come to Christ of their own free will,is to commit the Pelagian heresy which was condemned in the 5th century or thereabouts. The Catholic position is that people come to Christ ENTIRELY due to grace (John 6:44). (correct me if I have misunderstood this).

Secondly, all Catholics must believe in predestination of the elect as an article of Faith. (However, the converse doctrine, the "positive reprobation of the damned" is condemned. This is the idea that God deliberately chooses people to send to Hell.) I quote from an article by Ludwig Ott:

The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith. The following material from Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 {orig. 1952}, pp.242-45) ought to be most helpful for Protestants seeking to understand what Catholics believe about this ever- mysterious, controversial, complex, highly abstract theological question:

1) GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL, HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS (De fide)

[ De fide = "of faith" - dogmas are absolutely binding on all Catholics]

This doctrine is proposed by the Ordinary and General Teaching of the Church as a truth of Revelation. The doctrinal definitions of the Council of Trent presuppose it . . . The reality of Predestination is clearly attested to in Rom 8:29 et seq: . . . cf. Mt 25:34, Jn 10:27 et seq., Acts 13:48, Eph 1:4 et seq. . . . Predestination is a part of the Eternal Divine Plan of Providence.

...

On the other hand, CS's claim that he can know that he is one of the elect is condemned. To quote again from the Ott article:

The Council of Trent declared against Calvin, that certainty in regard to one's Predestination can be attained by special Revelation only . . . Holy Scripture enjoins man to work out his salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12). He who imagines that he will stand should take care lest he fall (1 Cor 10:12). In spite of this uncertainty there are signs of Predetermination which indicate a high probability of one's Predestination, e.g., a persevering practice of the virtues recommended in the Eight Beatitudes, frequent reception of Holy Communion, active love of one's neighbor, love for Christ and for the Church . . .

[For scriptural proofs against absolute assurance of salvation I submit the following passages: 1 Cor 9:27, 10:12, Gal 5:1,4, Phil 3:11-14, 1 Tim 4:1, 5:15, Heb 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:15,20-21. These I consider the most compelling, but there are many others as well: e.g.: 1 Sam 11:6, 18:11-12, Ezek 18:24, 33:12-13,18, Gal 4:9, Col 1:23, Heb 6:11-12, 10:23,26,29,36,39, 12:15, Rev 2:4-5.]

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 05, 2003.

Re the Pelagian Heresy, it was condemned by the Council of Carthage in 418, which adopted the following eight canons (from the Catholic Encyclopedia article). All of them are articles of faith, binding on all Catholics. 3,4, and 5 are probably particularly relevant for the discussion here.

1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin. 2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.

3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.

4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.

5. Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.

6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.

7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.

8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 05, 2003.

These are very good contributions, Stephen. We must all meditate on them. Thanks!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2003.

Dear Folks,

Just as a clarifier; Reformed theology, as written by John Calvin in his "Institutes" or as stated in the Canons of the Synod of Dort 1618- 19 rejects that predestination allows for the rampant sinning by a person.

Predestination offers those who confess Christ the assurance of salvation: Canons of Dort Article 12 In God’s own good time, the elect become assured of this eternal and unchangeable election to salvation, although in various degrees and in different measures. This assurance comes not by their seeking curiously to penetrate the hiddenness and depth of God, but by their observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure the unfailing fruits of election as pointed out in the Word of God, such as true faith in Christ, a childlike reverence of God, a godly grief for sin, a hunger and thirst for righteousness.

In this assurance, we are to live in gratitude: Canons of Dort Article 13 From the awareness and assurance of this election to salvation, God’s children find daily more and more reason to humble themselves before him, to adore the depth of his mercies, to purify themselves, and to love with a returning fervent love him who first loved them. This doctrine and its consideration by no means encourages God’s people to become remiss in keeping his commandments or carnally careless. Rather, these are, in the righteous judgment of God, the usual effects of rash presumption or idle and wanton trifling with the grace of election in those who refuse to walk in the ways of the elect.

Stephen’s contribution of James Akin’s article was valuable. It clearly states where the Roman Catholic position agrees with Reformed theological description of predestination (or the other way around if you prefer). However, the emphasis placed on “double predestination” is over extended.

While there were extremists on the issue (identifying whole classes of people not included in the elect) Article 15 of the Canons of Dort clearly states: “… Some are not elected but in God’s eternal election by-passed. These God purposed, in accordance with his wholly free, righteous, blameless, and unchangeable good pleasure, to leave in the miserable situation into which they willfully plunged themselves by their own fault and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of repentance. But leaving them to their own ways and under his righteous judgment, he purposed for the declaration of his righteousness to condemn and punish them eternally, ultimately not only for their unbelief but also for all other sins….”

Akin does a very good job of indicating that many of the general statements of predestination can be affirmed by both Roman Catholic and Reformed traditions. Where we disagree, we can do so – but we shouldn’t create disagreements or over exaggerate differences on either side.

-- Bob Fretz (Pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 05, 2003.

Bob God Bless Brother! I noticed that so many theologians and Christian leaders are being mentioned on some of these posts. Not once did I ever read any of their writings. I am not even a member of any Church. If I can find someone of like mind, then I will fellowship on Sundays. Or else I fellowship with Christ alone! (The Bible)

What you have written was beutiful information that describes the transformation I have gone through in the past 3 years. At of nowhere I had this intense desire to seek God and fell in Love with the Bible. God's Word is my only authority. I never understood salvation until all these verses I have been talking about in my posts, started harmonizing and began to paint a picture.

Then A lightbulb went off and I realized, no way I have anything to do with becoming saved. Believe me God will let you know that He took you back into His kingdom. One last thing, I am no better than anyone else and I don't know why God saved me but everybody in this forum thinks I have a license to sin. NO WAY people. When God saves somebody, the Holy Spirit indwells you. I am no way perfect but my soul never seeks to sin. The flesh is still cursed until the last day which is the resurrection. My body lusts for sin but God is always strengthening me. (This is how we grow in santification until our minds are renewed)

Righteousness comes natural to me now. Where as when I was unsaved, I wouldn't think twice to say a lie or a curse because that came natural to me. And I still thought I was right with God.

Sorry that's not the way it is! We become a new creature and the best part is the more I read the Bible the more I hear God speak to me. My original goal was to reveal scriptures for everyone to read and see how much their views of salvation was contradicting the Bible. It is God who seeks His lost sheep. Remember, "faith comes by hearing and hearing the WORD of God"! But who hears? If the human race is dead in their sins! God has to give us spiritual ears to hear. People forget that God speaks in parables. I could only pray that there would be some in this forum! Instead the pride of their hearts get them angry and rebuke me. All I am doing is giving scriptures.

Something to think about. This forum believes Jesus died for the whole world and all we have to do is accept Him. This alone violates everything the Bible teaches. All it takes is one sin, and God tells us we have to pay the price, eternal Hell! If Jesus's blood wiped out the sins of everybody in the world, this action will cancel everybodies sins. The whole world would be sinnless and pure. So why does the Bible speak that many will be going to Hell? Wouldn't this tell us God lied to us?

Christ's blood canceled out fully the sins of only those He chose before the foundations of this world. When God begins to draw His elect one by one, they begin to realize that they were the elect of God. As God continues to save the Elect all over the world, HE is building His church. A spiritual eternal church, the Bride of Christ. The Bible distiguishes these two churches. This forum doesn't. They assume the Catholic church is "thee church".

Talk about pride. People do not get mad, read the Bible and you will see all the scriptures harmonize to the truth I am teaching. When Jesus walked the earth everything that came out of His mouth was directing back to the scriptures. He always said "it is written.." and followed with scripture. Even when Satin tempted Him with scriptures, Christ gave other scriptures to rebuke Satin. So seek the scriptures.

We need to go to the Bible instead of running to your master "The Church" Let the Word rule your thoughts. The Spirit will guide you unless you can't trust HIM. God tells us when we are close to the end, Satin will be ruling in the Churches.

Could it be that you are worshiping Satin instead? Eugene calm down I know you are flipping right at this moment, just give me scriptures that tell me otherwise!

Peace.... Thanks Bob you made my day.......

-- Christian Soldier (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 05, 2003.

No, not flipping, CS. I have to log off now because my wife has some important work to do on the PC. I'll reply Friday, God willing. You will see my answer; and nevertheless dispute once again, because you have proven recalcitrent. That'a a fifty-cent word for mule. I'm happy to accomodate you, since nothing at all you've posted thus far merits credibility. Least of all your last post, where you go hysterical with joy because you think you're vindicated. How sad.

I knew the motives for your postings were strictly pride and vainglory. But you could've been a little discreet. Now you know we won't humor you next time. The gloves are off tomorrow, My Child.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 06, 2003.

Bob:

Well you probably know this already, but the Akin article is based on Aquinas's doctrine of predestination which is not the only allowed doctrine. Catholics are allowed to follow either Aquinas or the rival Jesuit school of Molinism, which emphasizes free will. I believe the exact position is something like this: All Catholics must believe in predestination, and all Catholics must also believe in free will. The exact way in which they reconcile the two is left open to them within reason. Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Molinism. I have to admit that I don't understand it at all. The author has a clear bias against Thomism, but that is his personal bias, not that of the Church. By the way, thanks for your detailed and informative response to my query on the other thread.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 06, 2003.

"...just give me scriptures that tell me otherwise!"

Matthew 26:26: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

1 Corinthians 10:16: Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

John 6:53: Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 06, 2003.

"Predestinate souls, you who are of God, cut yourselves adrift from those whoe are damning themselves!"

St. Louis Marie de Montfort

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 06, 2003.

Dear CS

Thanks for your comment. However, I would not want our Roman Catholic friends to think that Sola Scriptura (along with Sola Gratia, Sola Fides, and Sola Christi) means you are supposed to be taking your Christian journey solo. On the contrary, the Reformed traditions have always affirmed that the individual Christian is part of a fellowship - membership within a congregation is part of our Christian identity.

Each congregation is part of the Body of Christ, with Christ as its head. Granted there is a disagreement between the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformed Christian traditions as to the way that leadership is to be expressed – hierarchical from a single leader, hierarchical to a council, or council from leadership chosen from the participating congregations – but we are responsible to our respective bodies to both their teaching and admonition to guide us in our Christian journey.

The Reformed tradition differs from the Roman Catholic (and I believe) Orthodox traditions in that the Reformed doctrines can be returned to and ‘reformed’ by our governing councils if it can be shown that there is an inconsistency between doctrine and scripture – hence, the context of ‘sola scriptura.’

-- Bob Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 06, 2003.

to C.S. on the subject of predestination:

I just want to tell you some things about God that I knew before I was 10.

1. God knows everything. Therefore God knows the future. So He knows whether we will land ourselves in Heaven or in Hell. 2. The life we are living is a test from God. We can choose the right answer or the wrong answer and we do it on purpose. That means that God has given us free will.

Predestination in the sense that God chooses our destiny for us is nonsense! Why would a good and perfect God create men only to destroy them? How could a loving God enjoy punishing His creatures? It is for our own foolishness, our own vanity and pride that we deserve punishment, not for the pleasure of God! And on the other hand, how can a just God not condemn the ones who purposely denounce Him and insult Him? We choose our destiny; God allows it. He gives us the grace we need to do the right thing. If we reject it, we are on our own.

I hope you can understand this. (a highschool dropout -read simpleton- wrote it!) If you look in the right places, you will be able to defend my argument with scripture passages.

from Rose.

-- Rose (catherine_the_good@hotmail.com), June 06, 2003.

Dear Bob,

You say: "the Reformed doctrines can be returned to and ‘reformed’ by our governing councils if it can be shown that there is an inconsistency between doctrine and scripture"

Where I come from, this would be called "making it up as you go along". If a church were to discover an "inconsistency between doctrine and scripture", this would obviously mean that their former interpretation of scripture was wrong. Presumably the discovery of this error would take the form of new interpretations of the same passages, which no longer support the old doctrine. But wait - if the old interpretation was wrong, and the new interpretation was reached by the exact same means as the old one, then the new interpretation carries no more authority than the old one did, either interpretation is equally likely to be wrong (quite possibly both), and the whole thing boils down to nothing more than ongoing subjective guesswork. Which of course is the foundation of all protestant theology and scriptural interpretation. First read it - then decide what you think it means - then believe it - until you think it means something different - then change it. Does this sound like the biblical approach to finding truth? These are the shifting sands of Sola Scriptura - not a firm foundation on which to build a church.

No doctrine revealed by God could possibly be in need of, or benefit from, so-called human "reform"; and indeed any change made to such a doctrine necessarily deforms, not reforms it. You simply can't improve on God's version. This is the version He gave to the Church He founded. This is the fullness of truth He guaranteed to that Church alone, by the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is the objective standard by which any and all doctrinal beliefs must be judged. Personal interpretations which are in full agreement with the teaching of God's Church are valid. All others are invalid. That's the only way the people of God can live in conformity with His stated plan - "that they all may be ONE, even as you Father and I are ONE".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 06, 2003.

A marvelous post, Paul! Opening some eyes now, we hope.

Yes; and why do I wonder; in all His prophetic words; did Jesus Christ even once say, ''Reforms will come'' - - - ???

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 06, 2003.

Rose I understand how you feel and this doctrine of pre-election is not pleasant at all. But our minds are finite compared to an infinite God's mind. Who are we to twist the scriptures and point the finger at God? We have no right to say, "how could a Loving God do this and that"! We are the guilty ones. God is perfect and righteous and He demands a penaltiy for our sins. God should throw the entire humn race to hell including me. I would of never picked up the Bible if God didn't give me this hunger. And Now I can't put the Bible down.

If you can not give God all the glory then beg Him to strip that pride away. I agree, if we ignore some of the scriptures then it does sound like we can get ourselves saved. But I have given so many scriptures that almost every person who responded totally ignors them. And all the people that flip out never once did they look at the verses and try to explain them, because they don't know how. They base everything on their hummanly minds.

I am afraid that some people cling tenaciously to the idea of free will because it affords them a little bit of credit for their salvation. Oh, we might know and admit that it is by grace that we are saved. But, oh, how we want to receive at least a little credit. Can't we have a little recognition for what we have contributed toward our salvation? This is our nature. Suppose we have baked a beautiful cake or done something else that displays our handiwork. After we have slaved over it and we see that our work is very lovely, then we are disappointed if our friends fail to commend us on the work of our hands. This is how we are designed; we want to receive a commendation for what we do, and we want some kind of commendation with regard to our salvation. If I turned to Christ of my own free will, then somehow I am a little bit better than my unsaved neighbor. After all, I responded to the Gospel and he did not; therefore, I can receive a tiny bit of credit even though I know that basically my salvation depends upon what Christ has done. The Bible says no. We are dead in our sins, and there is no way that we can be saved unless God draws us to Him. The Bible says in Psalms 5 1:2: "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin," and in Psalms 51:;17: "A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." It is God's work altogether. Some passages seem to indicate that we have free will, for example, God declares in Revelation 22:17: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

This verse does not indicate that anyone of his own free will can turn to the Gospel, which is the water of life. This verse simply says that God's gracious offer of salvation is available to the entire human race. If any person does turn to Him, on God's terms it is because God is saving him. When we read this verse in the light of the rest of the Bible, we know that no one of his own volition will turn to Christ because there is none that seeketh after God (Romans 3:11). Thus while Revelation 22:17 is a promise of God, it will never prompt a response in anyone unless God draws him.

The perfect example where the Bible shows us a picture of salvation of the Bible was when Jesus gave life to Lazarus who was a stinking corpse. This is how the human race is! Dead!!!!! So Jesus called out to him and gave him life. If God didn't bring Lazarus to life then could Lazarus take any credit for coming to Christ. Everything you read in the scriptures will nicely harmonize with this truth.

Do you think Apostle Paul turned to Christ because he wanted to? Paul was so furious with the Christians that he was killing them because of their teachings about Jesus. You noticed it was Christ who did all the work in transforming Paul? TRust the scriptures they are Gods words. You noticed that everything I say I will give scriptures? How come everybody else don't? Can you honestly say you deserve to go to Hell? I bet you will never admit that. We are all dead in our sins. Yes because we know what sins are, we have a will not to sin but many times we choose to sin and this is a deliberate lash on God.

When God saves somebody, they will begin to see and hear. And you will have the assurance because God gives you this incredible peace that does't go away. Even if the roof was falling over your head. I speak hummbly to you. If I wasn't saved, (I do not say this with pride because I know I don't deserve it) Listening to the way some people talk in this forum I would of probably changed my religion.

God bless! P.S. don't be afraid to search the scriptures. Test everybody including me. Confess your depravity to God and not to a man, unless you think He is Holier than God! God tells us when we speak the truth, people will hate you. With LOVE.........

-- C.S (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 06, 2003.

Free will may seem to be more obviously a part of Catholic belief than predestination to many of us, but actually our tradition is steeped in the language of predestination. I was thinking about some examples, and here are my thoughts. Correction is requested if they deviate from the orthodox position.

For example, the veneration of the Saints: we revere the Saints not because they are heroes (that would be Pelagian, sort of like the Pagan regard for characters like Hercules or Xena the warrior princess :-), see the canons of the council of Carthage posted earlier), but because they are NOT. Their lives show us predestination at work --- God's extraordinary grace and power working in sometimes extraordinary weakness, and this gives us confidence both in God's existence and in the sufficiency of his grace for us in our own weakness. The miracles worked through their continuing intercession for us further gives us confidence that the eternal reward is not a myth, but the certain fruit of God's saving grace.

A second example is that the language of predestination can be found literally in the heart of Catholic religious experience, the Divine Liturgy. Going by memory here, since I dont have a missal handy, but several more examples can be found: "From age to age You gather a people to yourself ... ", " .. a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a people set apart".

A third example is in praises of Mary, like these in the litany of Loreto, that directly recall Romans 9: "singular vessel of honour" , "singular vessel of devotion".

This illustrates also that there are several different kinds of election (=predestination) for Catholics. First is "election to God's table", the predestination of John 6. Second is "election to the Sainthood", the predestination of Romans 9.

Third is the predestination to be the Mother of Christ reflected in the Angelic Salutation, and celebrated by us everytime we repeat it. We could read Mary's response "FIAT" as a triumph of her free will, but actually Catholics (and especially Catholics) emphatically do not! Because of her immaculate conception, she was absolutely certain to say FIAT. God deliberately at the moment of her conception created her to utter that FIAT, and her free will though in no way impaired was simply academic, because there was no way she would say no. This is incidentally a doctrine that no non-Catholic accepts, so here we are maybe more predestinarian than anyone else.

It is also important to reflect that for a Catholic "predestined to God's table" in a John 6 sense does not automatically guarantee "predestination to the Sainthood" in a Romans 9 sense. The example is Judas, who was predestined to the table since he participated in the Last Supper itself, but very likely (for who can know the judgments of God) is not one of the Saints in Heaven. Our free will and original sin means that we can fall away from the table, like the maidens at the wedding who got distracted and missed the Bridegroom's arrival. This does not however affect the firm Catholic belief that the Saints (meaning the set of those who inherit eternal life) are predestined by God and their salvation is entirely a result of God's extraordinary sanctifying grace. No one achieves Sainthood through their own efforts, but often inspite of them.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 07, 2003.

Dear Somehow Soldier:

Is this the message now, Give up? After all, you are supposed to go to hell. It's Kismet? It's a destiny for which the Creator gave you life--?

And you preach: ''But our minds are finite compared to an infinite God's mind. Who are we to twist the scriptures and point the finger at God? We have no right to say, "How could a Loving God do this and that"!

I'm marvelling at the wisdom you lend us. Yes, Soldier Dear. Nothing like this was known until you arrived to part the seas of our dense Catholic faith! Why did you take so long? Our Lord even had to wait. But look at our joy; what is two millenia hoping for nothing, compared with this victorious edge we now have against eternity? If only we'd known the way you knew! It was God's plan from eternity to send some of us to hell.

Yes; Si, Oui, OK!

I'll go to hell on account of a predetermined and calculated Lottery; Hallelujah! I see, Soldier of Mine; the divine idea was to gain some leverage against Satan. Satan has to have his due. What are a megagazillion souls, after all? Let him have them. He's earned that small concession, says Christ. I offered all my love and my sacrifice on the cross for a percentage of the spoils. That's all!

The devil has his share from this cross too! I am only God!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 07, 2003.

Some relevant cites from the CCC:

#1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight. (Council of Trent)

#2005

Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord's words—"Thus you will know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:20)—reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: "Asked if she knew that she was in God's grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.'"

#2012

"We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . . . For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom. 8:28-30)

#2013

"All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity." (LG 40 § 2. ) All are called to holiness: "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Mt 5:48.)

In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ's gift, so that . . . doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints. (LG 40 § 2.)

HOWEVER:

#2015

The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle.Cf. 2 Tim 4. Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace and joy of the Beatitudes:

He who climbs never stops going from beginning to beginning, through beginnings that have no end. He never stops desiring what he already knows.(St. Gregory of Nyssa)

#2016

The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of God their Father for the good works accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus. [underlining added] Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1576. Keeping the same rule of life, believers share the "blessed hope" of those whom the divine mercy gathers into the "holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."(Rev 21:2)

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 07, 2003.

Some self-correction. In my earlier post (the one before the CCC quotes), I talked loosely about "several kinds of predestination". This is incorrect usage according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article, since the term is used specifically to refer to "predestination to heaven". The sentiments I previously expressed are hopefully okay though, if a bit off-topic.

Also when I said "Divine Liturgy" I simply meant Mass. The quotes are from Eucharistic Prayer III ("From age to age ..") and from Preface for Ordinary Sundays I ("a chosen people, .."). My confidence that "several more examples can be found" seems to be misplaced. A quick scan of the Missal in my local Church (boring sermon :-) showed no other quotable quote.

The CCC does not directly mention predestination except in #2012, and in fact the word doesn't even show up in the index of my edition (Doubleday 1995). Not sure why this is. Dave Armstrong has this to say in this article:

The Catechism wisely refrains from elaborate expositions of predestination. Catechisms are not systematic theologies. They are written for laymen attempting to understand and live out Catholic Christianity, not philosophers, theologians, or impractical people like us who have nothing better to do than sit around and discuss stuff like supralapsarianism, transubstantiation, and antidisestablishmentarianism.

:-)

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 07, 2003.

Eugene

Aren't we adults now? Aren't you suppose to represent Christ? All your responses are tasteless and unbiblical. I could now see your true fruits! Give me scriptures young man and not filthy language. We are hear to discuss what the Bible says. Why do you get upset with what scriptures tell us?

You do not need to respond if you can't handle God's WORD. I will still pray for you.

-- Christian Soldier (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 07, 2003.

Christian Soldier:

Here are some scriptures for you to study. They are proofs against the absolute assurance of salvation.

1 Cor 9:27, 10:12, Gal 5:1,4, Phil 3:11-14, 1 Tim 4:1, 5:15, Heb 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:15,20-21.

Also: 1 Sam 11:6, 18:11-12, Ezek 18:24, 33:12-13,18, Gal 4:9, Col 1:23, Heb 6:11-12, 10:23,26,29,36,39, 12:15, Rev 2:4-5.]

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 07, 2003.

Stephen OK I will check them out! Thanks

Rose Remember when I brought up Apostle Paul being saved? This may clear it up some more.

In Galatians:1:15"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16: To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: "

This verse reveals that God had elected to save Paul even before he was born. This is true with every believer.

Ephesians 1:3-5 sets this forth: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

Jeremiah is another example of God’s elective program; he was saved in his mother’s womb. He wrote in Jeremiah 1:4,5: "Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

God is also setting up through Paul an analogy about the two births of a believer. The language spoke of one birth, the physical birth, the moment Paul was separated from his mother’s womb. But the apostle also alluded to his spiritual birth; he talked about being called through His grace. That is the second birth. Remember Jesus told Nicodemus that unless you are born again you shall not see the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3)? To be saved, we must have a new spiritual birth.

Note that when we were born, we had nothing to do with our first birth. We didn’t ask to be born; we didn’t accept our parents. It was entirely an action of God. He worked through our mother and father to bring the baby forth. God determines our sex, our skin color, our talents, our everything.

The same holds true regarding our second birth. We had nothing to do with it. We couldn’t because, the Bible says, we were dead in our trespasses (Eph. 2:1). God calls us by His grace, not by any works that we have done.

AND in verse 16 of Galatians chap 1: The first truth we find here is that God revealed His Son to Paul when Paul was called. God reveals Himself to everyone whom He saves. No one can through his own wisdom see or understand God.

When Peter confessed, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" in Matthew 16:16, Jesus answered in verse 17, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." The Father had revealed this truth to Peter.

Secondly, Paul was commissioned very specifically to minister the gospel to the Gentile world. In Acts 9:15-16, we read, "But the Lord said unto him (Anaias), Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake." Yes, Paul had a very distinct and special mandate.

The fact is, this mandate has also been given to every believer. Look at I Peter 2:9,10: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar (or special) people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."

Actually, the word Gentiles means nations. All believers are to proclaim the gospel to the nations of the world. We should have the same attitude as the one Paul declared in Romans 1:16,17: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith."

Finally, Paul did not learn his theology from men. The only place to learn about the true gospel is from the Word of God.

Noticed how everything still harmonizes to pre-election. By comparing scripture with scripture and the Holy Spirit giving us understanding, we can test all teaching with the BIBLE! God infallible Word! AMEN....

-- C.S (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 07, 2003.

Hi Stephen,

I noticed you wrote, "Because of her immaculate conception, she was absolutely certain to say FIAT." I thought that Mary was created 'full of grace' just as Eve was, both without original sin. However, even though Eve was created sinless and without a tendency to sin (not to mention impassable and immortal), she disobeyed God.

Can you clarify this for me? Thanks.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 07, 2003.

Dear Paul,

While it may seem shifting, allow me to explain, at least from my own tradition’s doctrinal standards and tradition’s POV. This is not intended as a rebuttal or competing claim to what you believe, simply an explanation of our theological foundation.

The Reformed/Presbyterian traditions do not have an extraordinary amount of doctrinal statements that are to be believed as a sign of faith for salvation. Generally, they acknowledge the Ecumenical Creeds of the Early Church (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian) and the Reformed Creeds, which usually were drawn up by the different national Reformed Churches. In my denomination’s case (The Reformed Church in America – originating from the Netherlands) our constitution also includes the historic creeds of the Canons of Dort, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, our Liturgy, and the Government and Disciplinary Procedures of the Reformed Church in America. It is the equivalent of about 650 pages of a textbook (no pictures). That’s it.

The historic doctrinal standards (articles of faith in the Creeds and Confessions) have not changed since being affirmed by the national synod during our formation within North America. [We have a theological ability to review any doctrinal construct created by the Church – but historically, we affirm that they are valid historic witness to the salvation revealed within scripture.] What is a work in progress (or rather, “is revealed through the Holy Spirit,”) is the commentary (practice) contained in the Liturgy and Government and Disciplinary Procedures. These are not intended as items of faith but disciplines within the organization of the Church,i.e., to recommend a change to the body is not a sign of unbelief.

The changes are directed toward applying scripture and our historic creeds to our current life’s situations. But, these ongoing changes are limited in nature, to the operation of the church. Ethical guidance in Christian life for the members of the Church is primarily done through the preaching and oversight of the Minister and Elders of the local congregations.

As to the charge of “First read it (the scriptures), then decide…” guilty as charged. It is called exegesis. All church doctrine and commentary is subject to scripture because scripture contains the perfect doctrine of salvation.

Our clergy are ordained as Ministers of the Word and Sacrament. They are called to teach and preach the Word of God within their congregations. All of our clergy are given the training in seminary to do such study from the Greek and Hebrew texts. While they may have a varying degree of gifts in the direct translations, all have the critical skills to work with biblical commentaries – and evaluating their efficacy. Most important, the pastor has the ability to delve into the scripture to meet the particular needs of his or her congregation. (Even when preaching from the lectionary)

It is from the effect of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word, that we see the progress of Christ’s Church as a living body. To paraphrase, House Speaker Tip O’Neil, “All the church is local.” From the needs of the congregations, from the needs of our communities, from the prophetic voice the Church offers to them - the revelation by the Holy Spirit works up from the whole Body of Christ to direct and be confirmed by our governing bodies. It is also from this congregational support that our assemblies are given the authority to act as judicatories. That is one reason the Reformed traditions are comfortable with democratic representative government both in the Church and society.

What is its strength and advantage (again, from our point of view)? We do completely Trust the Grace God revealed in His Scripture about the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ. So we can live in the command St. Peter laid out, “…let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” And “… your are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness…” 1P.2:5, 9. It is the prophetic voice of the whole church that empowers our members, deacons, elders, ministers, and assemblies.

It’s been an interesting conversation. Have a good life.

Peace

PS Gene, While it’s not my call, (you know, God’s authorship of salvation) I don’t think your going to hell.

-- Bob Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 07, 2003.

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16: To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: " This verse reveals that God had elected to save Paul even before he was born. This is true with every believer."

A: You are exactly right - it is true of all believers, because it is true of all human beings, and all believers are human beings. The difference in believers is that they have recognized the call of grace, and the universal divine intent to save all men. But the grace and the call are there for everyone, those who have acknowledged it, and those God is still calling to acknowledge it.

"Ephesians 1:3-5 sets this forth: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

A: This passage too is a clear indication of God's universal plan of salvation. Your problem is that you interpret it from your preconceived notion of predestination, a position contrary to Christian teaching. This is exactly the reason scripture itself says that it is not for private interpretation - because private individuals, lacking any theological, historical, or scriptural background, will naturally interpret everything to "fit" what they already believe. They do not seek truth in scripture, but rather seek confirmation for what they have already decided is the truth - which usually isn't. Paul, in this passage, is not speaking as an "elect", but simply as a human being. When he says "He has chosen US", or "He has predestined US", he means "us men" or "us human beings". Your false belief blinds you to the simple meaning of even a releatively simple text.

"Jeremiah is another example of God’s elective program; he was saved in his mother’s womb. He wrote in Jeremiah 1:4,5: "Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

A: Again, this obviously has no relationship at all to the manmade doctrine of predestination. It says that He knew Jeremiah before he was conceived. Of course He did, just as He knows every human being before the fact. Even predestinationists believe that. It then says that He had a plan for Jeremiah's life, something He was specifically calling Jeremiah to, and that He provided the grace necessary to answer that call. Again, this is true of every human being. He didn't say anything to Jeremiah that He could not say to any human being who ever lived (except of course for identifying Jeremiah's specific calling, that of prophet).

God is also setting up through Paul an analogy about the two births of a believer. The language spoke of one birth, the physical birth, the moment Paul was separated from his mother’s womb. But the apostle also alluded to his spiritual birth; he talked about being called through His grace. That is the second birth. Remember Jesus told Nicodemus that unless you are born again you shall not see the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3)? To be saved, we must have a new spiritual birth.

A: Yes indeed. Solid Catholic teaching there.

Note that when we were born, we had nothing to do with our first birth. We didn’t ask to be born; we didn’t accept our parents. It was entirely an action of God. He worked through our mother and father to bring the baby forth. God determines our sex, our skin color, our talents, our everything. The same holds true regarding our second birth. We had nothing to do with it. We couldn’t because, the Bible says, we were dead in our trespasses (Eph. 2:1). God calls us by His grace, not by any works that we have done.

A: You contradict yourself. As you just correctly said, the second birth comes in the form of a "calling" by grace. Obviously the first birth was not a "calling". It was, as you described, something we had no choice about. In clear contrast, a "calling" is something that must be responded to, or it never becomes a reality. Therefore, in saying that spiritual birth is a "calling", you are saying, correctly, that we DO indeed have something to do with it - not with the calling being given, but we have a great deal to do with the acceptance or rejection of the calling, and its effect or lack of effect in our lives.

"AND in verse 16 of Galatians chap 1: The first truth we find here is that God revealed His Son to Paul when Paul was called. God reveals Himself to everyone whom He saves. No one can through his own wisdom see or understand God."

A: Absolutely right! It is only by our cooperation with the grace of God that we can see, understand, and respond to Him. And it is by our rejection of that grace that we fail to see, understand, and respond to Him. But the grace is available to all.

"When Peter confessed, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" in Matthew 16:16, Jesus answered in verse 17, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." The Father had revealed this truth to Peter".

A: Right - and because Simon ACCEPTED that outpouring of grace, and RESPONDED to it, Jesus changed his name to Rock, and appointed Him Vicar of Christ and head of the universal Church. What a loss Simon would have suffered if he has decided instead to resist that grace of God, to hold back from speaking because he wasn't absolutely sure. When we CGHOOSE to respond to the grace God provides, doors are opened wide, and we are drawn closer to God. When we CHOOSE not to respond, we suffer a great loss.

"Secondly, Paul was commissioned very specifically to minister the gospel to the Gentile world. In Acts 9:15-16, we read, "But the Lord said unto him (Anaias), Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake." Yes, Paul had a very distinct and special mandate".

A: Yes, he did, as does every human being. We remember Paul not because God gave him such a mandate, but because he freely responded to it. The mandate was the same whether Paul responded or not - but if he chose not to respond, he would not have fulfilled the plan God was calling him to, and we would never have heard of him.

The fact is, this mandate has also been given to every believer. Look at I Peter 2:9,10: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar (or special) people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."

A: What you need to realize here is that they obtained mercy, and were a holy nation, only because they had responded to the universal mandate. They received this calling when they were NOT a chosen people, when they had NOT received mercy. Many who received the same mandate resisted it, refused it, did NOT choose mercy and light. Those who DID choose to respond received what was being offered to all.

"All believers are to proclaim the gospel to the nations of the world"

A: WHY? What possible difference could "proclaiming the gospel" make, if individuals do not have the ability to choose to accept and follow it????? If each individual's eternal destiny is irreversibly predestined, then proclaiming the gospel is a silly waste of time - just like every other aspect of human existence.

"Finally, Paul did not learn his theology from men. The only place to learn about the true gospel is from the Word of God".

A: Yes, and the only place to learn the true meaning of the Word of God is the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of truth, without which the truth simply collapses into thousands of conflicting manmade sects.

"Noticed how everything still harmonizes to pre-election. By comparing scripture with scripture and the Holy Spirit giving us understanding, we can test all teaching with the BIBLE!"

A: You have offered nothing that even remotely suggests pre- election. But most of what you offered stands as powerful testimony to the fact that an individual CANNOT test the validity of Church teaching by comparing it with his own unauthorized, invalid, private interpretations of God's Word.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 07, 2003.

It was amusing to read the Christian ''soldier'', calling me a young man. He struck me as wet behind the ears all along, but I resisted the urge to say so out of charity.

Theological fancies like his are murder on the real scriptural truth. Look:

The ''soldier's'' wisdom: ''--fact is, this mandate has also been given to every believer.'' ---Believer of what, CS???

Believer of a bonzo interpretation of the Bible; ''off the wall?'' Then: ''Look at I Peter 2:9,10: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar (or special) people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God:''

Peter spoke to the first Catholics. Yes; they were in a close union with Jesus Christ; ''a people set apart''; and are still His people to this day.

They accepted the words of the Gospel from the mouth of Saint Peter, because they realised Peter was that ROCK upon which Jesus Christ built an everlasting Church. God's royal priesthood is every believer in the One faith; the faith of the apostles and the Holy Catholic Church!

Here is what I said to you previously, CS-- I'll go to hell (according to your Pet Theory, ''predestination'' ) --on account of a predetermined and calculated Lottery; --the divine idea--??? was [for Christ] to gain some leverage against Satan. Satan has to have his due. What are a megagazillion souls, after all? Let him have them. He's earned that small concession, says Christ. I offered all my love and my sacrifice on the cross for a percentage of the spoils. That's all!''?) (Didn't you imply??)

Sounds a little sore at your bone-headedness; but CS: what's ''filthy''----???

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 07, 2003.

Hi Catherine Ann:

Good point. I may have got a little carried away there.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 07, 2003.

Here's a link to a resource giving eastern orthodox view of predestination.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 07, 2003.

Talking about Immaculate Conceptions, I just realized on scanning CS's latest and Paul's response that CS believes in the immaculate conception of JEREMIAH !? .

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 07, 2003.

Eugene:

Yes; Si, Oui, OK!

Trying to fool us by swearing in Spanish and French, huh?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2003.

Haha !Yea, Catherine Anne. The Soldier of fortune thinks them's filthy words! He thinks Satan has to have a fair share of the sinner population; so God must separate a bunch every generation to throw overboard, predestining them to the flames. Yes, although Jesus Christ died that all men might have the potential of reaching salvation, CS has this bug in his ear: ''Destiny, destiny! Too bad if God let Satan have you, it's predestination. Some win and some lose; and free will makes no diff!''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 08, 2003.

Eugene Thanks for sharing so much solid biblical scriptures! I see you probably never read the Bible. Your true fruits really tell this forum a lot.

Paul You are correct that the Gospel call goes out to the whole world because God is seeking His lost sheep. "faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God" We all physically hear the gospel call but God has to give us spiritual ears to hear. When we preach the Word, it is like talking to dead bodies, or dry bones.

Ezekiel:34:"11 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. 12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day. 13 And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country. 14 I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel. 15 I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord GOD. 16 I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment. 17 ¶ And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats."

Noticed God keeps say "I will"....

If God doesn't intervein no body will come to Christ in God's terms. Important scriptures you seem to throw away. What do you do with these?

Christ declares in John 6:44, "no man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." The word "can" in this passage is a word that signified that no one has the power to come to Christ. No one has the strength to come to Him; we are spiritually dead. Only because our Heavenly Father draws us do we come to Him. You don't look at these verses. What does "no man" mean? This is plain english!

We read in Ephesians 2:1-5:"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation [conduct or behavior] in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherein he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)." In these verses God is speaking to those who have become children of God. He is not talking about those who remain in their wickedness and end up in hell. What does God say about each person who is saved? God says he was dead; he was spiritually a corpse. He "walked according to the course of this world." In other words, he had lived exactly like the world that remains in unbelief. Then God says, "according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." With these words, God declares that this person was a slave of Satan and walked after the ways of Satan. Remember that Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 8:44, "Ye are of your father the devil." Verse 3 of Ephesians 2 declares that he and the unsaved lived, "in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." This is our terrible and rebellious description fits all the unsaved in the world, including the person who appears to be most wicked and the person who believes he is morally upright. How can such a person exercise free will? How can he decide to come to God? He is spiritually dead; his will is sold out to Satan. He is a corpse. He might argue that he has the freedom to choose God, but he will never choose to come to God through Christ. In the freedom of his will he will always choose against God because in his depraved nature he is altogether in rebellion against God. The terribly rebellious state of man's heart is further described in Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jesus points out the awful depravity of man's heart in

Mark 7:21-22:"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, price, foolishness." It is no wonder that Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:27:" Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." In these words our Savior describes the unsaved condition of some church leaders, but the description of their hearts fits the heart of every unsaved person. In Romans 3:10-18 God emphasizes man's sorry state when measured by the standard of God's holiness. God declares in Romans 3:10, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." We must realize that no one is righteous, including those who will become believers.

The Bible continues in Romans 3:11-18:"There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes." This is the awful indictment of the human race. God shows us what miserable sinners we are compared with the holiness of God. He shuts the door on any possibility that anyone of his own free will can turn to God when He says, "There is none that seeketh after God." God describes man as a desperate sinner, one who is spiritually dead. His throat is an open sepulcher, that is, all the words of his mouth proceed from a grave of decaying flesh. It is an ugly statement and it declares our spiritual deadness.

How can it be said, that anyone can or will turn to God of his own free will? We must absorb this terrible truth. It is God's truth that we are spiritually dead before we are saved. We are so depraved in our nature that we would never seek Him of ourselves. Our spiritual deadness while unsaved is further emphasized in John 5:24, where God says:"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." We are dead in our sins. Only God can give us life.

-- C.S (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 08, 2003.

C.S. Only God can give us life.

That's what we've been saying all along. (Correct me, anyone, if I'm wrong in any point.) No one can get to Heaven without being called and chosen by God- there's no secret "back door" where he just might not see you get in. We can't merit Heaven on our own; we all need God to save us- even Mary did. Luckily, though, God wants everyone to be saved. So, He gives each man His grace- enough grace to save him. Without grace, no man can turn to God.

I'm not quoting the Scriptures a lot here, because I'm pretty sure I've seen you post relevant quotes yourself. If you disagree, just say so.

Our belief in free will comes in right here: each person, sometime in their life is given the grace to turn to God. However, they can freely reject this grace. That's why we believe that we can't call ourselves saved until we have been judged by God after our death. At any point during our lives, we may turn away from the truth. In other words, if we do well, God gets the credit. If we do badly, we get the blame. However, God generously and freely rewards his saints; see the parable of the talents, where those who worked with what they had earned more, while the servant who hid his talent (freely chose not to use it) had it taken away.

We still hold, though, that we must "work for our salvation in fear and trembling," (Phill. 2:12) because in our sinfullness we may fall away.

By the way, even after having fallen many times, we believe that we can be restored to Christ- but that's another question.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2003.

Hi Stephen,

I happened to pick up The Mystical City of God last night, and read Chapter 2 of the first book. It deals with creation and the predestination of Mary and the saints. It makes for tough reading, especially while babysitting late at night, but I found that it really helped me to understand the point of view you outlined in a post a while back.

Has anyone here read it?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2003.

Hi Catherine:

No, I haven't read it, but I read a brief description of it in a secular book on Mary by Marina Warner. According to Warner, the Church has condemned the book several times. I believe that it tells of a vision where Jesus handed over the Universe to his mother while he hung on the Cross ?!

I think I went a bit overboard in my earlier post as you correctly pointed out. I am not qualified to spout theology like that.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 08, 2003.

This fellow wastes 88 jaxillion megs of bandwith stabbing at a variety of verses from the bible having Nothing to do with his pet theoy. He could have saved the wallpaper.

We know it's impossible for sinners to come to God without His impulse of grace, CS. That's not the point.

Our point is, when a soul is lost it isn't on account of predistination. It's because he/she has sinned and repulsed the grace to repent. That means free will. No repentent sinner needs be lost. Even a savage bushman in Borneo, heathe and all, if he is repentent and loves God, can receive the grace necessary at least to be spared of hell.

You have no notion of free will, making men mere pawns. That's because you haven't understood God's scriptures. The most ironical thing about you, you come bragging how the Holy Spirit teaches you. A model of ignorance masquerading as a scholar of the Bible! No Church, no understanding, and no grace from the Holy Spirit. Just a lot of chutzpa.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 08, 2003.

CS: What made you abandon your Church?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 08, 2003.

Stephen

I have tried a handful of different types of Churches and I kept getting bad vibes. You see when God saves you, He gives you a new resurrected soul. You become a new creature. But the thing is your new soul lives in a sin cursed body. So the two are in conflict. My bad vibes may have been God warning me to get out.

Every time I left a church I was at peace again. I can't pinpoint the exact moment God saved me, it started off gradually and at some point it was like I did a 360 degree turn in my life. Before I got saved, I did believe in Christ but I was always taught, just be as good as you can. But I only new God once a week and had no interest in the Bible. In didn't phase me if I cursed or told a lie, sometimes I did them unconciously. So gradually I began to get this intense hunger to know God. But it was different. I hated to read so I would ask questions to other Christians about the Bible.

But I felt that I wasn't getting my questions answered so one day I decided to read the Bible, and pow! I was so facinated I couldn't put it down. I felt like I was inside the book as I read it. I couldn't understand most of it but what was strange was I began to fear God and tremble before God's word, my only authority! The best part is, now I feel like God took everything out of me, He cleaned me up. For example, not to curse or not to lie or not stealing comes naturally. I don't even have try to hold myself from cursing or to lie. I am far from perfect, but something supernatural has happen to me.

So when I speak about pre election, and look at all the verses I stated, I realized "no wonder", It was all God. I can't take one bit of credit. And now I thank HIM day and night. I admit, I do not deserve salvation, my filthy sins should sent me to hell. I am no better than anybody else. So I love to do the will of God and to be obedient, and follow His laws, not because i want to make it to heaven, Because I enjoy to do it. It is a great honor and priveledge to serve My Lord as an Embasador. You see you need to realize this truth.

I get the impression that you are being taught to do works and hopefully when you die, maybe God will save you. That is totally contrary to what the Bible teaches. Some of you may be saved but the lies are blinding you and poisoning you. But God some how will make you understand through heavy chastizement.

The God I read about I hardly knew. The God of the Bible is different from the God the churches teach. There was no exceptions, every church taught a watered down gospel.

I don't think any of them ever taught about hell and damnation. You know God tells us if we do not teach the whole council of God, then those teachers, priests, pastors etc, are false prophets! So as I study the Bible I understand more and more as if God is opening up my eyes to things the human wisdom can't understand. I am in awe. Now if the churches are filled with false prophets what do we do?

If you gather up all the end time scriptures, you will find that God is so furious that He will begin His judgement in the Churches. God will use Satin to rule in all the churches. That is why I do not understand why this forum do not distinguish the two churches? The Bible does! The true church are all the individuals that God has elected to save. As the Gospel call goes out to the world, God will draw His lost sheep until His temple is complete. This is the true church, the spiritual church, the Bride of Christ. The physical church is suppose to be a representation of the true church. This is true or else you wouldn't have Priest raping boys. That is a disgrace. I think Satin has started his abomination of desolation.

May God give us wisdom....

-- Christian Soldier (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 09, 2003.

Stephen-

Sheesh, I'll have to look into that... It did have the imprimatur and nihil obstat, and I haven't read anything obviously overboard, but who knows.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 10, 2003.

Hi Christian Soldier.

Have you read anything about Calvanism?

I wonder what your views on Calvanism are.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 10, 2003.

Christian Soldier-

I like cotton, silk, velvet, and yes satin. But, I don't like SATAN.

Just fooling around with you, all in fun.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 10, 2003.

Christian, you say: "I felt like I was inside the book as I read it. I couldn't understand most of it but what was strange was I began to fear God and tremble before God's word, my only authority!"

So there it is by your own admission. You left the Church God had founded for you because of subjective feelings based on something you read that you couldn't objectively understand - a very dangerous move from a spiritual perspective. And in so doing, you removed yourself from the only source that could ever help you understand - the biblical pillar and foundation of truth. Now you have nothing to guide you at all except those same inner feelings, which have become your only authority. Jesus said the truth would set us free, not our feelings.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 10, 2003.

Is Chris the soldier a kid? Why this naive tone all the time? --

Look: >''I get the impression that you are being taught to do works and hopefully when you die, maybe God will save you. Of course, your impression is wrong. Just like your ''vibes''.''. . . That is totally contrary to what the Bible teaches. Some of you may be saved (Oh Joy! Thank you, CS!) but the lies are blinding you and poisoning you. But God some how will make you understand through heavy chastizement.'' Have you made up His mind for Him, Soldier?

The God of the Bible is different from the God the churches teach. There was no exceptions, every church taught a watered down gospel. The GOD OF THE BIBLE! (Chris, who gave the Holy Bible to our Church? If He isn't in the Catholic Church, why did the Church bring His Bible to mankind?) -- I guess he was going into the protestant and ''Bible Christian'' churches. Not the Catholic Church.

You know God tells us if we do not teach the whole council (is that ''counsel''--?) of God, then those teachers, priests, pastors etc, are false prophets! So as I study the Bible I understand more and more as if God is opening up my eyes to things the human wisdom can't understand.So you are here to teach? I am in awe.--------------->>>You are in error.

God will use Satin (guess that means something like Satan) to rule in all the churches. God uses Satan. Hmmmmm. That's a Bible teaching? That is why I do not understand why this forum do not distinguish the two churches? The Bible does! The true church are all the individuals that God has elected to save.

--Oh, then Christ didn't found a Church? He was joking, in Matt 16 :18; ''Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'' A bad joke?

There aren't two ''churches'', CS. There is One Church. We are the Catholic (universal) Church; and no other church exists. Because you haven't seen in any scripture a different one. Every reference in the holy Bible to a church is meant to say, The Church. Our Holy Catholic Church from antiquity to the present. An everlasting Church with her faithful; all people, not simple spirits. Only in purgatory and heaven are there disembodied Catholic souls who are inside Christ's Mystical Body, the Church.

the individuals that God has elected to save; as you put it, are the SAINTS. That's what Paul calls all his converts they are, as the Church! Elect means saints, holy people of God. Your predestination accounts only for saints. Not for anybody predestined to be damned. No way is any soul given free will just so he/she can damn himself. Because he was never predestined for salvation!

That's a false doctrine taught by John Calvin.

How you can feel yourself ''in awe'' over these feeble attempts at explaining what's written in the Bible is not only a self-glorification of ego, but a sad blunder. You give the Bible a bad rap!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2003.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2003.

Dear Chris,

You state: "I get the impression that you are being taught to do works and hopefully when you die, maybe God will save you. That is totally contrary to what the Bible teaches."

Yes, that would be totally contrary to what the Bible teaches, just as predestination is - which is why the Catholic Church doesn't teach either of those heretical views. The Church teaches that salvation is a free gift, which cannot be earned or merited by the efforts of man, but which is freely offered to ALL men, and must be either accepted or rejected by each human being - just as the Bible teaches! The Catholic Church further teaches that acceptence of this free gift of salvation requires a response on our part - a response consisting of faith and good works - just as the Bible teaches!

You have to realize that your tradition came along many centuries after Christianity began, and many centuries after the Bible came into existence. That puts you in the unenviable position of having to try to figure out what the Bible means, without divine guidance or authority. Which of course is why you are unable to do it, and why your tradition is disintegrating before your eyes. In contrast, the Catholic Church knew what everything in the Bible meant BEFORE it became part of the Bible. The truth of Jesus Christ was given to the Catholic Church verbally, not in writing, by Jesus Christ Himself. The Church taught the fullness of that divine truth for centuries before it decided to gather some of its writings into a book. If the Church had never decided to compile that book, it would still be teaching exactly the same truths today that it taught then. It is only by virtue of the Church's grasp on these truths that they ever got written down in the first place. And it was only by the Church's discernment that certain writings accurately expressed the truth of the Church's teaching that such writings were admitted into the Bible. The Church is what Jesus gave us. The Bible is a partial written record of what He gave the Church. Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. Without the Bible there would still be a Holy Catholic Church teaching the fullness of Christian truth, but there would be no Protestantism, for there would be nothing to look to as a counterfeit "authority", after rejecting the true authority granted by Christ. I know this is difficult for a Protestant to grasp, but the Bible is NOT the foundation of Christian truth, nor was it even intended to be. The Church is. We know this because it is clearly stated in the Bible. It is stated in the Bible because it was taught by the Church. It was taught by the Church because it was taught by Jesus Christ. Therefore you are in the position of attempting to interpret a book of Catholic teaching for the Church that produced the book. Not only is such "assistance" not needed, it is simply not possible.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 10, 2003.

Good work, Paul;
May I add, just by one passage, it becomes clearer: ''And He said to them, ''Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptised shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned,'' (Mark 16, :15-16). If every ''creature'' is asked to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, every one is predetermined as a potential believer.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2003.

off i

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2003.

Paul:

A respectful correction if I may:

You said: Yes, that would be totally contrary to what the Bible teaches, just as predestination is - which is why the Catholic Church doesn't teach either of those heretical views.

Actually, my understanding is that the Catholic Church does teach predestination as an article of faith, and quotes the Bible in doing so. Here is article 2012 of the Catholic Catechism, which is taken in its entirety from the NT:

#2012

"We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . . . For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom. 8:28-30)

I know of course that you mean predestination in the absolute "double predestination" sense of Calvin, but it may be wise to state that explicitly.

Also I believe that it is heretical to believe that we can simply choose between salvation and damnation. See the quotes from the CCC posted by Catherine Ann a few posts back. God's grace is essential both in calling us to salvation and also in guiding our response to that call. If we deny this, then we fall into the Pelagian or semi- Pelagian heresy, which is as heretical as Calvinism.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 10, 2003.

It is indeed heretical to believe that we can choose between salvation and damnation simply by our own efforts, without the action of grace - which is why salvation is by grace alone. The problem with the heresy of Calvinistic predestination of course is its contention that many cannot choose salvation even BY God's grace. According to Calvin, the death of Jesus upon the cross was inadequate to merit salvation for all men, even though the Bible explicitly states that that was His intention. This makes Jesus a failure, powerless to fulfill His own will, and therefore less than God.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 10, 2003.

Paul:
I imperfectly stated this same objection. I told CS predestination to damnation meant Jesus only died for a ''share'' of the sinners. An absurd thought, but Soldier believes it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2003.

Paul, Eugene: Thanks for your clarifications. I agree entirely.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 11, 2003.

Hi.

If Stephen may spell it "satin", it is only fair that I may spell it "Calvanism".

Uh...."satan", "Calvinism".

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 11, 2003.

Taken from this website. See entry for "Satan / Satin" :)

Satan/Satin    "One of the Creator's lamentable mistakes, repented in sashcloth and axes. Being instated as an archangel, Satan made himself multifariously objectionable and was finally expelled from Heaven." [DD]  Christianity's villain. The Devil [CE] or scapegoat upon which the Fundie blames every bad or sad thing that happens and upon which he projects his own fears and failings. Created by Yahweh, Satan [SD] was, supposedly, once an angel who became conceited, wanted more than Yahweh was willing to let him have, and was consequently kicked out of heaven. Satan was then allowed, even encouraged, to prowl the earth, tempting humans to do things God could then punish them for. The story of Job portrays the Christian God actually selling his faithful follower down the river in order to win a bet with Satan. Fundies often confuse the word Satan with Satin in some formulation such as: "i c that satin is alive and well in this room."  They also confuse Satan with Lucifer [CE], who makes a cameo appearance in the Hebrew Bible at Isaiah 14:12 [BLB]. Lucifer became Satan, instead of a Babylonian king, only in the fertile minds of  later Christian mythologists.  See also Lucifer and Satan: Differences in the AOL Knowledge Database

-- Stephen (StaphenLynn999@msn.com), June 12, 2003.

!Hay, hay, hay!

The english language can be such a hassle sometimes. I know someone who butchers the language. Her reply to me when I correct her is, "You understood what I meant, didn't you?" My reply seems to always be, "I understood what you DIDN'T mean."

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 12, 2003.

For those interested, here's an article on predestination in Islam (basically the same as Calvin except of course for who goes to heaven and what goes on there :-) and here's a Jewish perspective. Also here's the entry for predestination in the "fundie dictionary" from which I took the Satan / Satin definition. :) Just offered for humor.

Predestination:   "The doctrine that all things occur according to programme. This doctrine should not be confused with that of foreordination, which means that all things are programmed, but does not affirm their occurrence, that being only an implication from other doctrines by which this is entailed. The difference is great enough to have deluged Christendom with ink, to say nothing of the gore. With the distinction of the two doctrines kept well in mind, and a reverent belief in both, one may hope to escape perdition if spared." [DD]

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 13, 2003.

FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE? HE DIED..
1. For all (1 Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6).
2. For every man (Heb. 2:9).
3. For the world (John 3:16).
4. For the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
5. For the ungodly (Rom. 5:6).
6. For false teachers (2 Peter 2:1).
7. For many (Matthew 20:28).
8. For Israel (John 11:50-51).
9. For the Church (Eph. 5:25).
10. For "me" (Gal. 2:20).


-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 15, 2003.

And when I say "Church", I don't mean Catholic church. That's another topic..

-- D.O. (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 15, 2003.

The Church of Ephesians was the Catholic Church. Paul didn't write to protestants or free-lance churches founded by self-ordained ministers. He wrote to the infant Catholic Church. In Ephesians this was a Catholic mission in Ephesus. So it must be the Catholic Church. No other existed. When are you going to finally get this in your heads?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 15, 2003.

Dear D.O.,

If you are quoting from the Bible, and you say "Church", you do indeed mean the Catholic Church, for there was no other Church present during New Testament times, or for 1,000 years afterwards. Surely when they wrote "The Church", they must have been referring to the one which actually existed at that time? The one they personally knew as "The Church"? Not to thousands of manmade churches which would proliferate 1,500 years later.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 15, 2003.

So Paul, didn't a man gather the tools and physically build your church? Or did God send one down from heaven? I think you need to clear that up before you say "man made churches". I think you mean man made beliefs, even though they come from the bible. Still, it seems more arrogant (as lil paul puts it) to say that God build your church building, and that everyone that does not belong to it is "a lost sheep".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 17, 2003.

Oh, I get it, David,

Jesus really was saying ''Thou art Peter (Rock) and upon this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell will not prevail against it.''

. . . Because He meant one building. --Or twenty-five, or twenty thousand ''buildings.''

Jesus only built buildings! Duh!!!

What are you smoking, little boy?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 18, 2003.

sorry,

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 18, 2003.

When Jesus said, "...Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," He did not promise to preserve the church from error. He simply meant that the gates of hell would not prevail against Him in preventing Him from building His church. Acts 2:31-32 says, "...He, foreseeing it, spoke of the resurrection of the Christ. For neither was He abandoned to hell, nor did His flesh undergo decay. This Jesus God has raised up, and we are all witnesses of it." Jesus was not stopped from building His church by being left in hell ("hades" in the Greek, meaning the place of the disembodied spirits) because His spirit was again reunited with His body. If He had been confined to hades, it would have prevailed against Him.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 18, 2003.

David, you are not slick enough to wag the dog even with your protestant tail. You dug it out of some sophist self-ordained minister's bag of tricks. No matter. No interpretation of that kind ever came from the saints of the New Testament. Paul is quite clear. The Church is the pillar and mainstay of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15). Making Christ's meaning in Matt 16 :18 apparent enough to anybody with no axe to grind.

To boot, He told Peter he would have the keys of the kingdom of heaven. To bind and loose on EARTH. --Do you know what ''on earth'' implies, D.O.--? Universally. Universal, the meaning of the Greek word ''Catholic''. You can't make these things up, Kid!!! Haaha!

To make it very simple for you, David, you stated --''He did not promise to preserve the Church from error--'' And Saint Paul calls the Church of Jesus Christ PILLAR AND MAINSTAY OF THE TRUTH. That means without doubt; she is preserved from error. You lose again.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 18, 2003.

You misquote 1 Tim. 3:15 which says, "...The church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth" to prove that the church is invested with authority to legislate in divine matters. The phrase "pillar and ground of the truth" does not mean that the church is the originator of truth, or that it can make or change the laws of God. It simply means that it is the upholder, defender and proclaimer of the truth. The apostles often praised churches for proclaiming the truth, "for from you the word of the Lord has been spread abroad" (1 Thess. 1:8). They commended them for defending the truth, "partakers with me...in the defense and confirmation of the gospel" (Phil. 1:7). Eugene, there is not a single verse in all of the Holy Scriptures which indicate that the church has the authority to originate truth or to decree laws for God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 18, 2003.

David -

Exactly Right! Jesus Himself is the origin of the truth which is found in His Church. The Church does not claim to be the originator of its truth. That's how the True Church differs from Protestant churches, which ARE the originators of their own beliefs, through the invalid manmade traditions of sola scriptura and personal interpretation. The Catholic Church, in contrast, has doctrine of divine origin. The Church is simply the keeper, guardian, steward, pillar and foundation of that truth, without which the truth simply collapses into thousands of conflicting manmade denominations.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 19, 2003.

Pick up, D.O.-- Paul sent you a fastball. You can't hit it!

There's nothing but GOD'S truth, God's revelations, and His Word, in the doctrine of His Holy Church.

Your church is a free-lance, make-believe church; it's got to make up poisons like solacraptura. Like silly interpretations of Apocalypse, and graven images, and worship of Mary. Because your ''truth'' is man's imagination under the control of the devil.

You won't let the truth shine into your life. You hate the truth, David. That's why the devil made you hate the catholic faith. Because it's all truth!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 19, 2003.

You are just trying to avoid the issue, David: The CHURCH (not scripture) is the pillar (couching place) and foundation or mainstay of the Truth. The Church UPHOLDS the Truth. The Church UNDERGIRDS the Truth. The Church PROCLAIMS the Truth.

Jesus DID NOT abandon us to the confusing world of Protestantism. What a sight that would have been! "Here folks, ya'll take a Bible, study it for 15 years at the seminary of your choice, and then determine which church you think has it right, and go for it!" "Divide, split, argue and debate until maybe, just maybe someday you'll get it right!" "Whoops, I forgot to mention you will have to wait until the printing presses are developed before you can get your copy. That'll be in about 1500 years. And of course, you'll have to learn to read English, otherwise how will you be able to read the KJV?"

No David, he gave us a visible church, authoritative Church that is meant to feed and lead His people into ALL the truth! JUST LIKE HE SAID!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 19, 2003.

Superhuman reckoning," says Nubius; he means a diabolical reckoning! For this is to calculate the subversion of the Church by its head himself, which Mgr. Delassus (The problem of the Present Hour, DDB., 1904, Tome 1, p. 195) calls the supreme attempt, because nothing more subversive for the Church can be imagined than a Pope won over to the liberal ideas, than a Pope using the power of the keys of Saint Peter in the service of the counter-Church! Now, is this not what we are living right now, since Vatican II, since the new Canon Law? With this false ecumenism and this false religious liberty promulgated at Vatican II and applied by the Popes with a cold perseverance in spite of all the ruins that these have been producing for more than twenty years!

Without the infallibility of the magisterium of the Church's having been involved, perhaps even without any heresies properly so called having been maintained, we are seeing the systematic autodemolition of the Church. "Autodemolition" is a word of Paul VI..

-- Carlos DeAngelo (Carlos@Apple@eve.com), June 19, 2003.

+

O ye of little faith--''

Soon you'll be dust, Carlos. Me too.
The Church of the holy apostles is not going to become dust. She has the words of Jesus Christ to carry her on to the day of His new advent. A Church that makes us saints.

Not myself; and yet saints like Mother Theresa. Like Padre Pio, and countless suffering, loving, holy men & women. Why haven't you become one? Is it because your myopia holds you afar from the action? Because your judgmental bones ache, and you wake up every morning cursing our Holy Father? ''OH! Why doesn't our Holy Father CARE what I think???? Carlos, the best Catholic in the world?''

You're bothering us here, Charley!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2003.

Hey Eugene and Carlos,

I have to admit, Eugene, I'm having a hard time grasping the notion that it is somehow sinful to question the doctrines or actions of our popes and/or leaders. I mean, don't we have a duty to stand up and say "That ain't right?"

There is a BIG movement in the Church declaring that "Jews and Muslims don't need to be saved." We've gone from "No salvation outside the Church," to "Everyone's Saved." I'm no theologian, but there's something stinky in Denmark, or Rome, should I say. This goes beyond ecumenicism and borders on apostacy.

Don't get mad at me, Eugene. I just think the traditionalists have some good points -- let's don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 20, 2003.

I have a natural aversion, Gail
To fanatical doomsayers. As I asked on the other thread, ''Where is your faith?'' Carlos has posted this lashing out at our Church:

After a masterful explanation from the Holy Bible that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, Bishop Hay demonstrates that Sacred Scripture absolutely and infallibly forbids all religious intermingling between Catholics and those of false religions.--
I wonder why this Catholic denounces us for ''religious intermingling,'' ???

Is Mohammad saying Mass today in your parish? Or, did the Dalai Lama say the Rosary with you last night? Is John Paul II renting out the Sistine Chapel for Bar Mitzvahs this summer? He's not using it, since the temperatures in Rome are rocketing above 110 farenheit these afternoons.

If you ask Carlos; he will answer yes to all the above; just my hunch, Gail. WHERE IS THE FAITH?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2003.

My beef is with the so-called ecumenical movement that I believe is sabotaging the Faith. I mean it's one thing to say anyone who is a worshiper of Christ is somehow connected to me as my brother-in-the- Lord, but it's another to say that Jews are saved and don't need to be converted! I just think they took a wrong turn down heresy road in their zeal to be ecumenical.

Right you are the Church has been brought through many storms, but WHEN it has been brought through, the lay people have been the ones rowing the boat. I do not believe in schism -- GOD FORBID! But I also do not believe it is disloyal to speak up, AS LONG AS it is done with gentleness and respect.

Thanks Eugene,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 20, 2003.

Gail,
Speak up from accurate and truthful observation. If we don't like something, that alone does not disqualify it. There's ample room, and the Catholic faith is not being undermined through ecumenism. We had a long argument about it all of this Spring, with many so-called traditionists.

It bothers me most that not only do some people deplore horribly all the current situation. Their only solution is to bring it HERE in the form of morbose castigations of our clergy and the Holy Father. It borders on open hatred. This is the Church in which we are to be recognised as lovers of one another? God is in control; and reforms are always gradual.

Bishop Sheen once declared it very aptly: for every action there comes a reaction. Prayers and faith are the Christian's lever & fulcrum, Gail.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Gail.

You wrote: "I'm having a hard time grasping the notion that it is somehow sinful to question the doctrines or actions of our popes and/or leaders. I mean, don't we have a duty to stand up and say 'That ain't right?'"

You might find this hard to believe, but I have been concerned for months that you might some day make a statement like this. I think that I have seen hints of it -- if not actual words of your own, then approval of comments made by some of the schismatics who used to come here.

The most important thing I can tell you is that the devil is trying to work on your mind. He seeks to plant the idea in you that the pope could teach wrongly. His goal is to lead you into schism, and then later heresy. I believe that he has already succeeded in doing this at least once at the forum. I pray that you will not be his second conquest.

Next, when you encounter a "problem area" like this one, I want to encourage you not to rely on rumors, non-scholarly articles, and the opinions of ordinary people at a public forum. Just as you wisely love to quote from the Church Fathers -- orthodox bishops and theologians -- please seek out and study the actual Church documents (at www.vatican.va) on the subject of ecumenism [unity among Christians] and interreligious relations. I am confident that you will not find the popes and orthodox bishops stating that all non-Catholics (or all Jews, etc.) will be saved. No error whatsoever is being made in the Vatican of the kind suspected by schismatic traditionalists [inaccurately so labeled, since they have abandoned part of Catholic tradition]. If you study, Gail, I am confident that you will never again be tempted to "stand up and say [to a pope], 'That ain't right'" -- when he is teaching about faith or morals.

Please note that I am not saying that we can never say, "That ain't right" to anyone.
There are times when we can and should say, "That ain't right," to a given layman, deacon, priest, or bishop -- because some of these have fallen into error and contradicted the Catechism. [We can even say, "That ain't right," in criticizing a bad behavior or a poor prudential judgment by a pope.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 20, 2003.

Thanks, John.

I will look up that document you suggested. Yes, you are right, I get a little "freaked" sometimes with some of the slander towards the Church. I am TOTALLY not use to this "battle-mode" you have to be in all the time. It is staggering sometimes. Last week I somehow ran across an anti-Catholic site which showed a picture of the Pope sitting on a chair with an unside down cross. Of course, the article lended their "expertise" on the satanic symbolism, etc., etc. I searched the Internet for two hours until I found that JPII was sitting in the "Chair of Peter," with the symbol for Peter being the upside down cross, on which he was crucified!

But to put your mind at ease, I am ecstatically happy in finding the Church, I am just having a hard time sometimes dealing with the fundies and the Traditionalists.

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 20, 2003.

It depends on what you mean by "questioning". Someone who doesn't "question" doesn't learn. That sort of questioning is a necessary element of growth in knowledge, and growth in faith. I question because I don't know - and so I seek reliable sources, and I investigate with an open heart and mind, and God reveals to me a truth - a truth which would not have been revealed to me if I had not questioned. This is certainly a good thing. What is not good is "questioning" from the immovable conviction that my own impressions and assumptions are correct, and that anyone who is not in accord with my impressions - even the Church of the Living God - is therefore necessarily wrong. This attitude is not just arrogant, it is utterly absurd. When we don't know, we should indeed question; not to do so is apathy. But we should question to learn, not to attack. And when we question Holy Mother Church, we should do so with full realization that God has designated the one we are questioning - and no-one else - as "the pillar and foundation of truth". God has told her "he who hears you hears me". God has given her, and us, His assurance that "whatsoever she binds on earth is bound in heaven". God has assured us that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church - no-one else - to all truth. That makes the Church the most reliable source of truth which exists on this earth. But even though the doctrine of the Church is infallible (Thanks be to God!), not every individual minister of the Church is 100% faithful in proclaiming that infallible truth. And so, we may hear teachings that do not sound quite right - at least from the point of view of our present level of knowledge and understanding. And so, we question, and we learn; and perhaps sometimes we are even called to provide input to our shepherds which might help them remain on the narrow path. But we should not take that step too readily - the shepherds seldom need the guidance of the sheep; and if, after studying the matter and investigating the facts, and correcting any possible ignorance or misunderstanding on our part, it still seems necessary to speak, then we should, after sincere prayer for peace and guidance, speak with profound humility and graciousness, for we are addressing the very Body of Christ on earth, His Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 20, 2003.

The Bishop Hay that Carlos quoted and Eugene mentioned earlier in this thread, lived in 1729 - 1811. Rather a bit before Vatican 11 :-) I guess he didn’t get involved in inter-religious dialogue, nor sit on Ecumenical Councils. You have to read what Bishop Hay said in the context of what was happening around him at the time of writing. When Bishop Hay lived, Scottish Catholics were still being persecuted, dating back to the Reformation. Indeed the Scottish Hierarchy wasn’t restored until 1878, many years after his death.

This page gives a bit of background to this:

http://www.pa44.dial.pipex.com/hist.htm#MEDIEVAL%20CHURCH

You will find what he said about salvation outside the Church at this page:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/extract.html

You will find if you click on the home page for that site, that it’s a ‘Traditional Catholic Counter Revolution’ site that has such appetisers as: ‘101 heresies of John Paul 11’ to tempt us.

For every soul they remove from the Body of Christ, the Church that Jesus himself founded, they will have to account to God our Father. We ought to pray for them.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 20, 2003.

Gail

there is so much truth is what you say; but you are being steam- rollered. there can be nothing wrong with asking the odd question, and to say that it is the devil's work is surely an exageration. what if this strehgthens your faith -- the devil at play?!?!

if .... it all comes down to conscience and if... i of my own conscience decide that X=Y,... then surely that is no bar to salvation, even if the Church thinks that X <> Y. well, this is what the Church teaches -- so is it not a licence to live by one's conscience rather than by the word of the Church?? or does this "compassion" only extend to non-Catholics??

i have heard it said that ecumenism is the result of a seat-warming, and rather mediocre, Pope that surprised us all; and now the "faithful" spend all their time defending it as the faith crumbles around us.

there is no ecumenism in Scripture; nor, to my knowledge, is there such a thing in the early Church. all there is is evangelisation.

Gail, do not be steam-rollered. after all, faith is a conscious decision.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 20, 2003.

Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy....The thought of hell—and even less the improper use of biblical images—must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry ‘Abba, Father!’ (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6).”

Must the pope admit his heresy, or is it out there plainly enough for all to see? Lord Jesus called it a place, thirty three times.

-- Carlos DeAngelo (Carlos @appleandeve.com), June 20, 2003.

Carlos, the Pope has no heresy for you to denounce; so he won't be confessing it. You are inciting rebellion in the Church. This is not a forum where we take shots at the hierarchy or individual prelates of the Church.

If your reactions are as radical as I think they are, the proper thing to do is travel to Rome. Have the confrontations there like a man; don't nibble at the fiber of the Church in hiding, like a termite.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2003.

The Pope cannot teach heresy. Jesus stated that whatsoever the Pope proclaims as binding here on earth is, de facto, true, for nothing untrue can be "bound in heaven". The infallible nature of the Pope's teaching and that of the Magisterium is the ONLY guarantee of certain truth which has been given to us as human beings.

Jesus never stated that hell is a physical place. Terms such as "cast into hell" or "the fires of hell" obviously could refer just as resonably to a state of existence as to a physical place. We do know that the world, the universe, all of physical creation, will pass away. This suggests that the state of things subsequent to the end of the world will be much the same as before the universe was created, which means that matter, time, and space - in other words, all physical reality, will cease to exist. Jesus Himself referred to "the end of time". Since a physical place cannot exist except in terms of matter, space, and time, it seems most probable that hell, and heaven, are better described as "states or modes of existence", rather than the simplistic notion of physical "places". In any case, we have no way of knowing for sure before we get there, and for those poor souls who choose hell, whether it is a place or a state will be the last thing they are concerned about.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 20, 2003.

"The Pope cannot teach heresy. Jesus stated that whatsoever the Pope proclaims as binding here on earth is, de facto, true, for nothing untrue can be "bound in heaven". The infallible nature of the Pope's teaching and that of the Magisterium is the ONLY guarantee of certain truth which has been given to us as human beings."

Actually Paul, that's not true, nor is it Catholic doctrine, nor can it be found in the Deposit of the Faith as you characterize it.

Look, it isn't me claiming this. Go read the work of St. Robert Bellarmine on the subject. Apostolic succession? Yes; submision to the Ronam Pontiff? Yes. But the way you characterize it is unorthodox. The this is not the understanding of the Papacy throughout our two thousand year history.

This mischaracterization of Papal infallibility is making any so- called dialogue with our so-called separated brethren even more impossible than it already is. It is a uniquely post-conciliar machination and, it is not authentic Catholic dogma.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 20, 2003.

Dear Emerald,

It is true that the church's understanding of the charism of infallibility, like its understanding of every other essential doctrine of the faith, has gradually increased over time. But the Eucharist was just as truly the body and blood of Christ before the Church came to fuller understanding of it. And likewise, the charism of infallibility was in full operation from day one, long before the Church attained a fuller understanding of its nature. Infallibility is the single characteristic of the true Church that has prevented heresy from entering in and causing the same fragmentation that has occurred in churches lacking this essential charism. Truth is what separates the Church of Jesus Christ from counterfeit manmade churches, and infallibility is the only guarantee of truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 20, 2003.

"But the Eucharist was just as truly the body and blood of Christ before the Church came to fuller understanding of it."

Paul, are you saying the apostles didn't know what it was, or didn't understand as much about it? No! Nononononono. They knew exactly what it was, more deeply than you and I know and understand it. They knew exactly what the Blessed Sacrament was.

They knew they knew they knew. Nothing developed into anything.

"infallibility is the only guarantee of truth"

*sigh*... Hey Gail, please don't listen to me but keep listening to the voice of Truth that brought you to where you are right now. I believe you to be as real a truthseeker as there ever was in this forum. In your Catholic Faith you have found a pearl of great price, and it is a long, lonely and rocky road but if you take these concerns before that Blessed Sacrament and if you are loyal in your devotions to your Mother, and if you are single hearted and honest and keep driving away at your new endeavor to unite yourself with Christ, all heaven will see you through and complete the good work that was started in you.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 20, 2003.

Dear Emerald,

Yes, the Apostles knew WHAT the Eucharist was. That is evident from scripture. But the Church has grown in the depth of its understanding of its doctrinal truth in every age. That is the purpose of theology - to study the truths of the faith, not to change them into something different, or to cast doubts upon them as some theologians do, but to uncover still deeper aspects of the divine mysteries which comprise the truths of our Blessed Catholic faith - mysteries which can never be fully comprehended by mere human minds. Today the Church understands every doctrine of the faith in a fuller and richer way than the Apostles did - yet still deeper aspects of the truth remain to be revealed as the Holy Spirit continues to work in and through the Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 21, 2003.

"That is the purpose of theology - to study the truths of the faith, not to change them into something different, or to cast doubts upon them as some theologians do, but to uncover still deeper aspects of the divine mysteries which comprise the truths of our Blessed Catholic faith - mysteries which can never be fully comprehended by mere human minds."

Oh, I agree. Absolutely. But this is not what I see actually happening; I'm sure you know what I mean.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 21, 2003.

Oh man, oh man, I NEVER ACCUSED JPII of heresy!

John, is that what you thought I was saying?

I was referring to the Catholic Bishops who floated that ecumenical balloon last year. And I was not even calling THAT a heresy. That statement that the Bishops interreligious committee made last year was merely a "tiptoe in the tulips" -- NOT a full blown heresy. Having said that now, let me just say that where it APPEARS the Bishops are heading with this is tooooo far! And there are plenty of FAITHFUL Catholics, faithful to the magisterium, and to JPII, that are not happy with that statement either. I know that Second Exodus founder, Marty Barrack, who has an apostolate to jews was EVER SO UNHAPPY about it.

And I know the Church WILL COME THROUGH and shine!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 21, 2003.

Paul but dont theologians differ greatly on what constitutes an infalliable document? There are so many "infallible" encyclicals that well are NOT infallible at all, at least to me, a stackfulof documents on the burning of heretics for starters and the co education issue in 1929 to get the ball rolling. A theologians document from The Catholic Reporter Apr 1968 lists a few others: religious liberty, interest taking, the right to silence and the ends to marriage ALL of which have been proven either erroneous or at the very least grossly inadequate. All have been corrected at a later date.

Clearly supposedly infallible documents have proven to be wrong in the past, Kung offers many more such examples but in doing so the Vatican gave him the boot.

I like Kungs take on infallibilty who prefers the term "indefectibility". I know how staunchly orthodox you are but Id like your view on the use of the term indefectibilty as

"the fundamental permanace of the church in truth, a permanace which is not suspended by individual errors".

Kung believes such indecfectibility is supported by scripture but infallibility bis not. Mk 8:33, Lk 22:32, Gal 2:11-15

The reply is of course that we cannot define truth yet Kung argues that God will guide his church through the faith of the community of believers. Jesus remains in the community of believers in the Catholic church and his spirit guides then afresh into the whole truth. This is a truth of God that never decieves us. Kung goes into some detail into how a falliable magisterium and The Pope would operate and how the Church would be maintained in truth. Indeed the title of this small book is "The Chruch Maintained in Truth". Id be most interested in the opinions of ONLY those who have read this book. I know hes been banned as a teaching theologian, but I say read his work and make your OWN mind up!

God Bless.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 21, 2003.

Kiwi, --
To ''make your OWN mind up'', in matters of the faith & morals, is dissent. We have the mind of the Holy Spirit to conform to. Not what Hans Kung believes. Again I must caution you; the ''new breed'' of worldly Catholic is on no better ground than the old one. Youth is NOT always served.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 21, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, folks. I just had a chance to read what you have posted since my last message (on the 20th). I have some responses.

Gail: "I will look up that document you suggested."
Me: Actually, Gail, I had in mind a series of documents that touch on, or are fully devoted to, ecumenism and interreligious relations. The series of documents begins with three or four of the sixteen documents of Vatican II and then proceed through post-conciliar documents right down to our own time. If you (or anyone else) would like me to provide links to these, I would be happy to do so. [Last time, I was just saying that they could be found within the "boundaries" of the Vatican site (www.vatican.va).]

Paul (responding to Gail's earlier post): "It depends on what you mean by 'questioning.' Someone who doesn't 'question' doesn't learn. That sort of questioning is a necessary element of growth in knowledge, and growth in faith. ... What is not good is 'questioning' from the immovable conviction that my own impressions and assumptions are correct, and that anyone who is not in accord with my impressions - even the Church of the Living God - is therefore necessarily wrong."
Me: I agree completely. Last time, I encouraged Gail to have full trust in the pope's teachings because I was afraid that she was beginning to lean toward the second kind of "questioning" that you mention. [That kind of "questioning" is almost synonymous with "doubting" doctrine, which we are not free to do.] Now Gail has reassured me that she had no such "questioning" in mind.

Ian (to Gail): "... but you are being steam- rollered. there can be nothing wrong with asking the odd question, and to say that it is the devil's work is surely an exageration. what if this strehgthens your faith -- the devil at play?!?!"
Me: Since I was the one who mentioned the devil last time, I think that this is a criticism of what I said. However, it is not a valid criticism, because I wasn't linking the devil with the appropriate "asking [of] the odd question" -- i.e., the first kind of "questioning" that Paul mentions above. [Ian, you didn't realize that the "questioning" that I consider to be a fruit of the devil's temptations is the second kind of "questioning" -- the kind that is synonymous with "doubting/disbelieving" a doctrine of the Church.]

Ian: "if .... it all comes down to conscience and if... i of my own conscience decide that X=Y,... then surely that is no bar to salvation, even if the Church thinks that X <> Y. well, this is what the Church teaches -- so is it not a licence to live by one's conscience rather than by the word of the Church?? or does this 'compassion' only extend to non-Catholics??"
Me: Ian, I hesitate to criticize what you have written here, because I cannot tell what you really believe -- i.e., whether the above represents your own thinking [Lord, I hope not], whether you are quoting someone else, or whether you are being "ironic." I will only say that "conscience" applies only to morality (not to doctrines of the faith) and that even with morality, a "conscience" must conform to the teachings of the Church -- else it is an unformed or ill-formed concience.

Ian: "i have heard it said that ecumenism is the result of a seat-warming, and rather mediocre, Pope that surprised us all ..."
Me: If you listen long enough, you can "hear" anything "said." Wisdom lies in believing what the Church teaches (including the propriety of ecumenism), not in falling for any old thing we "hear ... said" that tickles our ears or fits our preconcevied ideas.

Carlos (quoting JPII): "'Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of thoe who freely and definitively separate themselves from God ...'. Must the pope admit his heresy ..."
Me: There is no "heresy." To us ordinary people, the word "place" indicates a physical locale with three dimensions. There is no need for hell to be such a thing. After all, who is there now? Demons and the souls of the damned. How much "space" of a "place" do they need? Not one square millimeter. They are spiritual. None of us knows whether hell will one day be changed by God into something that we could call a "place" -- when it becomes the abode, not only of souls, but of risen, tormented bodies.

Paul: "The Pope cannot teach heresy. Jesus stated that whatsoever the Pope proclaims as binding here on earth is, de facto, true, for nothing untrue can be 'bound in heaven.' The infallible nature of the Pope's teaching and that of the Magisterium is the ONLY guarantee of certain truth which has been given to us as human beings."
Me: I agree, Paul. And that is why it was so sad to see someone try to contradict you and to try to mislead Gail. The heretical position was just now voiced by an ex-Catholic who wisely chose to leave the forum several weeks ago, but then unwisely chose to interrupt the forum's peace anew. This is the very individual to whom I was alluding earlier in my words of caution to Gail ("[The devil's] goal is to lead you into schism, and then later heresy. I believe that he has already succeeded in doing this at least once at the forum.")

Gail: "Oh man, oh man, I NEVER ACCUSED JPII of heresy! John, is that what you thought I was saying?"
Me: I see, Gail, that you must have re-read my last message, because your first response to me did not trigger this kind of alarm! I know that you didn't "accuse" the pope of heresy. However, I was afraid that your earlier statement might allow for that as a possibility. I will quote again what you said. Please look at it carefully, and I think that you will see why I became concerned. (I realize now that you didn't mean it the way it "sounded" to me.) ...
"I'm having a hard time grasping the notion that it is somehow sinful to question the doctrines or actions of our popes and/or leaders. I mean, don't we have a duty to stand up and say 'That ain't right?'"
Gail: "I was referring to the Catholic Bishops who floated that ecumenical balloon last year. And I was not even calling THAT a heresy."
Me: That's a relief! I see that now, but your prior words seemed to to me say that you thought that maybe we are allowed to doubt ["question"] a papal teaching. I'm glad that mine was a misunderstanding of your intention.

Gail: "... let me just say that where it APPEARS the Bishops are heading with this is tooooo far!"
Me: I agree with you, as long as we qualify the word "Bishops" to make it clear that we are referring only to those few bishops (or their staff members) who authored the troubling document.

Kiwi: "There are so many 'infallible' encyclicals that well are NOT infallible at all, at least to me, a stackfulof documents on the burning of heretics for starters and the coeducation issue in 1929 to get the ball rolling."
Me: Infallilibility applies only to a doctrine -- what is taught about a matter of faith or morality. The two things you just mentioned were not matters of doctrine.

Kiwi: "A theologians document from The Catholic Reporter Apr 1968 lists a few others: religious liberty, interest taking, the right to silence, and the ends to marriage ALL of which have been proven either erroneous or at the very least grossly inadequate. All have been corrected at a later date. Clearly supposedly infallible documents have proven to be wrong in the past ..."
Me: This is false. Apparently, "The Catholic Reporter" [of New Zealand?] cannot be trusted, as it relays this canard, long put forward by dissenters. The Church never taught errors on the four subjects you listed, so nothing needed to be "corrected at a later date."
Kiwi: "... Kung offers many more such examples but in doing so the Vatican gave him the boot."
Me: You are mistaken. Fr. Hans Kung lost his ability to refer to himself as a Catholic theologian because he himself taught dissent (at best), not because he allegedly revealed error. It is a very imprudent act for an ordinary layman (as we are) to read the trash published by Fr. Kung. (The devil loves it when people read that doubt-engendering junk.)

Kiwi: "I like Kungs take on infallibilty who prefers the term 'indefectibility.' I know how staunchly orthodox you are but Id like your view on the use of the term indefectibilty as 'the fundamental permanance of the church in truth, a permanance which is not suspended by individual errors.'"
Me: No faithful Catholic should "like Kung's take on" anything when it contradicts the Church's "take" -- as in this case. The Church not only teaches "infallibility," but also "indefectibility." By the latter, she means [quoting from the late Fr. John Hardon], the "imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time." Both papal infallibility and ecclesial indefectibility were clearly taught by the First Vatican Council, which said that the Church possesses an "unconquered stability" and "will continue to stand until the end of time." The Latin root "defectus" within "indefectibility" does not refer to errors in doctrine, but to an ability to decay or die. Thus, Fr. Kung is wrong.
Kiwi: "I know hes been banned as a teaching theologian, but I say read his work and make your OWN mind up!"
Me: No, thank you. There are too many good, reliable books and Vatican documents that I haven't read yet ... to allow me to waste even one second on dissenters and heretics who seek to undermine my faith. Eugene is 100% correct in his reply to you.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 22, 2003.

Kiwi,
I forgot to mention the most important thing that I had intended to mention ...

You should not be focusing on "infallibility," but on faith and obedience. I have noticed that it is characteristic of dissidents of ALL kinds -- whether Lefebrist/"trad" or Kungist schismatics/heretics -- to reproduce this same sad refrain about infallibility: "It hasn't been proclaimed 'ex cathedra,' so we don't have to believe it." I bring this up, because it appears that you are falling into the same trap, Kiwi.

Here is what is really supposed to guide our spiritual attitude and response:
"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
The above is from article #25 of the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" of Vatican II. This we must "assent" -- "submi[t our] mind and will" -- to EVERY papal teaching, not just those that seem to have been pronounced in a very formal way. Do you do this, Kiwi? [Rhetorical question, but if the answer is "no," then you are not being the Catholic you are supposed to be.]

Another part of LG #25 explains the much-neglected/much-unknown fact of the infallibility of the "ordinary and universal magisterium" of the bishops:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held."

Through this fact about the "ordinary and universal magisterium" [OaUM] we can be confident that every doctrine that the Church has ever taught (with unanimity among the bishops and a pope) can be relied upon as error-free -- even those that have never been formally "defined/proclaimed" by a pope or an ecumenical council. I believe that this would include every doctrine found in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[I want to warn faithful Catholics here that schismatics, dissidents, and heretics (including one already heard from on this thread) reject this fact about the OaUM ... but that's because they have to reject it, else their position collapses. Put no credence in them, for, in their mortally sinful pride, they place themselves about the authority of the Council Fathers and the Holy Spirit who guided the Fathers.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 22, 2003.

Hey John,

Glad you came back and helped clear up some of the misunderstandings. I can see how my post must've read to you, and how that caused you alarm. Thanks for your concern! I really DO appreciate it. Even though I have been a Christian a long time and have a very good grasp on the teachings of the Church, I am still quite young in the Catholic faith, and groping my way through in many areas. This area that Kiwi brings up is a case in point.

Let me ask you to give us a really concrete example on the issue of papal and magisterial authority. We all know about the Bishops statement on the conversion of Jews last year -- how would a lay person like me know that such did not come from the Magisterium? Where would we check? I think last year, I came straight here about it. Then I wrote an e-mail to a Catholic Apostolate to Jews, Second Exodus, who really helped me by writing me back immediately and putting things in perspective.

As to schismatics; to be quite honest, I do not know how to relate to them at all! It really really hurts that they are not with us. I have seen schisms for 20+ years in Protestantism as you can well imagine and they are sordid, hurtful to Christ, hurtful to the body, and cause a great deal of scandal. How should we relate to them?

Here is probably a dumb question, but if someone says they are a "Traditionalist" that does not necessarily mean they are in schism, does it? What about the Remnant Resistance and Diocese Report; are these groups in schism?

God bless and thanks for your always-meticulous answers.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 22, 2003.

"[I want to warn faithful Catholics here that schismatics, dissidents, and heretics (including one already heard from on this thread) reject this fact about the OaUM ... but that's because they have to reject it, else their position collapses. Put no credence in them, for, in their mortally sinful pride, they place themselves about the authority of the Council Fathers and the Holy Spirit who guided the Fathers.]"

Just so that everyone is clear as to whom it is that John refers, it's me.

He is claiming that I am in a state of mortal sin; in particular, the sin of pride.

This may or may not be the case. But it does illustrate an intrinsic conflict... on the one hand, we are told not to render private judgements on matters, be it matters of Faith or morals, or the condition of the souls of people.

But on the other hand, as one can readily observe, it happens anyways.

So again, away from the unanswerable questions, and to the crux.

The real question to be answered is not whether submission to Roman Pontiff is require, because it is; we must submit to the Roman Pontiff. The real question is not whether there is an obedience that needs to be rendered to the ordinary magisterium, because the truth is that obedience in fact does need to be rendered.

The real question is, what is true nature of obedience and loyalty to ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, how do I as a Catholic do God's will in this regard? In sticky situations that the Church finds itself in in this day and age, do I abandon doctrine and follow the generic fallen prelate or do I disregard the generic fallen prelate and cling to doctrine? When I say "generic" here I mean to indicate that I don't have any particular prelate in mind.

What I'm putting forth is the the proposition that these things are not well understood by the post conciliar Catholic mind and heart, and that their being misunderstood has lead to mischaracterizations of true Catholic doctrine.

Consider what damage can be done to Faith if one has a misunderstanding of what it means to be loyal to the ordinary magisterium, and they then find out that their local parish priest or bishop is a homosexual.

The right understanding would not shake the believer's Faith, but the improper understanding will destroy it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 22, 2003.

Jmj

Last time, I wrote:
"I want to warn faithful Catholics here that schismatics, dissidents, and heretics (including one already heard from on this thread) reject this fact about the OaUM ... but that's because they have to reject it, else their position collapses. Put no credence in them, for, in their mortally sinful pride, they place themselves above the authority of the Council Fathers and the Holy Spirit who guided the Fathers."

Dear, Catholics, I thought that the heretic ("Greenglass") would have sense enough, in light of what I explained last time, to keep his trap shut. But, no. Whether it was pride or a lack of common sense, he decided to come back to try to save face. Notice how deviously he operates. He begins by trying to discredit me in your eyes -- trying to make me seem to be commiting an injustice against him ...

"He is claiming that I am in a state of mortal sin; in particular, the sin of pride. This may or may not be the case. But it does illustrate an intrinsic conflict... on the one hand, we are told not to render private judgements on matters, be it matters of Faith or morals, or the condition of the souls of people. But on the other hand, as one can readily observe, it happens anyways. "

But read my words carefully, and you will see that I did not say that he is "in a state of mortal sin." Unless Greenglass has zero memory banks, he knows perfectly well that I always avoid judging the souls of people, leaving that to God. What I do, though, is point out the objective seriousness of an action being committed. In this case, I stated that heretics demonstrate "mortally sinful pride" -- i.e., that their pride is objectively mortally sinful (though God knows if their subjective guilt may be lessened or removed by acting under stress or invincible ignorance). [By the way, Greenglass slipped another whopper into that paragraph, claiming that I said that we must not "render private judgements on matters ... of faith or morals". In reality, I said that we cannot render private judgments that conflict with magisterial judgments -- not that we cannot render private judgments at all.

After having tried to smear me, Greenglass then tries to explain away his error (the error that eventually leads to his heresy on at least one subject).
"The real question is, what is true nature of obedience and loyalty to ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, how do I as a Catholic do God's will in this regard?"

All that follows -- his answer to his own "question" -- is rubbish. The last part is particularly bad, wherein Greenglass tries to appeal to your emotions by bringing the irrelevant subject of the sex scandal. What I have been writing about in this thread (assent) has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a "local parish priest or bishop is [exposed as] a homosexual."

Again, as I said, Greenglass states: "The real question is, what is true nature of obedience and loyalty to ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church."
The fact is that there is no remaining "question" at all, since the answer is clearly given in the passages from "Lumen gentium" that I quoted last time. Greenglass, however, will not accept that answer because he rejects the teachings of Vatican II that do not correspond with his private theology. He also believes that Pope John Paul II has taught error and that the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains erroneous teachings. And so, relying on his erroneous private theology, Greenglass becomes a heretic when he applies its twisted "tenets" to concrete circumstances.

That is why, last time, I stated [with correction of "typo" in bold]:
"Put no credence in [heretics like Greenglass], for, in their mortally sinful pride, they place themselves above the authority of the Council Fathers and the Holy Spirit who guided the Fathers."

God bless you.
John
PS: Gail, please forgive me. I am running very late and will try to return to reply to you later today. I should have replied to you first, but I misjudged my time.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 23, 2003.

Hi John

I believe that encylicals condemning heretics and giving approval on of burning of heretics is indeed a matter of faith and morals as are the other examples from the National Catholic Reporter(AMerican I believe), it was a theologian statement signed by over 600 of the worlds leading Catholic theologians and philosophers of the time. Nevertheless I have no wish to muckrake, I admit to have done no research into the validity of the claims by the theologians in the reporter.

Youre right I dont think I am able to accept Papal infallibility in the strictly traditional sense in good conscience. I have NO CHOICE but to follow my informed conscience, even when it is in error. You know this. To do otherwise is a sin.

As for thoughts on Kung, I still hope you take the time to read this little book with an open heart and mind and then offer some thoughts There is nothing to say Catholics cannot read his thoughts and get much insight from them.

A special thanks again for the work on those scripture lines on the other thread, very helpful indeed.

Cheers John!

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 23, 2003.

All that follows -- his answer to his own "question" -- is rubbish. The last part is particularly bad, wherein Greenglass tries to appeal to your emotions by bringing the irrelevant subject of the sex scandal.

Fair enough then. Let's take it away from the realm of the emotional and make the point even clearer:

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

Where does that leave the inter-religious prayer and ecumenism thingy? I mean, come on, really... see, here's the problem: the post conciliar Catholic insists that if you don't take on this ecumenism deal that you are outside the Church.

Nonsense. Ecumenism is not some binding doctrine requiring assent. In fact, the history of the Church proves that it is an error. Current experience is at this very moment rendering an incredible storehouse of emperical evidence of this error.

The original questions:

1) When Jesus died on the cross, did His blood cover some of their sins or all of the sins of the people that "CHOOSE"?

2) Did He take their place at the judgement thrown and cover every sin til their last day?

3) Could they fall away and lose their salvation?

Not what Emerald says, but what some of the Saints and Popes have said:

God provides Baptism for all His elect. --St. Robert Bellarmine (who, by the way, has some incredible writings concerning the nature of the Papacy)

God does not forsake those who have once been justified by His grace, unless He first be forsaken by them. --St. Augustine

It is not enough merely to believe. He who believes and is not yet baptized, but is only a catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation. --St. Augustine

In Baptism, two things are always necessarily required: the words and the element. You ought not doubt that they do not have true Bptism in which one of them is missing. --Pope Innocent III

Being placed outside the Church, and cut off from unity and charity, heretics or schismatics could not be crowned in death, even though one should be slain for the name of Christ. Even if a man should deliver his body to be burned, he gains nothing. Baptism of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church. --St. Cyprian

To block the objection before it even arises, many of these quotes come from the book Apostolic Digest. People claim they are a distorted display meant to tweak quotes and bend them into a certain ideology.

A fair objection. What to do? Trace the quotes back to find their authenticity, and then read them in context. Problem solved. All it takes is what people rarely apply: time and effort.

Anytime you want more quotes that do not come from books like these, I can provide them. In fact, I can do one better and pull them off strictly NeoCatholic websites, because despite the veil of deception we are suffering under, one can still find truth if one seeks it. This is how the Holy Ghost makes sure that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Holy Church.

The fact of the matter is, I could flood the forum with the statements of Pontiffs and Saints which uphold the real and true Roman Catholicism... the Catholicism of suffering and sacrifice, penance, humility, meekness, poverty and real abandonment to the Divine will. You know, stuff that has been totality lost on the average post conciliar Catholic.

It's all there if you look, but few people do the actual homework

But if someone really, really wanted to nail me, they could provide the quotes that show how I should not argue the Faith.

That's because will precedes intellect, and the Saints, they all knew this.

If you wish me to provide the evidence that would nail me, Emerald, I can provide those as well. The Catholic Faith is bulletproof until you take it off.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 23, 2003.

Dear Emerald:
Please realise that even if you aren't a heretic, as John warns, your opinions are offensive to the faith. (Surprised?) They are based on elitism and bad faith toward your neighbor. Not just the souls outside the Catholic religion. Against even your Catholic brethren. To refer to faithful and practicing Catholics as Neocatholics is just short of blasphemy. You place your preferences on the highest plane, and relegate others to an inferior one. You presume to know the Church of our day is not favored of God, and in fact, that the Pope and our prelates are offensive to God.

Whether this is consciously or innocently done, it is near blasphemous, because every Eucharist celebrated in faith has the seal of Jesus Christ's holy approval. He truly comes down from heaven on the words of Consecration in supreme act of worship with the faithful; before the Person of His Father. --There is nothing at all Neo in our Mass; we celebrate it with and in Jesus Christ. When you denigrate it and whoever lives in communion therein, you blaspheme against Him, the One worshipped.

Just consider the facts: If I scorn and condemn the Black Mass, or a pagan ritual, the one I attack is the devil; my action is anti-demonic. I have to do so, he's my enemy, and he thwarts my eternal salvation.

For a so-called traditionist Catholic to denounce for false & un- Catholic the Holy Mass in Novus Ordo and celebrants is the same. Who is attacked is the God being worshipped in faith and unity. Worshipped in conformity with the saints, all who have obeyed the Vicar of Christ in the world from the first days of the Church. How do we know this?

Peter is the Rock. The sign of our unity, and the only certifiable director of our souls. He is given the keys of the kingdom, and when we follow him, we can't be shut out of Communion with Christ. Your ''faith'' in the encyclicals of past popes is ill- advised; since we have a glorious Pope in our own day. (Not opinion--FACT.) Try reading his encyclicals. Open your eyes, Mister!

Note I haven't placed you or those who treasure the traditional Catholic mores & practices outside the pale. We're your brethren in the Holy Faith. --However, let me caution all of you; you are raising a barricade. It's you, not we, who promote schism. Your motives are good. But you haven't the word and assurances of the Catholic Magisterium under the oversight of our Holy Father. Once you part with him, you literally endanger your faith.

I could say much more, but it's not necessary. You must have grasped what I'm saying. You're not a schismatic??? --No, but you're making noises like them. You aren't a dissident??? I think you are; and without cause. Your slanted view of what God expects of us all is divisive, not blessed. You have a bias toward mere aesthetics in the Mass. With your self-serving bias against Mass in the present form.

This bias has misled you in the direction of schism. You're not doing God's Will, Emerald, advertising your dissent.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

I just have to say...I love reading the posts by Paul and Eugene. You guys are awesome!

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), June 24, 2003.

That's very kind of you, Victoria; we sure appreciate it. May God be with you always.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Jmj

Victoria, your affirmations (of Gene, Paul, me, etc.) are good for the soul. [Your substantive posts are mighty good too!] You are a breath of fresh, sweet-scented air for the forum. (Your presence thus helps me to be distracted from the stagnant, heretical halitosis found two posts above yours on this thread!)

Gene, you are much too nice to Mr. Greenglass, because (I think) you are not aware of the depths of his errors (which cause me to call him heretical). You are focusing in on his disrespect for the later rite of the Mass [misnamed "novus ordo"], but you should know that he also rejects some of the teachings of Pope John Paul II, the Catechism, and Vatican II. He is heretical in denying the possibility that non-Catholics can be saved. The reason I utterly reject his presence at this forum is that he is doing the devil's work, trying to persuade other Catholics to follow him into heresy. He endangers others' souls. If there was ever someone who needed to be banned from the forum, it is he (along with the other four stooges). Mr. Greenglass does not deserve the privilege of coming here (except as a lurker, to relearn the faith he has abandoned).

Hello, Kiwi.
You wrote: "I believe that encylicals condemning heretics and giving approval on of burning of heretics is indeed a matter of faith and morals."
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Taking strong, punitive action against people who taught great error was a disciplinary action, not a doctrinal (teaching) action. One is free to argue that capital punishment for heresy is/was unjustifiably strong, but one is not free to argue that the heretics had the right to teach error. (Maybe they should have had the "freedom/liberty" to do so, but they did not have the "right," because no one ever has the "right" to be or to do "wrong." [Rights are from God, and God does not give a right to be or to do wrong -- but only a free will to be or to do wrong.])

You continued: "... as are the other examples from the National Catholic Reporter (American I believe), it was a theologian statement signed by over 600 of the worlds leading Catholic theologians and philosophers of the time."
Oh, good Lord, man! In all your time here, have you never come across the condemnations that I and others have posted concerning the "National [non-]Catholic Reporter"? This rag (which runs all manner of disgusting advertisements) is run by lay dissidents and heretics and has been rejected by the U.S. bishops. [In a Catholic nation, the government would not allow the owners to use the word "Catholic" in the title.] I can assure you that what you read was not signed by "600 of the world's leading Catholic theologians." It is for the pope to name the "world's leading Catholic theologians," and you can be sure that NONE of the 600 signatories would be on his list -- simply because they are dissidents! They reject Catholic teachings, some in a massive way! Why in the world do you want to go from the frying pan (Hans Kung) into the fire (National ex-Catholic Reporter)? Please wise up, before it's too late for you. [Please get to Mass every Sunday too (and at least once during the week too)!]

You continued: "I dont think I am able to accept Papal infallibility in the strictly traditional sense in good conscience. I have NO CHOICE but to follow my informed conscience, even when it is in error. You know this. To do otherwise is a sin."

Wow! Someone has really misled you on this, and your thought is a weed that is hard to rip out by the roots. Listen again, please. Your choice to believe or not believe in infallibility has nothing to do with "conscience." It is NEVER permissible to reject a Catholic Church teaching.

You cannot appeal to your conscience for "permission" to reject a teaching. Your conscience is used for judging your past acts (or contemplated future acts) as right or wrong, according to the moral teachings of the Church. Your conscience is NOT used to choose to believe or disbelieve something. There is only one choice ... to assent, with humble submission of mind and will, as Vatican II teaches ... to assent, even if one does not understand ... to assent, even if one does not feel like doing so ... to assent, even if a teaching is not delivered "ex cathedra."

You closed with: "A special thanks again for the work on those scripture lines on the other thread, very helpful indeed. Cheers John!"

Your kind words are much appreciated. I enjoyed preparing that message for you on the other thread.

God Bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), June 24, 2003.

"Victoria, your affirmations (of Gene, Paul, me, etc.) are good for the soul."

St. Louis De Monfort would no doubt disagree. In his book entitled True Devotion to Mary, under the heading "In the Struggle Against Satan, he describes

"...who shall those servants, slaves and children of Mary be?

He mentions a great many things, but among them is this:

"In a word, we know that they shall be true disciples of Jesus Christ, walking in the footsteps of His poverty, humility, contempt of the world, charity; teaching the narrow way of God in pure truth, according the holy Gospel, and not according to the maxims of the world; troubling themselves about nothing; not accepting persons; fearing and listening to not mortal, however influential he may be."

"He is heretical in denying the possibility that non-Catholics can be saved."

John does not tell you the truth. Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino, pronounces Ex Cathedra the opposite:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

John says:

"The reason I utterly reject his presence at this forum is that he is doing the devil's work, trying to persuade other Catholics to follow him into heresy."

The reason you utterly reject my presence at this forum is because I insist upon holding the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled, and, by the grace of God, throught Christ and through His Mother, Ark of the covenant, Gate of Heaven, Morning star, and by those means and those means alone, I will until the day I die. I have made an act of the will to hold the Faith. Without my Mother I wither and die.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 25, 2003.

Emmy,
Your quotation from Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino is not supportive of your dissent. Absolutely not.

One can easily infer the possibility of salvation for those invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith. It was certainly a tenet of our Church in that Pope's time.

All souls who reach salvation, be they ignorant, wise, --Soviet communists, --Chinese Buddhists-- all who are saved are saved in and by the Catholic Church. -- The Church clearly teaches the validity of a species of sacrament; Baptism of Desire. It is valid; but the soul must meet some spiritual conditions.

Once a soul is the recipient (and God is the Sole Judge) this baptism makes him/her a child of God: a Catholic. Therefore, no one who is upright, homnorable, unselfish and loving to his neighbor-- and hates sin --is barred from this salvation by Baptism of Desire. He may yet die in the Catholic Church; unbeknown to men.

It goes without saying, the soul would be ignorant of the Gospel but not by his/her own fault. That's called invincible ignorance.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2003.

Bravo, Eugene!

In your own paraphrase, you have given the authentic Catholic understanding of your namesake's (Pope Eugene's) teaching. Various people, myself included, have explained this kind of thing to Mr. Greenglass on several occasions. But he always chooses to be his own denomination's pope, insisting that only he has the authoritative understanding of "Cantate Domino," one that defies Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, and the Catechism. And that's what makes Greenie a heretic. As Silly Ed and the other schismoids repeatedly trot out "Quo primum" to denounce the newer rite of the Mass, so Greenie repeatedly trots out "Cantate Domino" and misinterprets it with a pseudo-triumphant grin, consigning all deceased non-Catholics to hell (or limbo, I suppose).

It's so sad. He ought to be like the good priest whom I heard earlier today, saying: "We are just foot-soldiers, and we follow the orders of our visible commander-in-chief, Pope John Paul II." Instead, Greenie divinizes himself, putting himself on the same plan with Jesus ... above the pope.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

"Your quotation from Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino is not supportive of your dissent. Absolutely not."

Maybe because the word "dissent" is not an official Catholic designation. That's a word you people have been brandishing like it really means something. It really doesn't have any teeth at all.

It means nothing of note in the Catholic Church. The words you intend to ape with this word are the real words heresy and schism, which do have actual significance as you well know.

And you do know it well, and use the word "dissent" instead. "Dissent" has no official significance. You dissent against abortion and fornication, but you don't go in schism against it. If gecik dissents against WorldNetDaily, he isn't in heresy. I dissent from McDonalds because every time I go there I end up barfing.

The reason this "dissent" word is constantly hurled at people is used so frequently is that those that use it know in the depths of their bowels that that can't use the real and true words schism and heresy because people like me who have actually looked into the matter will call their bluff. So, I'll see that and raise you twenty:

The word "dissent" has no authentic Catholic significance. So the jumping jack routine accompanied by fits of "dissenter, disseeeeennnterrr!!" looks like it'd be good for cardiovascular health but it doesn't hold a candle to real Catholic theology. By the way, you guys must be really fit for your ages.

"One can easily infer the possibility of salvation for those invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith."

Infer what you like. What you are doing when you infer such things is to put yourself higher than the Pope, who is making an Ex Cathedra statement. I wish you guys would quit trying to be holier than the popes. You are placing your private judgement above the Church.

"It was certainly a tenet of our Church in that Pope's time."

Actually, what it is called is theological speculation. But you never did look to see if these speculations were actually doctrines, did you? Did you? Because they never have been defined as doctrines, and have no official place in the Deposit of Faith. I defy you to provide evidence that they have a doctrinal, and not speculative, nature.

If you can provide this documentation that they are indeed doctrines, I will surprise you and instantly give my assent to them.

Good luck.

"All souls who reach salvation, be they ignorant, wise, --Soviet communists, --Chinese Buddhists-- all who are saved are saved in and by the Catholic Church. -- The Church clearly teaches the validity of a species of sacrament; Baptism of Desire. It is valid; but the soul must meet some spiritual conditions."

Make no mistake, you are incorrect. To spare you a torrent of documention, I'll just pick out one that's less than 100 years old per kiwi's request, but even moreso, one that seems to point the two of you and the entire post conciliar Church squarely in the eye:

"That the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church in communion with Rome are one and the same thing is a doctrine based on Revealed Truth. That we must necessarily belong to the true Church if we are to attain everlasting salvation is a statement with some people reduce to a meaningless formula."

People like you. I can understand someone's puzzlement by the whole question, and the time it would take to reorder the mind to real Catholic Truth; I can understand someone who genuinely desires to know the truth and yet stuggles. But I cannot understand those who are, shall we say, obstinate. Does that word ring a bell?

Which leads me to basis of this whole problem. Kiwi seems to think it's a little cute, and I don't blame him in a way, about it all being a matter of the Will. But it's really just that simple. You don't want to come to terms with the current devastation in the Church, so you play Gumby and try bend in which way to get around it.

Here's where it gets tougher: if you actually ever come out of the denial stage stage, you would scramble to ask "oh, what do we do, what do we do?" Later would come realization that you can't do anything, because you were wrong to begin with that salvation had something to do with knowledge (goodbye invincible ignorance) and had everything to do with the good will or the bad will. You would realize that you can't convince anybody, because:

People believe what they want to believe.

And you can't change that. But you can do one thing... you can pray and sacrifice. And gee, walley, isn't that what the Blessed Mother has always been talking about? Hey, I've brought that up around here as a solution and it's laughed to scorn. It's called weak. It's given good lip service, but it's a lost art. Arguing the Faith is in, prayer and sacrificing for the conversion of sinners is out.

But back to matters of lesser import:

"Your quotation from Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino is not supportive of your dissent. Absolutely not."

To leave the statement with it's generous ambiguities and equivocations intact, Eugene...

What am I dissenting from?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 25, 2003.

" But he always chooses to be his own denomination's pope, insisting that only he has the authoritative understanding of "Cantate Domino," one that defies Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, and the Catechism."

I'm glad to see we are making progress. Before you were saying there was no contradiction. Now you are saying that they defy Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, and the Catechism.

Very good observation. Just leave out the phrase "Emerald's interpretation", because John, there is no interpretation to be had there.

See, that was a dogmatic statement. Dogmatic statements do not admit of "interpretation".

If you say that it does, you nullify the entire Faith, because the interpretations will cascade on down the line and the solid recognition of objective reality would be absolutely unattainable. And that wouldn't be very Catholic.

What's the catch then? It's simple. The Pope hasn't made any dogmatic statements on this matter, nor did Vatican II, nor did the new catechism.

The things that were said in this triad that were re-statements of existing doctrine obviously require our assent. But you lean on this triad of JPII/V2/CCC and you use it exclusively.

Call it "sola-triad" if you will. It has about as much dogmatic credibility as the triangle that hovers over Art Bell's studio Pahrump, Nevada... especially in the face to the Faith of the ages... as you pointed out yourself.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 25, 2003.

John:

"But he always chooses to be his own denomination's pope, insisting that only he has the authoritative understanding of "Cantate Domino," one that defies Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, and the Catechism."

Colonel Oliver North, from his Iran-Contra testimony:

"I was provided with additional input that was radically different from the truth. I assisted in furthering that version."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 26, 2003.

Hey, Emmy-- School is a riot, eh?
You spend all that time working on your assignment. Homework's done. You crossed every T,

Then you sit back and wait for your A.

Sorry, Pal. A fat F, that's your grade.

I see the anthology grows by three's! Hemingway once called that practice diarrhea of the typewriter. Back to the writing workshop for you, Em barrassald.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her;

Even though this has been gone over before, it still is a shame that by Emerald's definition Lefebre, his "bishops", and their legion are all going into the eternal fire. I don't know what happened to "judge not lest ye be judged", but if you believe this interpretation Em, you should be more careful of the company you keep. OTOH, if you follow them you won't have much of a Winter heating bill...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 26, 2003.

Good answer, Frank; In there with those other faiths is schism. Emerald wants another flavor of Catholicism, not our Holy Father's; so then he's schismatical. Or at work for that end, schism.

Emerald's main concern, sad to say, is to appear clever. He is clever; but he has to advance a fatuous world view, his own agenda.

That is, how all we need do as faithful Catholics is return to the primitive ritual! Not even the primitive FAITH; that would be excellent. The ritual.

For Emmy & the 3 Stooges, It's not enough our Pope is very faithful to every truth taught during salvation history, every saint & every holy day. He tells us to pray. To fast. To even learn MORE from the Rosary. He canonizes hundreds of heroic Catholics (not even one schismatic), and celebrates daily Mass with solemnity and love. But, why doesn't the Pope get rid of that Novus Ordo Missal, Demmit!

Not enough for Emerald. Too modernist. Out of the Church strait jacket; what do ya expect??? A Pole! He even has a crooked-looking crucifix with him. --Soon Emerald will join the other, sinister bashers who call His Holiness the Beast. Yup. But OK. As long as Emmy appears clever. He can confess his disloyalty someday before he kicks the bucket. Maybe. what do we do?" Later would come realization that you can't do anything, because you were wrong to begin with that salvation had something to do with knowledge (goodbye invincible ignorance) and had everything to do with the good will or the bad will. You would realize that you can't convince anybody, because: People believe what they want to believe.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

Shucks, I left Emerald's dangling Homeric at the footing. - -To answer him:

''Later would come realization that you can't do anything, because you were wrong to begin with, that salvation had something to do with knowledge (goodbye invincible ignorance) and had everything to do with the good will or the bad will. --Yup.

Emmy-- Salvation has nothing to do with ''knowledge''-- Did you infer something off-the-wall? It's damnation which has much to do with knowledge. A man born outside the Church, for no failure of his own. Nevertheless, is just; when he follows his natural conscience; or openly disputes and hates injustice, SIN. --Who lives by an honorable code; and seemingly would have followed Christ by all objective standards, had he been evangelized. And repents for ALL sins he's committed before death. This is the model for invincible ignorance. Rare enough, no doubt. But it must be addressed.

Baptism of Desire would be God's own gift of grace unto that man. I think I could name you a handful from ancient history who may have been Christians without having ever heard the word. Baptised by their Desire to please God.

Only guessing, understand: Socrates and Aristotle? Akhenaton? The Latin poet, Virgil? Those are just in the west.

You, on the other hand, by a faulty understanding of the Will of God, would consign them all to perdition. O ye of little faith!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

--!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

lol...! This is a riot.

I know I'm tweaking you with the truth when you guys start writhing and doling out personal condemnation.

Perhaps I've overestimated you guys Are you perhaps more visually oriented? I thought of you guys when I "synthesized" this:

Come on, admit it. This is the most fun you guys have had it weeks. Beats the hell out of annulments.

Hey Gene, more than the others, I believe that you in particular know exactly what I'm getting at. I think it takes every ounce of your energy to put up a show of denial.

That must be tough. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 26, 2003.

You're desperate by all appearances, Emmy.

Clever is not enough when Emerald gets upset. --He goes into click- click; ''All stops are out, Captain; enemy starship is approaching at warp-speed! Captain!!! Oh No!!!''

Start chapter seventy, Emerald. No turning back now.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

Again, let's stay on focus.

Reconcile the following statement from the Supreme magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church with John's personal judgement and opinion that those outside the Faith can be saved:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." --Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino, pronounced Ex Cathedra.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 26, 2003.

There's chapter seventy. Now, Emerald-- While the iron is hot; strike up seventy-one! Seventy-two!!! Pound dem keys!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

stsp! Oh you sthilly.

Your jis so sthilly, Gene! Sthtoppit.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 26, 2003.

Emerald,

So I take it YOUR definition of "staying focused" is not to address anything said to you but coming up with yet another quote from the past, similar to your last. Emerald, there are a LOT of quotes from popes. Pick one and stick with it, people get tired responding to something only to have you ignore it and jump on to your next infatuation. What's the point of following you around?

So when people quit responding to you, that does NOT mean you've won and convinced anyone, just that someone else has given up on you.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 27, 2003.

I'm sorry Frank, nobody has yet provided any substantive reconciliation of these statements with ecumenism.

Anyone can see that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

Dear Ems:

You are caught in your own web. This is a little like the man who owes. He realises his debt is a debt. He has no money and can't pay.

How to avoid ruin? Make others responsible for the debt. Call them irresponsible schnorrers.

''Novus Ordo brought us to our crisis of faith! The Popes must pay! No wonder our faith is sagging. Women's Lib; consumer society; situation ethics! All the faults of Vatican II! It's as plain as the wart on your wife's nose!

It's not our fault! We have Latin language ritual. The best and the only one! We have holiness! You plebeians!!! How dare you call yourselves faithful Catholics--
Signed: Savonarola

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

No Emerald, only you can see that. Every Catholic that has responded to you has NOT agreed with you, hasn't that sunk in yet?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 27, 2003.

"Every Catholic that has responded to you has NOT agreed with you, hasn't that sunk in yet?"

No kidding. However, not everyone who has responded to me has been able to reconcile this statement:

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

...with the ecumenist movement.

Hasn't that sunk in yet?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

Hi John, thanks for the information on the Catholic Reporter Ill be much more wary. re burning of heretics I was looking at it from what I thought was a doctrine perspective (religious liberty) but Im not really clued up on the details of it all. "Time and place" is the argument normally given as justification but some theologians argue that essentially there is nothing wrong with burning of heretics, and that toleration is just a sign of lack of faith.

As for my problem with infallibility, I havent read enough on it, Ill drop it,its not quite as bad as it seems but youd need to read Kungs book to get the drift of what hes saying. I cant submit honestly to a rule of law if my heart tells me otherwise. I mean I can submit....but whats the point of saying "I believe" if I dont deep down?

I need more faith pure and simple, attending Mass more often might help for starters. BTW have you heard of Simone Weil before and if so do you hold any thoughts on her?

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 27, 2003.

Emerald, Will you please stop quoting those long dead popes. They are dust and what they have said then might have had a bit of truth at the time. We are now living in the jet age. This is a new world, new church, and we are the enlightened generation. We have modern psychiatry, philosophy, and carry no annimosity. We are all saved whether you like it or not.

-- The Wizard (Mightyoz@wonderland .com), June 27, 2003.

Wrong Wizard. Emerald quotes the truth.
We haven't denied that. But we know the proper context of those words. We know ''join in prayer'' as it was meant is not what Emerald and the reactionary fringe say it means.

It means we are not to follow the teachings of any sects, cults, and varied religious groups; their errors. ''Join in prayer'' here stands for taking their Creeds for equivalents of Catholic doctrine. Join means become assimilated with the religion.

That's not what the Catholic Church is doing, opening her arms to all men and women of good will.

I think Emerald takes the Council of Constantinople for a gathering of mirthless fools. Leave it to him, always trying to be funny, to expound on hardline fundamentalism.

Catholics are warned daily not to practice Sola Scriptura. Emerald keeps applying it to encyclical passages. He fools only himself.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

So when Gecik calls me "Mr. Greenglass", he in fact does speak the truth. See, eventually one will be forced to speak the truth whether they would like to or not. It's in the will, isn't it? Something about a broad yellowbrick road where the Piper's calling you to join him.

Then there's the narrow way of salvation. Rough, rocky and real. Self denial, littleness, self-wasting and humility. Give me this one!

Somebody gets it, and the reason for the name as well. I never thought that would happen.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

Nah, Eugene, the Wizard gets it. Can't you tell? Somebody finally gets it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

I believe in the narrow way of salvation, Emmy. I follow Our Lord. My parish Church is still teaching the Way. The Church you say is Neo.

The same Creed as in the past. All the same sacraments, sacramentals, prayer, doctrine, faith hope & charity. In fact, the Church has grown in charity.

We know the scriptures as well or better than we did in the past. Our Church has overcome wars, criminals, scandals, and --schism.

And we love our enemies, as Christ taught us. We are loyal to His Holiness Pope John Paul II, and we pray for him. He has no reason to anathemize you because of your obstinacy. Nor have we here. And we have never knocked Masses in Latin or ritually offered worship. Why would we?

The barriers are all raised by those whom you choose for the real Catholics. We want everyone to live in our Communion of Saints. But--only if it makes you happy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

Emerald,

LOL! Yep, I agree completely, you and "The Wizard" are definitely playing on the same team. I don't recall seeing the Wiz posting here before, makes one wonder what other names they post under.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 27, 2003.

Ed Williams is Wiz; he is Whirlaway, and tweetybird and a few other cute aliases. Emerald is also a pseudonym. Not cute, really. Just clever.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Kiwi.

Thanks for the nice things you said.
You wrote: "I mean I can submit.... but what's the point of saying, 'I believe,' if I don't deep down?"

What an EXTREMELY interesting question! The "point" of it is that it's God's will, and we all need to conform our wills with His. Even if, "deep down," you have reservations about something, please just make an act of the will to have faith in it. Use your own words -- e.g., "God, I know that your Son Jesus founded the Church, and Vatican I says that the pope teaches infallibly. While I cannot fathom this idea, and while I think that it may be wrong and it makes me feel sick to say so, I've decided to make an act of the will today to believe this doctrine. If it really is true, help me to understand it with my head and to embrace it in my heart some day."

Please reflect on these words of St. Anselm (died 1109), taken from the preface to his theological work called "Proslogium" ...
"I have written the little work that follows ... in the role of one who strives to raise his mind to the contemplation of God and one who seeks to understand what he believes. I acknowledge, Lord, and I give thanks that you have created your imagein me, so that I may remember you, think of you, love you. But this image is so obliterated and worn away by wickedness, it is so obscured by the smoke of sins, that it cannot do what it was created to do, unless you renew and reform it. I am not attempting, O Lord, to penetrate your loftiness, for I cannot begin to match my understanding with it, but I desire in some measure to understand your truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to undertand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this too I believe, that 'unless I believe, I shall not understand.' (Isaiah 7:9)"

Will to believe, Kiwi, and God will help you to understand and believe more deeply.

You were right to continue by saying, "I need more faith pure and simple, attending Mass more often might help for starters."
Yes, there is nothing like being in a state of grace for bolstering and increasing one's faith -- and one can't be in a state of grace by missing Sunday Mass. Another thing that will help is to make a weekday visit to the Blessed Sacrament. Start with ten or fifteen minutes and try to work up to a "holy hour." You can read or pray or just relax and drink in the Son-shine. It will help you to be happier and more docile (which means literally "teachable").

Your last words: "... have you heard of Simone Weil before and if so do you hold any thoughts on her?"

Yes, I heard of Miss Weil a long time ago. But I never became interested in her, because I think that she was probably out of her mind. Here is a very brief biography. Too bad that she raised an obstacle to becoming Catholic when she had opportunities.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 27, 2003.

"LOL! Yep, I agree completely, you and "The Wizard" are definitely playing on the same team. I don't recall seeing the Wiz posting here before, makes one wonder what other names they post under."

Frank, I don't do that kind of thing. Is that what you are getting at? I hope not.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 27, 2003.

Hi John

She certainly was an incredibly intelligent and spiritual woman. Yet as with all "outsiders" I dont think we should automatically dismiss their thoughts. We can of course view them as either as a source of pain or as a source of hope, that much is clear. But they can also deepen our grasp of what it means to be Catholic.

Prof. Lawrence Cunningham in his book "The Catholic Heritage" believes those outside the church also serve two other purposes: that of teacher and of prophetic critic. In terms of Simone he says

"No one has meditated more seriously on the meaning of the cross in our era than Siomone Weil".

I agree about the mental illness, I think it affected it own self worth and ultimately it was the cause of her early death. SHe had deep faith in the power of the sacraments but did not feel worthy, or did not feel she had the level of spirtitual maturity necessary. I can relate very strongly to this,at Mass I struggle to accept commmmmuion. I feel utterly and totally unworthy to recieve.This comes back to my belief, I cannot believe unless I have certainty in my heart, as God sees my heart. How can I recieve the Body and Blood of his only Son with doubt in my soul? I know I need to submit, I need to get to confession but more importanatly I need to be prepared to make the sacrifices and take ont he responsibilty of a true Catholic man. I just havent risen to that challenge yet, I dont think todays world makes it easy and that not a cop out... its just very difficult. Thanks for all the advice especially the beautiful quote from St. Anselm. Ill leave you with a quote from Weil that sums up her position, very " me me me" and egocentric but moving all the same

"I love God, Christ and the Catholic faith as much as it is possible for so miserabley inadequate a creature to love them. I love the Saints through their writings and what is tld of their lives- apart from some whom it is impossible for me to love fully or to consider as saints. I love the six or seven Catholics of genuine spirituality whom chance has lead me to meet in the course of my life. I love the Catholic liturgy, hymns, architecture, rites and ceremonies. But I have not the slightest love for the church in the strict sense of the word, apart from its relation to the things that I do love"

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

Just as you wish, Kiwi and forgive my interference. If you live as a faithful Christian and yet have no love in your heart for the Church, you have yet to love Jesus Christ. He stands at a distance, you haven't loved Him.

The Church is Jesus. Take some time to read about & meditate the conversion of Saint Paul. He was Saul, a Pharisee; and his work was persecuting the Catholic religion. (Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 9.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.

Thanks Eugene Ill have a read.

Just to make it clear to other new posters who may read this and misinterpret your comments:I relate to Ms Weils thoughts on the sacraments while not agreeing with her view of "the Church", but do have sympathy with her position. I am a baptised Catholic, I dont need "conversion", I dont "persecute" the church and most certainly I am not a "pharisee". I also think one can know and love Jesus Christ without loving the Church in the strict sense that "oxymoronic tradionalists" interpret the age old doctrine "there is no salvation outside the Church". I believe the invisible side of "the Church" is far wider and more mysterious than we can even begin to understand.

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

Jmj

Good advice to Kiwi, Eugene.
The Jewish Saul was persecuting Christians, the new Church. But when confronted by Our Lord, he heard the words, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting." Jesus identified himself with his Church. St. Paul then confirmed that identification by saying that the Church is "the Body of Christ."

And this is precisely why S. Weil was wrong -- even contradicted herself. Notice:
"I love God, Christ and the Catholic faith ... But I have not the slightest love for the church ..."
According to Jesus and St. Paul, S. Weil cannot "love ... Christ" unless she loves the Catholic Church, which is his Body.

I can't precisely agree with these words of yours, Kiwi: "I believe the invisible side of 'the Church' is far wider and more mysterious than we can even begin to understand."
I believe that, for a Catholic, "the invisible side of the Church" is not composed of living non-Catholics, but only of the Church Triumphant (souls in Heaven) and the Church Suffering (in Purgatory). Living non-Catholics have a certain imperfect communion with us, but they are our "separated brethren," meaning that they are not yet in the Church that Jesus founded. They are not an "invisible side of the [Catholic] Church." Naturally, we want them to be a visible part thereof, but most of them will not be until after they die and learn the whole truth before the throne of God. (The souls of all the dead are "Catholic," even those of anti-Catholics, who are now unable to continue to deny Catholic doctrines.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

Hi John

>I can't precisely agree with these words of yours, Kiwi: "I believe the invisible side of 'the Church' is far wider and more mysterious than we can even begin to understand."

Ill let Pope John Paul II explain what I meant, sorry for the confusion and Blessings

"It is therefore a revealed truth that there is salvation only and exclusively in Christ. The Church, inasmuch as it is the Body of Christ, is simply an instrument of this salvation…This cannot be understood by looking exclusively at the visible aspect of the Church. The Church is a living body.

The Council speaks of membership in the Church for Christians and of being related to the Church for non-Christian believers in God, for people of goodwill (cf. Lumen Gentium 15-16). Both these dimensions are important for salvation, and each one possesses varying levels. People are saved through the Church, they are saved in the Church, but they always are saved by the grace of Christ. Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialogue of salvation (cf. Ecclesiam Suam 101-117), which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

And all of this drew me even more profoundly into the mystery of the Church, which, precisely because it is a mystery, has an invisible dimension. The Council spoke of this as well. This mystery is larger than the visible structure and organization of the Church. Structure and organization are at the service of the mystery. The Church, as the mystical Body of Christ, penetrates and embraces all of us. The spiritual, mystical dimensions of the Church are much greater than any sociological statistics could ever possibly show.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

Emerald,

What are you talking about? I was just saying that "The Wiz" posts under other aliases here as well as his current one and you and "the Wiz" are definitely share the same goal in trying to bash the Catholic church. What do you think I meant?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 28, 2003.

Thanks for that good quotation, Kiwi. I remember reading it before. I would caution, though, against reading into the pope's words a hint that he considers some non-Catholics to be members of the Catholic Church.
Last time, I used certain words ("Living non-Catholics have a certain imperfect communion with us, but they are our 'separated brethren,' meaning that they are not yet in the Church that Jesus founded.") ... and my words were not at all intended to contradict these words used by the pope: "Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church." In fact, my "imperfect communion" was intended to be like the pope's "forms of relation."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

"...you and "the Wiz" are definitely share the same goal in trying to bash the Catholic church."

False statement.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 28, 2003.

Hi Kiwi,

Have you read anything by St. Thomas Aquinas? Besides being approved by the Church, his writings are really well organized and readable - once you get into the style. If you're interested in philosophy and theology, you can find the Summa Theologica here or here, and the Summa Contra Gentiles here.

The Summa Theologica explains Catholic beliefs for those who accept the authority of the Bible and early Church Fathers, while the Summa Contra Gentiles explains Thomistic philosophy in a more classical style.

As far as I know, he was only wrong on one point, the conception of the human person, and that was because the scientific theories of his time were all wrong. Other than that, he's great!

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 28, 2003.

Catherine is actually on to something.

Issues concerning St. Thomas' use of the Arostelian handmaiden for the Catholic Faith vs. the Platonic handmaiden is the origin of most of the current disagreements between traditionalists and liberal Catholics, whether anyone realizes it or not.

Catherine, did you know that St. Thomas's lessor known works were more Platonic in tone? The Summa was actually not his best work.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 28, 2003.

Thanks for the links Catherine I havent read anything by St. Thomas Aquinas and look forward to it. I am well aware though of his theologicial worldview the incredible legacy he has given us ,(having recently become very interested not only in Catholic natural law but general moral philosophy). A philospher I am not though, I have no training or backround and my level of thinking is certainly not "deep" relative to some.

Ill offer you a few thoughts on Aquinas though. His all encompassing worldview and holistic approach to theology is what grabs me, he didnt work on "problems" like so many others he saw it ALL, he had a grand vision of reality like no one before him or no one since. Amazing.

Such a broad sweeping vision is dissatifying intellectually for many theologians today apparently -too metaphysical, too abstract, too rational,too removed from Hebrew thought, too Hellenic and above all too far removed from the concrete texture of historical reality.

No theology can be written in a vacuum. While basic motifs in theology of all ages reflects the basic concerns of the heart,- love, death guilt etc, every age brings its own pressures and challenges. If St Thomas had known of Freud, Darwin, Marx or Galileo etc etc his theology would look very different. This does not invalidate his general thought at all but some of it has become obsolete.

In the words of Vatican II in regard to theology, it must seek:

"a profound understanding of revealed truth without neglecting contact with its own time"

Thanks again

Emerald do you mind expanding on your thoughts a little more as I diasgree but would be very interested in your view that

"St. Thomas's lessor known works were more Platonic in tone"

Remember to keep it simple for me(as little jargon as is possible!)

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 29, 2003.

People credit Aquinas with employing Aristotle as philosophical handmaiden to the Faith, but it was really on the upswing and in play a bit before he started up with it.

Before that, Platonic thought was the handmaiden of choice. The Summa is unlike the many other works of St. Thomas', the others making more use of the Platonic handmaiden. Some people say the other, lesser known works are of better quality than the Summa.

The implications of having deviated from Platonic thought as a handmaiden to the Faith are pretty big.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 29, 2003.

I thought St. Thomas was around during the recovery of Aristotle's work, while Plato's had been around for a while. However, my history is messed up, so this is mere speculation: could it be that St. Thomas' earlier works are more based in Platonic philosophy only because Aristotelian writings weren't available?

I'm not well-versed in Platonic thought. Is there some flaw in Aristotelian philosophy that makes St. Thomas' earlier works better? What are these earlier works, anyway? And what are the implications of this change in philosophy?

BTW, Emerald, do you prefer "The Brothers Karamazov" or "Crime and Punishment"? (I know this may seem irrelevant, but most Platonists I know prefer one of these books, and I want to see if it's a general trait...)

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 29, 2003.

"I'm not well-versed in Platonic thought. Is there some flaw in Aristotelian philosophy that makes St. Thomas' earlier works better?"

I think so. Not that Platonic thought doesn't hit a wall at some point either, or fall short of the truth at a certain point.

"And what are the implications of this change in philosophy?"

That's what I'm trying to dig up. It's like a treasure map, and the "X" has been located, but it there's still the work of digging it up.

Let me be dead level honest with you Catherine... I went to Thomas Aquinas College, but was young. Most of the time I was there was spent daydreaming about anything other than my studies, and bashing anyone and anything that remotely resembled anything traditional in any way, shape or form. But I'm thankful I went because at I was exposed to some reference points which I could pick up where I left off on later in life.

It makes sense, too, because I was between 18 and 22 at the time, and Aristotle always said that 35 was the right time to pursue philosophy, and for me it was dead on, because I'm 37 and it was about 3 years ago that I started becoming truly interested in any of it.

Not that I suddenly know what I am talking about, because I don't.

In short, I have go back to the beginning to flesh out an intuition that I have.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 29, 2003.

You went to Thomas Aquinas? Wow- I almost ended up going there, but I didn't have the money. I know, I've got everything going against me learning any philosophy (I'm not 35, I'm a girl, and I don't speak Greek), but it's a subject that has always interested me.

You've written about some mysterious flaw in Aristotle, the implications of St. Thomas' abandonment of Plato, a link between Plato and "Traditional Catholics" vs. Aristotle and "Neo-Catholics" (or is it vice-versa?) and an intuition that you have.

Can you give us just a couple hints? Is it about hylomorphism? Are only abstractions real? Did St. Thomas become a heretic before his death? Which of St. Thomas' earlier works are better than the Summa? I'm racking my memory for Plato's ideas, but I can only come up with the explanation of the cave. I didn't think too much of it; it seemed to deny the goodness of physical creation.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 29, 2003.

I don't know yet; it's like something that I need to do.

Hey, I should have given you the money to go there... it would have been better spent. lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 30, 2003.

Oh yeah:

"I've got everything going against me learning any philosophy"

That's a good sign; it means you'll probably do well with it. Do it anyways.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 30, 2003.

I have a question- What is the difference between all the churches- Catholic, Prodistant, ect. Aren't they all based on Christ's teachings? Why can't we all rejoin and be known as His Church?

-- Curious (unavailable@thisisntreal.blah), December 10, 2003.

NO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 10, 2003.