All Comments (75)

hexyl mucket prophetism lithotype membranocorneous nidulariaceae unadulteratedly modernism
Jimmy Jig Charters
http://www.durango.org/

Crossan had a point. We need to get back to the Greek.

I have to agree with David. The legalism displayed by some Catholics on this thread is a riot. I've spent so much time in my own little progressive world that I'd forgotten how absurd conservative Catholics can be. You can't parody that kind of thing.

@E FAVORITE: You need to learn a bit more about internet and web lingo. The "@" means that the comment/reply is directed to you; it does NOT mean that it is you!!

Anyway, you're dead wrong when you say that the Etz Hayim chumash is in all "their temples", referring to conservative Judaism. To be correct, it's a reference to Conservative Judaism. The capitalization makes a difference in this case, as it would between "orthodox Christians" and "Orthodox Christians." Arguably, conservative Jews use the Stone Chumash, NOT the Etz Hayim, since most conservative Jews are Orthodox.

No big deal, really. Just pointing something out. Like I said, it's equivalent to the differences between "orthodox Christians" and "Orthodox Christians."

BTW, as a Protestant, I find all this Catholic legalism (regarding divorce, et al) quite hilarious. I spent nearly six months living and working as a cloistered Benedictine and Trappist monk, so I'm more Catholic than most Catholics. But this legalism stuff is as silly as some of the legalistic issues in Judaism. I don't want to be disrespectful, but all of this does seem beyond the absurd.

Sure, proof of Hell exists in the Scriptures, if you are willing to believe that those are the unchanged, unedited, unembellished, words of Jesus. If however, you take a more realistic assessment of human nature, you know that even first-hand accounts are often inaccurate. In the case of the scriptures, there are many contradictions between the various narratives. If you truly believe that God is infallible, then you cannot assert that the scriptures are His own words, contradictions and all.

HMM, God gave you a brain. Use it. Think. Look at the overall thrust of Jesus' teachings. Can you really believe that the God who tells us to turn the other cheek, would banish His own children into never ending torture in lakes of eternal fire? Surely God is a better parent than us, and I know that I could never torture my child, could you?

I notice that you avoided the issue of Papal Infallibility and it's recent acceptance by the RCC. See, here's the timeline. Up until 1870 the Catholic church does not support Papal Infallibilty, then in an extremely controversial move, the First Vatican Council accepts this demi-deification, in spite of the abstention of over 60 members of the council. Sound familiar? That's right, it was a coup. The Church held one view, then, all of a sudden it held a contradictory view. That's called change. That's where Rome turned away from true Catholicism. Someday I'm sure they'll return, but in the meantime, those who hold that any man is infallible, shows disdain for God.

Think it over, your mortal soul is at stake. I don't believe in Hell, but I do believe that Heaven has a gate, and not all gain entry. Don't let your tunnel-vision land you on the wrong side of that gate. Use your God-given brains and examine the philosophy of Jesus.

I'll pray for you.

Patrick

Sorry Patrick, but you are outside the Church, not me - and I'm not even talking about papal infallibility. You reject the existence of Hell and thereby position yourself against Jesus Christ, whose own words were:

"Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels"

and

"He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

and

"If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell"

and

"You snakes, offspring of snakes, how will you be kept from the punishment of hell?"

and

"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned."

Of course, the reality of Hell is affirmed many other times in the Holy Scriptures. And it has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church since the time of the Apostles. So it is indeed you who are outside the Church.

On the contrary HMM, it is you who are on the path of Protestantism. The Roman Catholic Church rewrote the rules in the First Vatican Council, around 1870. That's when they veered off course to incorporate the concept of Papal Infallibility. For over a thousand years prior to that, Catholicism did not include that claim. I'm afraid that a self-aggrandizing scheme, officially adopted a little more than a hundred years ago, when my own grandfather was alive, doesn't exactly qualify as true traditional Catholic theology.

Now, understand, the RCC has every right to incorporate any cockamamie idea they wish, but in doing so, they have left the true Catholic faith behind and begun cutting their own path.

Instead of burying your nose in the RCC's company lit, you ought to pick up a history book and perhaps discover where you have been led astray by the Bishops of Rome.

In the meantime, I will carry on the Catholic tradition, in the Catholic church of my choosing. You see, the churches are not really owned by the RCC, nor are they the property of the parishioners; they are in fact God's houses, and as such, not subject to the power-hungry machinations of little men.

You see HMM, Catholics aren't really leaving the church, the church is leaving them. People know God in their hearts and minds, and they don't need a strutting bejeweled aristocracy of faith to govern their communion with Christ.

Personally, I'll stick with the traditions of the millenia, over such johnny-come-lately scams as Papal Infallibility.

You assert may assert your right to leave the path and follow the earthly usurpers into the idol-worship of an "infallible" mortal (The very definition of an oxymoron). That is your right, but might I suggest a quick trip to the confessional, to get yourself back on the Catholic road. It would be a shame if you never entered the kingdom of Heaven, and never gazed upon the face of God. The choice is yours.

Best of luck to you either way.

Patrick

I have no problem with your approach Patrick. It is a well-worn path you trod.

But the path you are on is called Protestantism, not Catholicism.

Of course, you are free to call yourself whatever you wish. Call yourself muslim if you wish, that won't make you a muslim, because you don't believe in muslim theology. Similarly, since you do not believe in Catholic theology, you are not a Catholic.

You assert the right to make your own determination of what is true and what is not, based on your own investigations. That is the definition of Protestantism. So you are a Protestant. You would probably even find that you are more comfortable in a Protestant congregation. Why don't you give it a try?

Dear HMM,

Brilliant! We know that the Pope and the bishops are infallible in this area. How do we know? Why, because they told us so! I believe that's called circular logic.

By the same logic, couldn't I declare myself Pope, and automatically excommunicate any who deny my papacy. Wouldn't that be silly? Yes, I agree.

Blind faith in men and their works is not the same as faith in God. In my opinion, true Catholics are not sheep who follow a group of self-certified shepherds. I believe that Catholics should only flock to one shepherd, Christ. I am always interested in the views of the Vatican, but I only take the Gospels as gospel.

Of course, I would never be so arrogant as to declare whether or not you, HMM, are a Catholic. I'll leave that sort of supercilious condescension to others.

I suggest you read the words of Jesus Christ and give things a bit of a re-think. You might be surprised at the refreshing simplicity of His teachings, especially when compared to the convoluted logic employed by some of His so-called followers.

Yours in Christ,
Patrick

185. When is the infallibility of the Magisterium exercised?

Infallibility is exercised when the Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, or the College of Bishops, in union with the Pope especially when joined together in an Ecumenical Council, proclaim by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. Infallibility is also exercised when the Pope and Bishops in their ordinary Magisterium are in agreement in proposing a doctrine as definitive. Every one of the faithful must adhere to such teaching with the obedience of faith.

Clearly, Patrick, you are not a Catholic no matter what church building you may or may not occasionally enter. You repeatedly deny fundamental doctrines of the Catholic faith. Such denial leads to automatic excommunication from the Church.

As for your example - I, as a layperson, have no need to cause a family pain by barging in on their baptismal rite and telling them that they are sinners. If I were their priest, however, I would make sure that they know the teaching of the Church, and urge them to go to confession.

Dear HMM,

You are assuming that the writers of the Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church know God's wishes better than other Catholics. God lives in each one of us, he is everywhere, and he reveals his wishes to our hearts and minds. The leadership in Rome does not hold exclusive rights to communications with God.

If you believe that IVF "introduce(s)the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person", then surely you must also oppose Cesarean section, antibiotics, surgery of any kind, all medications, supplemental oxygen, respirators, cardiac pacemakers, etc. Each and every one of these technologies hold great sway over the "destiny of the human person".

As for anything being "non-negotiable", may I ask, are you merely a Catholic or, as it seems, God's personal attorney. It may be helpful to bear in mind that only God speaks for God. All men are fallible, and that includes the men who transcribed and translated our religious texts, and interpret them for our benefit. I trust the feelings that God has placed in my heart far more than the regal pronouncements of men who make their living by inserting themselves between Catholics and our God.

Just stop and think a minute before you reply. Think about the precious newborn baby, conceived with the help of IVF, and the adoring Catholic parents who bring this baby to their parish church for baptism. Are you really saying that the act through which this child of God was created, was sinful? It's easy to spout off here in a comments blog, but I doubt that you would have the courage to march into the baptism and state your belief to the parents' faces.

IVF is obviously a gift from God. It is no more a domination than is a smallpox vaccine. Why don't you stop issuing judgements and look to the care of your own soul, and leave others to examine theirs.

I think it is important for many of the respondants in this discussion to remember that sin is not a subjective matter, but an objective matter. The Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

392. What is sin?
Sin is "a word, an act, or a desire contrary to the eternal Law" (Saint Augustine). It is an offense against God in disobedience to his love.

In other words, God determines what is a sin. This information is revealed to us through his Church. Other relevant answers from the same source are:

499. Why are artificial insemination and artificial fertilization immoral?
They are immoral because they dissociate procreation from the act with which the spouses give themselves to each other and so introduce the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.

492. What are the principal sins against chastity?
Grave sins against chastity differ according to their object: adultery, masturbation, fornication, pornography, prostitution, rape, and homosexual acts. These sins are expressions of the vice of lust. These kinds of acts committed against the physical and moral integrity of minors become even more grave.

It is important also to remember that, since God exists outside of time and space, his truth is absolute, and is not subject to changes or differences in human society. This is a non-negotiable item of faith in the Christian religion.

Norrie: **I think Frank's referring to the fact that the Church considers in vitro fertilization to be gravely sinful.**

Ah. I figured that it likely had to do with IVF, but I wasn't sure if he meant that non-Catholics probably know the Church's position on it, or that non-Catholics "know" that it's a sin.

I would have to disagree on both counts. There's no real reason non-Catholics would be familiar with Church teachings on medical technology except peripherally, and I certainly don't consider it a sin. My only beef with it is going to such lengths to create babies when there are so many children already in existence who need parents. But ultimately, if it's not my body, it's not my decision. I have in-laws who went to great lengths and expense at fertility clinics trying to get pregnant without success, adopted a child, then got pregnant without intervention. Go figure.

Lepidopterix,

I think Frank's referring to the fact that the Church considers in vitro fertilization to be gravely sinful.

Frank,

I have to disagree with you. I'll bet almost no non-Catholics are aware that the Church considers IVF to be sinful. They have the general idea that the Church thinks more babies are better, no matter what.

A non-Catholic, I first looked into this question a couple of years ago on the internet. It took me forever to find one ambiguous reference to what the Church taught about IVF. Have you ever heard of a public pronouncement (outside of Church institutions) by the Church against IVF?

Think of this:

Picketing is common outside abortion clinics. Priests and nuns frequently are present and the Church is certainly sympathetic to the picketing.

If the Church really wanted it widely known that it opposed IVF, it could easily solicit Church members to similarly picket in-vitro fertilization clinics.

Have you ever heard of such a thing happening?

As for American Catholics, I have absolutely no idea of what proportion of them are aware that IVF is considered sinful.

But the poor woman in the article I posted certainly had no idea, even though she worked in Catholic schools.

My guess is that not too many Catholics know that IVF is sinful in the Church's eyes. Again, perhaps that's because of the Church's widely proclaimed constant message that preventing conception and birth is sinful.

Regards to you.

Frank:
**if your not catholic you probably know it too.**

Know what?

NORIE:
if your catholic you know it.
if your not catholic you probably know it too.

Because the Roman Church, in the United States at least, never speaks out against in-vitro fertilization, most people are unaware that the Church considers the practice to be gravely sinful.

They may therefore think that in the post above (3:19 PM), I misstated the Church's position on IVF. For their information, here are a couple of references:

************************************

"In summary, the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts, both IVF in and of itself, and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos.

"References:
1. Donum vitae (Respect for Human Life), Instruction on respect for human life in its origin, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1987. (Available from Catholic Insight under the title "Vatican, High Tech".

"2. Encyclical letter Humanae vitae, No. 14, AAS 60 (1968), 488-489.

"3. Donum vitae.

© Copyright 1997-2006 Catholic Insight
Updated: Dec 3rd, 2006 - 14:48:37"

***********************************

Catholic School Teacher Fired for Having In Vitro

School Officials Said In Vitro Fertilization Contradicted Church Doctrines

After five years trying to conceive, Kelly and Eric Romenesko decided to try in vitro fertilization

Their twins, Alexandria and Allison, were born last year. It was a joyous event in the couple's life.

"They're miracles. They're precious," Kelly Romenesko said.

The couple were not prepared for what came next.

When Kelly, a teacher at two Catholic schools in Wisconsin, told her bosses she had gotten pregnant through in vitro, they handed her a pink slip.

"I was in tears," she said. "I remember asking, 'Is this the only reason why I'm being fired?' They stated, 'Yes.'"

The schools say Romenesko agreed to follow church teachings when she was hired. One of those teachings was that the in vitro technique was morally wrong because it replaced natural conception.

"I did not know what the Catholic doctrine stated against in vitro fertilization. Yes, I signed a contract, but the contract was vague in my opinion. I didn't know what I was doing as far as in vitro goes that that went against doctrine. My understanding was it was the Ten Commandments."

Church Doctrine

People like Joseph Capizzi of the Culture of Life Foundation said that in vitro fertilization ran counter to Catholic teachings, which stress that a child should be conceived through sex.

FROM ABC NEWS, May 11, 2006.

*******************************

NOTE, THE CHURCH DOESN'T WARN PEOPLE THAT IVF IS "GRAVELY SINFUL", BUT THOSE IN CHURCH INSTITUTIONS ARE PUNISHED IF THEY USE IVF.

MEANWHILE, THE CHURCH HAS THE BENEFIT OF MANY MORE FUTURE CHURCH MEMBERS BEING BORN THROUGH "SINFUL" MEANS.

If the RCC didn't keep mum on in-vitro fertilization they wouldn't just lose all the parents who benefited from that procedure, they'd also lose the babies (future parishioners) created by that procedure.

Fewer parishioners = less money for the lads in the Vatican. Money talks and principle walks. Face it, it's all about the Benjamins.

Some here say that we who accept change are leaving the church. We aren't leaving the church. We ARE the church. The Vatican is leaving us. As the vast multitude of Catholics have come to accept gays, divorcees, and in-vitro babies, our so-called leaders have marched in a different direction. So be it. I don't need them in order to commune with Christ, He listens to all.

Dear @,

Yesterday you made numerous posts, the common denominator of which was the idea that the Roman Church has been teaching its same doctrines for a thousand years or two, has never deviated even a whisker from those doctrines, and never tolerates even a slight relaxation of them.

Then, please tell me why, since the Church believes that the creation of fertilized eggs for infertile couples is sinful, why it does not speak out against the practice, and, in fact, tolerates it.

My answer: The Roman Church is so fixated on the idea that more-babies-are-better-than-fewer, no matter what the human cost, that it deliberately overlooks its own doctrine that in-vitro-fertiization is per-se sinful in all cases, and never says a public word against it, so that more babies will be born.

By the way, @, you have an interesting name.

With all respect, could you possibly be a computer, or even a Roman Robot from the Roman Rota?

Regards.

Yeah, see how "brigh" that stupid god of fanaticism frank collins is?

What HE said!

The argument about whether God is unchanging is an interesting one. Everyone and everything in the universe changes. If nothing else, every entity changes in time. Perhaps the argument is that God is outside and apart from the physical laws he created.

You are arguing about the inconsequential, it seems to me. The real questions involve the inconsistencies between Christ's teachings and the parts of the Bible that approve of slavery, stoning females who commit adultery, killing children who talk back to parents, and killing those who work on the Sabbath.

Is this typical of the sayings of the Jesus you worship or of Old Testament vengeance? Jesus was kindness, courage, and intelligence, but the earlier part of the Bible hardly fits that description. It is all, however, the same Bible.

This one true religion that some take word-for-word from the Bible copies Sumerian myths and those from Greek and Roman religions. A god who rises from the dead and has another god for a father and a human mother is not new to Christianity. Almost no major theme is new; Christianity developed some strong adherents shortly after His death and then got a boost from Constantine.

If all religions but one are wrong, why not all?

how about the stupid god of islam. that thing thought the trinity was the father, son and mary. what an idiot. how brigh can the islamic god be if its gets that wrong.

"He knows what our choice will be before we are born, but that does not make our choice less free."

That's a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? According to your claim of an omniscient, infallible God, if God "knows" something will happen, then that thing will happen, right? Not might happen, but will happen. So if God "knows" from the moment the sperm gets within sniffing distance of the egg that the person about to be conceived will not become a Christian, then that person cannot ever become a Christian, regardless of religious upbringing/education/earnestness, because if s/he did that would make God mistaken, not omniscient or infallible. So that peson is not free to choose "salvation."

Well of course our Catholic church is losing membership. Look at the confusing rule book that NUH-UH quotes. It's more complicated than the Maine Inland Fishing regulations on where I can use live bait vs. fly-fishing-only. Are you telling me that this is what Jesus had in mind? I doubt it.

Ad Altari Dei, how can you blame pedophile priests on the 60's when lots of the abuse took place in the 40's and 50's. If we limit the priesthood to celibate males, we're bound to attract some percentage of men who have unacceptable desires that they hope to suppress by joining the priesthood.

Words have no power if you don't know what they mean. If I speak to you in Swahili and you don't speak Swahili, I may as well be talking to the wall. Rote mumbling of incantation like the Latin Mass sounds like the magic practiced in the Harry Potter books that have Benedict in a twist. (That's another reason we're losing members; silly jousting at windmills)

I think it's time to take the Catholic church back from the incompetent administration that has slid into power, and get back to some common sense decision-making. Catholics deserve better leadership that we are receiving. Keep in mind, our leaders weren't chosen by God, they chose each other.

Patrick,

Most excellent!!! Direct and "write-on".

last post was me -

@Patrick: **It is true that many people who consider themselves Catholics ignore the clear teaching of the Church in this regard. That is most unfortunate since it is their own immortal souls at stake. The logical conclusion is that such people do not believe in 1) The teaching authority of the Church, or 2) The possibility of eternal punishment in Hell or 3) Both of the above.**

For the Catholics I know who practice contrception, it's a matter of not being willing to have more children than they can support. SOmehow I think that God would rather you limit the number of children to as many as you can afford to adequately feed, clothe, house, and educate, rather than keep popping them out to the point where there isn't enough food to go around, or you're feeding them nothing but dollar store mac and cheese because that's all you can afford, four of them are having to share a bedroom, and only the oldest ever gets anything new while all the rest get the hand-me-downs until the youngest gets them and they're worn out beyond all reason. And yes, I knew a family like that growing up. Refused to stop having babies because God said "be fruitful and multiply," and the Church said contraception was a sin.

I agree with you completely Joseph Arechavala - I have Catholic family members, but we agree to disagree on our differences and instead are happy that we both believe in Jesus Christ. I want to write more about the topic, but I just don't really see how it would be positive for either side (Catholic and Protestant).

We attend a non-denominational evangelical Christian church (relaxedchurch.com) and a couple we know that attends used to be Catholics - the husband quit going the first chance he could when he was younger.. fast forward quite a few years, and here he is back at church (albeit QUITE a different church!).
I also know a few that because of family MUST attend Catholic church, but have no belief or desire in it NOR do they grow in their spiritual beliefs through it. It's really sad.

Words have Power. Calling a woman Madam or saying SIR is a sign of respect. The most powerful the Roman Catholic church ever was, was in its RITUAL days. Not just for show, but as RITES. The change to simplification and vernacularism, was what caused the fall of the CHURCH.
Openly Gay priests? Pedophilia? This is what the 60's church hath wraught. Latin is a special DEAD language which transends humanity. It has it's own power and should only be used by GOOD MEN of GOD. It should not be used as a sideshow.
For those who worship to a folk banjo yahoo, I pray for them to see the light.

I don’t understand Benedict’s attitudes when it comes to Vatican II. He seems intent on turning back the clock to pre-Vatican times with this and his recent announcements allowing Latin masses and that the Catholics are the only true by virtue of apostolic succession and other denominations are not.

John Paul II was focused on reconciliation with Orthodox and Protestant churches. He was about having a dialogue with other denominations about what our commonalities were rather than our differences, to come together as Christian believers in union with each other while still respecting those differences. But with these statements, Benedict has shown himself to be backward-looking rather than forward-looking like his predecessor.

While he looks backward, people like me are leaving the pews and looking for spiritual fulfillment in a more inclusive environment .The church in America continues to lose believers; in fact if it wasn’t for the influx of Hispanics into the U.S. the church would be shrinking.

Our diocese continues to close parish doors as the priest shortage grows ever more dire, while Rome continues to refuse admission to women and allowing priests to marry. This is but one example of the church’s resistance to change. Many of these aren't Biblical precepts but traditions born from centuries ago when we lived in a different world. While the traditions of the church should be respected, they shouldn’t be clung to like a sinking lifeboat in a stormy sea. The church will continue to lose good people in Europe and America unless it adapts to a modern world.

"Eating meat on Fridays in Lent is still forbidden, and to do so intentionally (i.e. knowing that it is a Friday in Lent, knowing that the Church requires abstinence from meat on such days, and knowing that you are eating meat nonetheless) is to mortally sin."

It is not a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday during Lent. No one goes to hell for that. Furthermore, abstaining from meat is only one part of the larger "fasting" on Fridays during Lent. Not only should one not eat meat, but also only 3 small meals and no snacks. The rule completely excuses children and seniors. One can also eat meat on Friday, and choose Saturday to fast instead.

It is not, however, a mortal sin.

Wow, Such PRE-Apocalyptic Jealous Thinkers indeed. "Get Behind Me Satan! "Shiloh" is come already.

"IT" (G-D/Creator) is TIME! [Your Immortal Heuristical via OURS Temperature on the Eternal move. Ya Ya.

Greek? Latin? Aramaic? As the Texas preacher thundered to his flock: "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ it should be good enough for us!"

ANTHONY:
one is a private institution and the other is for government.

All right now @, you're going a little overboard there. Ease up just a little bit.

First of all, what the heck did you do to "deserve an eternity of torment in Hell"? Did you murder someone or something terrible like that? Not me, coach. I've slipped here and there, but nothing that warrants torture.

Now, getting back to the whole punishment thing, you say: "He knows what our choice will be before we are born, but that does not make our choice less free." Boy oh boy @, I'm afraid that doesn't make a lick of sense. I suspect you'd agree that if I know for a fact that my kid, or my friend, or my neighbor, is going to do something that will cause him horrific agony, and I don't do anything to prevent it, I am no Catholic. And I certainly wouldn't be in any position to punish them for their choice if I had stood by and watched them do it.

So why would you accuse God of doing that exact thing? It just doesn't add up.

I don't think Jesus craves worship. I think he just wanted to give people a way to get along and not hurt each other. I've always suspected that a lot of the bible stories got embellished along the way by people who loved his ideas and just wanted to sparkle him up a bit to encourage wider acceptance. Did you ever hear a kid talk about the fish his father caught? It starts out a Walleye, but after a few re-tellings, it's a Whale. The kid means well, but he wants other people to share in the awe of his dad, so he amplifies things to increase the admiration.

So getting back to what makes a Catholic; I guess that's up to each of us to decide. Mortal man has no right to judge another's mind and soul, so I don't think you ought to be calling the shots on others when it comes to deciding who is or isn't a Catholic. Remember, you are fallible, and so your definition may be incorrect. The clergy is fallible too, so I wouldn't leave it to them to decide. How about if you and I agree to disagree and nobody has to toss anybody out of the church or deny communion based on someone's fallible opinions?

Deal?

An Act of Adoration

O Great God, the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth, I prostrate myself before Thee. With all the Angels and Saints I adore Thee, I acknowledge Thee to be my Creator and sovereign Lord, my first beginning and my last end. I render to Thee the homage of my being and life. I submit myself to Thy holy will and I devote myself to Thy divine service, now and forever.

Resolution to Avoid Evil and Do Good

Adorable Jesus! divine pattern of that perfection to which we should all aspire, I will endeavor this day to follow Thine example; to be mild, humble, chaste, zealous, patient, charitable, and resigned. Incline my heart to keep Thy commandments. I am resolved to watch over myself with the greatest diligence, and to live soberly, justly, and piously, for the time to come. I will take care of my words, that I may not offend with my tongue, I will turn away my eyes, that they might not see vanity; and I will be particularly attentive not to relapse this day into my accustomed failings, but to struggle against them with Thy gracious assistance. Enlighten my mind, purify my heart, and guide my steps, that I may pass all my life in Thy divine service.

@ - agreed - and thank you!

"may I suggest you temper things with a little grace and mercy"

Thank you, Tim, for your response. The funny thing is - I keep talking about grace and mercy. I know that I am a sinner. I know that I deserve an eternity of torment in Hell. But I also know that God has superabundant grace and infinite mercy for us poor humans, who He created, and who He loves.

But, God is the Lord, and we the subjects. God is the Creator, and we the creatures. Why do so many people persist in demanding that God accede to their will, rather than submitting themselves to their Lord and Creator?

Jesus Christ knew what sufferings He must endure, yet he prayed "My Father ... thy will be done." Christ through his submission willingly endured His Passion, and yet we refuse to submit ourselves to God's Will for the sake of transient pleasures.

To think of the horrific punishments that Christ endured for our sake, although He was innocent of all sin and free of all guilt. Is that not love? Is that not mercy? And yet so many who call themselves Christian will so gladly slap Him again in the face, push the thorns more viciously in His head, twist the nails in His wounds, and jab the spear still deeper in His side, rather than abandon the desires of the flesh and submit to Him.

It is simply disgraceful.

Latin, and "sole soul salvation only by B16s past and present" get us back to the foundations of all contemporary religions. Once again for the "newbies":

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. See also E. Favorite's previous comments about the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers. The agenda continues as witnessed by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics i.e. a summary of the War on Terror-the Muslim "who are the bad guys" Problem.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Thank you @ for the wonderful scripture quotation. Yes, run the race and I plan to beat you to the finish line. Remember how the other disciple outran Peter to the tomb? You had better chastise your body and put on a good pair of running shoes if you expect to beat me there - you goody two shoes :) (John 20:4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first)

Here is the Scripture prior to the race analogy you quoted:

1 Cor Chapter 9 starting with verse 20

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law—though not being myself under the law—that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law—not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ—that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Obedience, accountability, and discipline are you bag, @, and thank God for people like you cause there are too many wimpy Christians out there. Hell, I even need someone to hold me accountable now and then. But, @, may I suggest you temper things with a little grace and mercy. We need to try just a tiny little bit to consider becoming like Friend. Paul may have done this, in light of the passage above, in order to win Friend over to the Gospel.

BTW, it is interesting that Friend does not check in while we consider her eternal life. Friend, are you out there or is all we write just another cruel joke?

Patrick, the bureaucrats seem to always go for the dullest knife in the draw. Stay in the race no matter what. @, I would say to you "now here is a real Israelite."

What a load of balloon juice. It doesn't matter if I know what I'm saying in Mass? Hogwash. Are you telling me that Christ didn't care if the apostles understood him? What kind of teaching is that? Sounds more like a few of the clergy trying to perpetuate a monopoly on communication with God. So long as the Mass is in Latin, you'll need the priest as a translator, or lawyer. That just doesn't sound like anything Christ would have condoned. He wasn't into exclusivity. After all, he's the one who welcomed Mary Magdelene when the others thought she was beneath them. No, I'm sorry, I don't believe that Christ wanted us to be limited to speaking to him through a mouthpiece.

And justifying it by saying it worked great for 1000 years won't cut it. What about the 1000 years before that? Huh? Wasn't Latin a new-fangled change back then? Just because it's a current tradition doesn't make it correct. Heck, slavery was around for thousands of years, but we don't condone that.

And now you're saying it's also for familiarity if we're in a foreign land. Are you serious? If I don't understand it in Tulsa, how does it comfort me to not understand it in Timbuktu? You're going to have to do better than that, my friend.

By the way, meat on Friday was verboten when I was a kid, and now it's not. So whose idea was that, and why should I listen to them now if they had it wrong back then?

Sorry, but I don't think all this thou-shall and thou-shall-not has much to do with being a Catholic. I think God wants Catholics to speak our minds, and do our best to understand his mind. And I don't think he really cares to be worshiped at all. I don't believe he is insecure. I think he just wants us to treat each other well, and do our best to get along. All the rest sounds like a lot of rules set up to garner power for a few.

Just my opinion, but it's not worth any less than yours.

Cheers.

"Being Catholic doesn't mean you accept the infallibility of the men who run the church"

Obviously not everything a priest, a bishop, or The Pope does is without error. But the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church is indeed without error.

"the other, while being a good guy, is far from the sharpest knife in the drawer ... yet he has risen faster in the hierarchy. Go figure."

I, too, cannot claim the fathom the processes by which one is promoted within the hierarchy of the Church these days.

"Hell can't possibly exist. Why would God create children who he knew for a fact would wind up in eternal fire?"

Simply put, because His knowledge is not the same as His predestination. He does not predestine any person for Hell. He creates us with free will, and gives us every grace we need for salvation. But if we choose to reject Him, we will receive the fruits of our choice.

He knows what our choice will be before we are born, but that does not make our choice less free. God is omniscient and omnipotent and although we are created in His likeness, His actions and motives cannot be reduced to purely human actions and motives.

It is absolutely certain that Hell exists. Jesus Christ himself assured us of that many times in the Gospels. If you do not believe Him, then what use is it, to put your faith in Him, as you claim to do?

I forgot to respond to the following

"Remember, that same crowd used to get all wound up about eating meat on Fridays, but now it's burgers and buffalo wings at TGIF with the CYO kids."

In fact there is now no prohibition against eating meat on Fridays outside of Lent in the Catholic Church. The rule of abstinence on Fridays was a disciplinary, not a doctrinal, law designed to help Catholics to do penance as God wishes. Instead, all Catholics are now called on to do penance of their choosing on Fridays. Abstaining from meat is still a very good way to do such penance, but not the only way.

Eating meat on Fridays in Lent is still forbidden, and to do so intentionally (i.e. knowing that it is a Friday in Lent, knowing that the Church requires abstinence from meat on such days, and knowing that you are eating meat nonetheless) is to mortally sin.

"We all make mistakes, ... and will be forgiven if you mean well."

This is false. God will forgive those who acknowledge their sins and repent of them, coming to Him with a humbled and contrite heart, firmly resolving to sin no more - not those who "mean well."

"Why in the world would you want to say Mass in a language that is not understood by the people attending?"

Your question is quite simple but has somewhat complicated answer:

First, Latin has been the language of the Roman Church for well over one thousand years. Mass was said in Latin throughout the Roman Church up until the 1960s, even though for most of that time, the majority of people hearing Mass did not understand Latin. So, one reason to say Mass in Latin now is that it has been done for many centuries with good results in the life of the Church and the faith of the people.

Second, in modern times understanding the mass has not been an issue. Hand missals give the text of the mass in Latin, and in some other local language such as English side-by-side. After a few weeks of using a hand missal, understanding what is going on and what is being said is a non-issue. Such hand missals have been available for about 150 years.

Third, understanding the text of the Mass, although certainly desirable, is not really necessary. It is necessary to understand the theology of the mass - i.e. what is happening - is important for participation. Understanding the exact words said is less important. If you understand that the priest is offering a sacrifice to God, and that this sacrifice is the same sacrifice offered by Christ on the cross, then you can join your intention to the intention of the priest and be a part of the sacrificial offering in a spiritual way.

Fourth, if all Masses are said in the same language, and with the same rubrics, then you can be completely comfortable in Mass, no matter where you are in the world. That is of some importance, at least, in the mobile world of today.

Lastly, the fact is that the Latin language is not really all that important after all. What is important is the Catholic faith, in which the traditional Mass is firmly rooted. The new Mass was intentionally protestantized. The traditional Mass in English would be better than the new Mass in Latin, but the fact is that the traditional Mass is in Latin, not in English.

Oh, c'mon @, that's just silly. Being Catholic doesn't mean you accept the infallibility of the men who run the church. If that were the case, the $600,000,000 settlement announced in LA was a giveaway for nothing.

As a Catholic I feel it's my duty to maintain a healthy skepticism of everything that comes out of Rome.

For one thing, they keep changing the rules, so I can't put much faith in their current commands, given their past flip-flopping.

Also, I have two school friends who became Catholic priests. One is fairly bright, but the other, while being a good guy, is far from the sharpest knife in the drawer. I certainly can't value his opinion or advice as highly as the first, yet he has risen faster in the hierarchy. Go figure.

And last, let's face it. Hell can't possibly exist. Why would God create children who he knew for a fact would wind up in eternal fire? We agree that he can see the future, so he knows what's going to happen, and what decisions we will make in life, so why would he create us in a way that allows for eternal torture of his own children at the hands of demons? No sensible parent would allow that to happen to their child, and God won't allow it to happen to his. You might as well quit throwing that idea around, because it just makes you sound foolish.

I prefer to put my faith in Jesus Christ, not in whoever happens to be in charge of the Vatican for a particular moment in time.

That's what makes me a Catholic. I am loyal to all Catholics and therefore I don't hand my church off to the latest and greatest. God gave me a brain and free will, and I intend to use both in his honor.

I do not present the "fundamentalist Catholic position". I present the Catholic position. Any position contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church is a non-Catholic position.

You are certainly correct when you say "Jesus loved everyone no matter what sin." In fact, it is even better to say that Jesus still does love everyone no matter what sin. God loves all people, and wishes for every person to be in His presence for all eternity in Heaven.

However, in order to gain Heaven we must love God in return. Christ said "If you love me, keep my commandments." By rejecting God's commandments, you show that you do not love God. Every person has the free will to choose: What do I love more, God? or money? or sex? or food? or, or, or...

If the answer is God, then you must believe the truth that He has revealed and keep His commandments. If the answer is something else, then go ahead and follow your bliss, just don't expect to escape God's judgment after death, when all that you thought so important has passed away and there is nothing more left except you, standing before the judgment seat of Christ. Will that woman, job, fame, pleasure, etc. seem so important then?

"Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one. I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air: But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway." 1 Cor 9:25-27

I'd like to know the overlap of the "return to Latin" crowd, and the "English as the official language" crowd. It would be interesting to see who wants what, and why.

Personally, I enjoyed the Latin Mass when I was a kid. Since I didn't understand a word that was being said, it didn't intrude on my daydreaming in the pew. Of course it also helped that the priest had his back to the crowd. He couldn't see if I was acting up!

"That went out of style in the Catholic Church back in the 60''s and 70's."

What is "in style" or "out of style" is completely irrelevant. You cannot reduce God's law to a question of fashion.

It is true that many people who consider themselves Catholics ignore the clear teaching of the Church in this regard. That is most unfortunate since it is their own immortal souls at stake. The logical conclusion is that such people do not believe in 1) The teaching authority of the Church, or 2) The possibility of eternal punishment in Hell or 3) Both of the above.

Any of the above amounts to silent heresy and lack of faith in Jesus Christ. If you believe that Jesus Christ is God, and believe that the Catholic Church is His Church, Founded by Him, then you must believe and obey the teaching authority of the Church. Otherwise, you are not a Catholic, no matter what you may wish to call yourself.

So many people act like all of this discussion is about mere human institutions and that the decisions made by each individual in the area of religion are of little consequence, when in fact this life on Earth is less than the blink of an eye compared to the eternity thereafter. Why would any Catholic choose to condemn himself to Hell for all eternity for the sake of some temporary earthly pleasure? And on the other hand, why would someone who rejects the doctrine and authority of the Catholic Church wish to continue calling himself Catholic?

you used to be a priest but now your not? then you have a problem with the catholic church and that is the starting point of anything you write.
the latin mass allows the catholics to all say the same mass - no matter where they are in the world. it is all inclusive. you open your missal and when you hear it in latin, which you already know, you can see it in your language on the other side of the age.
what is the problem with that?