Should Rome's Apologists Interpret?

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.  [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Well...  these statements need to be... interpreted...

How To Keep The Homeless Out of a Catholic Church

San Francisco Saint Mary’s Cathedral Drenches Homeless With Water To Keep Them Away

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) — KCBS has learned that Saint Mary’s Cathedral, the principal church of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, has installed a watering system to keep the homeless from sleeping in the cathedral’s doorways.

...and also:

UPDATE: SF Archdiocese Apologizes For Water System To Repel Homeless At Saint Mary’s Cathedral

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) – Saint Mary’s Cathedral in San Francisco will dismantle a system that pours water on entrance areas of the church frequented by homeless after receiving a formal notice of violation from the city. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Archdiocese has apologized for the ‘misunderstood’ and ‘ill-conceived’ effort to keep homeless out of alcoves used to enter and exit the church.

Rome's Bloggers Described by... One of Rome's Bloggers

http://www.catholicstand.com/fight-all-error-an-open-letter-to-all/

"Reports and personal experience stories are mounting of vulgarity, bullying, personal attacks and other forms of unacceptable behavior emerging from Catholic bloggers and their fans in the web-culture. Ironically, these attacks rarely center around the traditional ‘hot button’ issues of abortion, or even mid-level issues like ordaining women to the priesthood. More often today, Catholics are finding themselves the target of verbal abuse, ‘unfriending’ and banning from blogging boards for disagreeing with Catholic bloggers on peripheral issues like water-boarding, lying to save unborn children, or giving a $15 per hour minimum wage."

Are Roman Catholics Divided When They Defend Their Beliefs?

Here's a post from a Roman Catholic on the CARM forums. I came across this same sort of problem a few months ago on the Catholic Answers forums: a Roman Catholic was defending a particular interpretation of "Tradition" as if it were Rome's official position.

 The irony is that these words are the private interpretation of the person posting these comments:

To My Fellow Catholics

It has come to the attention of all that we are rather divided on what is required beliefs and what are not. Limbo was brought up for instance and we can't keep bring up that white elephant calling it doctrine. The proposed Marian Dogma of Mediatrix and Redeptrix was already put to bed by Pope Emeritus Benedict during his reign. The rosary is not Tradition; it is a devotion that is really nice. Don't put it on par with the Liturgy of the Hours because no authoritative source has said that. I think I myself confused some people with the Eastern Catholic understanding of the Dormition and the Immaculate Conception that seem to depart from the expressions.

In an effort for a fallible minds be unified in solid doctrine, I would ask that you please consult authoritative documents only. First and foremost, we must use the Scriptures. As interpretive tools, use the Fathers. I think a general rule we should follow is never post the Fathers without some Scripture for back up but I leave that to your discretion. Finally, please use Church documents properly. Here are a couple of links that will help us remember which one carry dogmatic weight and which ones are strong suggestions. This will also allow us to dismiss those arguments that use non-authoritative documents to make a point.http://www.adoremus.org/0902AuthorityChurchDoc.html https://www.ewtn.com/HolySee/pontiff/categories.asp

Finally, and it is embarrassing to say it since I too am guilty, keep the dialogue civil. Yes, sometimes the rhetoric gets heated but that is no excuse for us to lose our bearing. I speak as one sinner to another here as I am sure we have all done it. Also, let us use this thread to improve constantly how we dialogue here. Here is some encouragment from the Pope. 

Pope to Theologians: Listen to Ordinary Faithful

I found this on the AP (bolded emphasis mine):

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Francis urged the Catholic Church's top theologians on Friday to listen to what ordinary Catholics have to say and pay attention to the "signs of the times," rather than just making pronouncements in an academic vacuum.

Francis, whose near-disdain for theologians is well-known, told the International Theological Commission that they must "humbly listen" to what God tells the church by understanding Scripture but also by taking into account how ordinary Catholics live out their faith.

"Together with all Christians, theologians must open their eyes and ears to the signs of the times," Francis said.

Made up of leading theologians from around the world, the commission is a permanent advisory body to the Vatican's theological and orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Both are headed by Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, a conservative German theologian appointed by the theologian pope, Benedict XVI.

The congregation is known for disciplining Catholic theologians whose writings or teachings stray from church doctrine. It has been criticized for issuing these notifications without consulting the academics or giving them a chance to defend their work.

Francis has frequently complained that theologians are holding back the church in its mission to evangelize and work with other Christian communities. Just this past weekend, returning from Turkey, Francis spoke about the need for the Catholic and Orthodox churches to walk together on the path of unity.

"What are we waiting for? For the theologians to reach agreement? That day will never come, I assure you," Francis said. "I'm skeptical."

Francis has instead spoken frequently about what he calls "theology on its knees" - a more merciful type of theology that isn't focused so much on rules and regulations but meeting the faithful where they are to help them reach holiness.

---

Do Roman Catholics Believe in Ghosts?

"Some visions of ghosts could actually be souls in purgatory that are seeking prayers. We must never forget to pray for our brothers and sisters in purgatory. We should offer our mass to them every time we attend." [source]

When in Rome, make sure to visit the Museum of the Souls of Purgatory. "Located in a small room next to a church, this eerie museum displays objects and photos of objects said to show traces of apparitions who reside in Purgatory."

Catholic Borg Explains Theological Flaws to a Protestant Star Fleet Officer

I found this one on the Roman Catholic CARM board:



The posted link to this video was to a site called Angelqueen.org, but it appears that  the video was taken down. I thought the clip was humorous, but also very telling as to how some Roman Catholics think of themselves. As I've come to understand Rome's zealous followers, they think they are united like like the Borg, but actually are far from it.

I've maintained a series of posts on this blog called Blueprint For Anarchy. These hundred + posts demonstrate the lack of unity within Romanism. To date, I have 105 entries, and I'm not actively looking for content. I simply post stuff I come across. Had I been actively looking for material, I could have a new post every day for this series.

My favorite to date is when a staff apologist from Catholic Answers stated 70% of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist. The irony is that Pope Benedict said, "The Eucharist is like the beating heart that gives life to the whole mystical body of the Church: a social organism entirely founded on the spiritual but concrete link with Christ."

Which Roman Apologist Interprets the Pope Correctly?

Am I the only one who finds great irony in the various interpretations of what the recent pope has been saying? I visit various Roman Catholic websites, and I find such stuff like this. Then I visit another Roman website, and find stuff like this. Some people are claiming that various "spins" are being put on the papal statements.

Why is the pope so unclear? Perhaps this is the answer?

For a guy who's supposed to have the ability to speak infallibly, he certainly has a lack of clarity when not speaking infallibly. We appear to be left in the hands of Roman laymen, all claiming the ability to interpret the pope correctly. Yes, we're left with the private interpretations of Roman Catholic laymen.

I hope this pope has a long career.

Tim Staples vs. Catholic Answers on Matt. 5:29

Catholic Answers says:

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16). 

Source: Call No Man Father NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Tim Staples says it isn't hyperbole. Listen here.Tim says if your eye or hand offend, cut the eye out and cut the hand off.. "because I'm gonna get a new one when I get to heaven..."

North American Pope Declares Anathemas Against Renegade Apologists

http://www.catholic.com/blog/karl-keating/hyperbolic-traditionalists?page=1

    #119  Karl Keating - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Staff

Pete Vere (post 105):

You bring up a name from the past: Gerry Matatics. Probably many people reading this thread would ask, “Who?” Gerry has been out of the limelight for quite a while, but a quarter century ago he and Scott Hahn, then still friends, were bright stars in the constellation of converts.

I always respected Gerry’s native talents. As highly as I regard Scott’s talents, I thought that Gerry could have excelled Scott, if he had applied himself. But he never had the self-discipline.

I remember listening to a tape of one of his debates—this was after he left Catholic Answers, where he had been employed for seven months beginning in June 1990. The debate was held in Brooklyn, and Gerry then was living in Front Royal, Virginia, down the road from Christendom College, where he once had taught. He spent much of his opening remarks saying that he hadn’t prepared for the debate but did jot down notes on a legal pad as he drove up. (Not smart. If you neglect to prepare for a public performance, at least don’t announce it to your audience.)

As you know, Gerry and I were at odds after he left Catholic Answers. I wrote about him a few times over the succeeding years and for the most part confined my remarks to his religious ideas or actions, but my deeper concerns were at the level of ethics and character.

By 2006 Gerry had confirmed himself, publicly, as a sedevacantist (his term, even if in your eyes he qualified as a sedeprivationist), and then he largely disappeared from public view. As he had in previous years, he went on the road, speaking usually at Holiday Inns to tiny audiences—sometimes to as few as six people, from reports I had. And then even the speaking stopped.

How he gets by, what he now does for a living, I don’t know. I hope he has a “regular” job. I remember Scott Hahn commenting that Gerry should get out of religious work entirely, for his good and that of his family, and become a teacher of French at a private or public school. (Gerry’s French is said to be good.)

Maybe he’s doing something like now; maybe Chris Ferrara knows. But it’s clear from Gerry’s website that he no longer has many (or any?) speaking engagements, and, of course, he never has produced a written product. But he still produces recordings and every few months will throw onto the website a pitch for them. The only other outreach he has, so far as I know, is a series of online interviews with Judith Sharp. I suppose those interviews can’t have many listeners.

You bring up Gerry’s move toward sedevacantism. This was something I wrote about more than once in “This Rock” magazine, most extensively in the August 1995 issue.

Gerry had accepted an appointment as an instructor at the sedevacantist seminary run by Bishop Daniel Dolan in Cincinnati. (I’ve never settled to my own satisfaction whether Dolan was validly consecrated, but we’ll give him the courtesy of the title.) The seminary even had distributed an advertising flyer with Gerry’s name and photo on it.

Dolan and his associates were then, and are now, strict-observance sedevacantists. I think it’s scarcely imaginable that they would have hired someone not in line with their thinking. (Gerry ended up not accepting employment by the seminary.)

Back in those days Gerry was getting much, maybe most, of his income by speaking in so-called “Novus Ordo” parishes. He had one set of talks—his conversion story, for example—for those venues, another set—lots of anti-Vatican II red meat—for “Traditionalist” conferences.

That dichotomy couldn’t last, of course. Word started to get around to regular parishes that Gerry was telling two stories; his gigs started to dry up. (And, no, neither I nor anyone I know had anything to do with that; it was a process of auto-destruction on Gerry’s part. Two or three times someone called to ask whether I thought Gerry would be an appropriate speaker for a parish. Not wanting to be blamed for his loss of gigs, I just replied that I wasn’t in a position to recommend him.)

You have heard about Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin’s Bulldog.” Charles Darwin wasn’t a particularly effective promoter of his own theories, but Huxley sure was. He was out in public far more than Darwin. It was as though Darwin was hidden away, with only Huxley giving the defense.

So it was, in a way, with Chris Ferrara and Gerry. Chris was Gerry’s bulldog. I don’t remember Gerry ever writing to counter anything I reported about him, but Chris often wrote against me.

It isn’t pertinent at this point to dig up the arguments or the sometimes harsh language—all this was a long time ago—but I found it curious that Chris, however much he thought I had it in for Gerry, didn’t seem to examine the information I gathered and say to himself, “Well, Keating’s being arch about this, but there is something increasingly odd about Gerry and his ideas.”

As I said, I was writing about Gerry’s slide into sedevacantism as long ago as 1995. Chris gave up his public defense of Gerry only about the time that Gerry finally styled himself a sedevacantist, which was in 2006. (Gerry still has on the top page of his website a short piece he wrote in 2006: “Is Gerry Matatics a ‘sedevacantist’?” In it he objects to the word “sedevacantist” but shows that he accepts the principles most people associate with the word.)

As Gerry was making what amounted to a public affirmation of his position, Chris wrote a multi-part series against sedevacantism in “The Remnant,” the first time that he had addressed the topic, so far as I know. He didn’t mention Gerry. At the time I took the series to be a last-ditch effort to pull his friend back from the brink, but the bulldog wasn’t strong enough to stop a leap over the edge.

I appreciate that Chris wrote, in post 108 above, that I “was probably right all along about Gerry's sedevacantism. I didn't see it at the time.” I accept that he didn’t see it in 1995 and maybe not even a decade later, but I’m at a loss to explain how it couldn’t be seen. So many others saw it.

Maybe this is an example of the loyalty of friendship clouding one’s eyes—or maybe, those many years ago, Chris, because of his animus toward me, thought that the allegations couldn’t be true precisely because it was I who leveled them.

It doesn’t matter really. What does matter is that a man with exceptional talents and exceptional promise misused those talents and never fulfilled that promise—not because outside forces were against him but because of his own inner failings. This is the definition of tragedy, as Shakespeare knew it and showed it.

Sometimes I think back to the heady days when I first knew Gerry and imagined the good he could do for the Church. It’s hard to conjure up those memories now because they were followed by a sad realization that that good was stillborn.

September 4, 2013 at 4:06 pm PST

#123  Karl Keating - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Staff

Pete Vere (post 121):

Thanks for the further insights. I chuckled that during your phone call with Gerry he insisted on settling things with you through a public debate. That's been his m.o.

Years ago I attended a convention of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars that was held in Washington, D.C. By that time Gerry was living again in Front Royal. Before I left home I contacted him, saying I'd like the two of us to meet privately and see whether we could begin to forge a new relationship. He agreed to meet me at the convention's hotel.

I waited for him in the lobby. He brought with him a large plastic bin filled with file folders. It was like the bins I saw lawyers bring into courtrooms when I used to practice law. Gerry said the folders contained his "documentation" for our debate.

"What debate?" I asked. He said he wanted to round up FCS members to sit as a panel to adjudicate the issues between us.

I said something to this effect: "Are you nuts? These people aren't here to oversee a trial between you and me. They're here for the convention. I invited you here for a private talk, and you've shown up looking for a public fight. Besides, you didn't let me in on your plan, so of course all of my documentation is at home."

As you might imagine, my attempt to effect a rapprochement got nowhere. It was a small comfort to me to learn that something similar happened to Scott Hahn when, on a separate occasion, he was in the D.C. area and made a similar offer to Gerry. Gerry responded with a debate challenge: "The only meeting I'll have with you is a public debate." Sheesh!

As for Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara: I know they don't give any truck to sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism). When Chris wrote the series against sedevacantism in "The Remnant," I had the impression that he had to work up his thesis in short order--as I said in my previous post, probably to encourage Gerry to move away from the edge--yet he gave a good account of the anti-sedevacantist argument.

#125  Karl Keating - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Staff

Dan Aller (post 115):

You say of Bob Sungenis, "I would add that he played a role in getting the US bishops to disavow that heresy in the adult catechism," your reference being to the bishops changing a text that said Jews don't need to be saved by the Christian covenant because they have salvation through their own.

Bob repeatedly has claimed that his writings about the issue caused the bishops to alter the text. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, and it's unlikely on its face.

Bob is perceived by many to have an obsession with Jews, by others to be outright anti-Semitic. How credible is it to think that the bishops would make any sort of change at his behest? Shouldn't those suspicious of the bishops' motives in other things imagine that they would rather have dug in their heels than be perceived as acquiescing to anything pushed by Bob?

I haven't seen the least evidence that the bishops were motivated by Bob's writings. After all, the complaint about the text wasn't exclusive to him. Others had been saying the same kind of thing for quite a while.

Roman Catholic Teaching: "Cheating in an examination at school is not sinful unless it brings injustice to others"?

Every so often I come across something that simply seems too ridiculous to be true, like a few weeks ago when the Vatican was said to be offering indulgences to the Pope's Twitter followers (that one turned out to be true). A few days ago, I came across the following on an Internet discussion board, and this one also seemed far-fetched:

"Cheating in an examination at school is not sinful unless it brings injustice to others." From the New Parish Catechism  Imprimatur: Most Rev. Joseph A. Durick, DD Bishop of Nashville.

I inquired about the quote, and this was the answer I was given:

Sorry to say this is not a misquote but the actual quote taken from the new parish catechism. I'll give you also the Nihil Obstat: Rev. Robert J. Hofstetter. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Joseph A. Durick D. D. Bishop of Nashville. Copyright 1973 by Fare Revised 1976. Now as a "Born Again" believer I take lying as a mortal sin because the Word of God declares that no liar will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. I am not saying anyone here is calling me a liar but I just want to set the record straight. I don,t know what else to say except I am accountable to the Lord for not presenting the truth. It is what it is.

I Googled the quote and book, but couldn't find any copies available online, so I bought one. Sure enough, the quote is there (p.131). The quote is part of "Lesson 42: The Eighth Commandment" (You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor). The lesson goes along rather smoothly until section 5 which explains, "Sins against the Eighth Commandment are serious if damage results from your misuse of the power of speech. If the damage done is less serious the sin is venial." Then in section 6, the quote in question occurs:

6. What is a lie?
A lie is a violation of my neighbor's right to truth. A lie is a distortion of truth.
"Lying is an abominable habit." (Sirach 20:26)
Hyperbole (exaggeration) and telling an untruth as a joke are not necessarily sinful.
Cheating in an examination at school is not sinful unless it brings injustice to others.
Perjury (lying under oath) is the most serious way to violate speech and human trust. Perjury is, therefore, a most serious sin. Teachers and parents are the agents of truth. Television, radio, the press are also agents of truth and are obliged to tell the truth without fiction or exaggeration.

Documentation:
Rev. William G. Martin, The New Parish Catechism, A Complete Course in the Catholic Faith, the Teachings of Jesus Christ (Ill.:FARE INC., 1973), p.131.

"Useful and practical for many uses in the parish"

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Robert J. Hofstetter Censor Librorum

Imprimatur: Most Rev. Joseph A. Durick, D.D. Bishop of Nashville

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.  No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

Addendum
I've been told that the revised edition of this catechism (1986) is changed at this section. If anyone has a copy of it, please post the changes here.

And Now... The Date for the Assumption of Mary...

...from the private musings of Taylor Marshall: What is the Historical Date for the Assumption of Mary:

"So I’m suggesting that Mary was assumed about A.D. 63 when Herod’s temple was finally finished. This temple did not have the true Ark of the Covenant – because Mary was the true Ark of the Covenant enshrined not in the Herodian Temple, but in the Temple of the Catholic Church. So the Assumption of Mary is a sort of “pre-tribulation” sign occurring before the seven years of Roman-Jerusalem gridlock culminating in the end of the Mosaic age – the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70."

Jimmy Akin: Are most Catholics in America going to hell?

From the private interpretation of one of Rome's apologists:

How Many People Go To Hell?

We can’t really know this.

Different figures in Church history have had different viewpoints on the question, and the Church itself does not have a teaching on the matter.

Some passages of Scripture seem to have a pessimistic tone but others seem to have an optimistic tone. We also should be careful in taking the pessimistic ones and applying them directly to our own age, because they were written in and about an age in which the world was swallowed in pagan darkness and the knowledge of the true God and his Son was severely limited compared to today. For its part, the Church teaches the real possibility of dying in mortal sin and of eternal damnation, but it does not teach how many people experience this in practice.

[source]

Viral Popery and Scott Hahn

This is going around, typically in this exact form that I found on Scott Hahn's Facebook page:

Scott Hahn

Monday

At a stadium celebration of the Feast of Divine Mercy in the Philippines (Sunday, Apr 7), many witnessed a very special grace, confirming the message of St Faustina: "Jesus, I trust in You"

I Googled the caption and came up with a number of hits. I've also found a few other self-proclaimed defenders of Rome posting this picture and text. Now, to Dr. Hahn and any other of Rome's defenders helping this go viral, why are you posting this picture without any relevant documentation? Why are you sure this is a God ordained miracle? Aren't such purported miracles supposed to be given a divine pedigree by your infallible magisterium first?

What I find interesting, is that the text posted by Dr. Hahn suggests this just happened a few days ago (April 7), however, this video clip certainly was posted a few months earlier:




So, is this the same event as that posted by Scott Hahn? Anyone um, check to see what the weather was like the day this video was posted?

Nah, probably not.

Robert Sungenis vs. Catholic Answers

Will the real Roman apologist please stand up?

http://catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/53-scripture/1178-catholic-answers-still-bowing-to-gideons-idol

Do You Have Problems Confessing Sin?

Well, these folks do:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=10454724#post10454724 

Catholic Answers from this discussion:

"You have a valid complaint."

"Your complaint is valid if there is no option for "behind the screen" confession at all."

"I don't think you have a valid compliant in this instance."

Soccer Mass

ht: Catholicus Maximus

Here's a fine addition to my "Blueprint For Anarchy" series:

The Absurdity of Separated Brethren

I came across this old post from blog contributor Carrie while looking up some of the recent ecumenical meanderings of Rome's defenders.  Thanks Carrie, I frequently come across your old posts and enjoy  what I find...

Before Protestants were "separated brethren"...

Q. Does the Lord make use of apostate Catholics, such as Martin Luther, Calvin, John Knox, Henry VIII., King of England, to reform the manners of the people?

A. The thought is absurd. The lives of those men were evil, and it is only the devil that makes use of them to pervert the people still more. The Lord makes use of His saints, such as a St. Francis of Assisium, a St. Dominick, a St. Ignatius, a St. Alphonsus, to convert the people and reform their evil manners by explaining to them the truths of faith, the commandments, and the necessity of receiving the sacraments with proper dispositions, and by setting them in their own lives the loftiest example of faith, purity, and all Christian virtues.

Q. Are there any other reasons to show that heretics, or Protestants who die out of the Roman Catholic Church, are not saved?

A. There are several. They cannot be saved, because

1. They have no divine faith.

2. They make a liar of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, and of the Apostles.

3. They have no faith in Christ.

4. They fell away from the true Church of Christ.

5. They are too proud to submit to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.

6. They cannot perform any good works whereby they can obtain heaven.

7. They do not receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

8. They die in their sins.

9. They ridicule and blaspheme the Mother of God and His saints.

10. They slander the spouse of Jesus Christ —:the Catholic Church.

Q. What is the act of faith of a Protestant?

A. O my God, I believe nothing except what my own private judgment tells me to believe; therefore I believe that I can interpret Thy written word—the Holy Scriptures —as I choose. I believe that the Pope is anti-Christ; that any man can be saved, provided he is an honest man; I believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation; that good works, and works of penance, and the confession of sins are not necessary, etc.

Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ?

A. They never had.

Q. Why not?

A. Because there never lived such a Christ as they imagine and believe in.

Q. In what kind of a Christ do they believe?

A. In such a one of whom they can make a liar, with impunity, whose doctrine they can interpret as they please, and who does not care about what a man believes, provided he be an honest man before the public.

Q. Will such a faith in such a Christ save Protestants?

A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.

Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine
For the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools (1875)
(pgs 70, 91-93, 97-98; with imprimatur)

The Authority of Roman Catholic Apologists....

This sort of posting from Catholic Answers makes me wonder as well why any Roman Catholic should listen to any Roman Catholic apologist.... they aren't "invested with authority to teach, never ordained, never canonized..." I've never quite understood why Roman Catholic apologists think they need to be the middle men... or the interpreters of Rome....

Sirach2  Regular Member   Join Date: April 18, 2010 Location: A small borough Posts: 2,510 Religion: Catholic - Secular Carmelite OCDS since 1981

Re: Tertullian does not reject infant baptism.....(hmm) Erick, Tertullian's position on baptism should not matter a hill of beans to any of us, not what he thought or taught. He was never invested with authority to teach, never ordained, never canonized, and joined a heretical sect. You would do 100% better to listen to the Church today rather than attempt to figure out what thoughts were generated in antiquity by questionable theologians. What possible bearing could that have on any of us? __________________ + Let nothing disturb thee, nothing affright thee. All things are passing; God alone suffices. St. Teresa of Avila

The "Going to Mass" Apologetic

Here's a recent offering from CTC: Do You Wan to Go to Heaven? which addresses, "So do you mean to say that if I decide to skip Mass on Sunday, and then drop dead on Monday, I will go to Hell?" Which, after various considerations, is affirmed (but not given the typical loopholes and qualifications that many other Roman websites do). The article presents an apologetic against "once saved always saved" etc. and explains to ill-informed Protestants why going to mass is so serious for Roman Catholics that if missed, qualifies as a mortal sin: "When we 'skip Mass' we are deciding that we would rather be elsewhere than in the presence of God the Father, with the angels and saints, in that perfect act of worship which is the presentation of the sacrificial Lamb of God to the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit."

Compare this to: Just Why Are Only 20% of Catholics Attending Mass? Here, a priest explains why only a small percentage of Romanists actually go to mass (poor homilies, poor music, poor hospitality). "A Protestant once said: "If you Catholics really believed what the Church teaches about the Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist, your churches would be full and you would see Catholics crawling on their knees to attend Mass!"

Interesting... CTC is busy "calling" wayward Protestants to "communion".... seems to me 80% of their fellow brethren are, according to a Roman paradigm, in danger of hell. Most of us Protestants, according to a Roman paradigm, just don't know Rome is the true church. That is, many Protestants will at least make it to Purgatory due to our ignorance...

This seems to me to be a poor business move for CTC (their goal: "Our aim is to effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition").

Ah, look at the time... I don't want to be late for church.