Sermon: Hate the sin, love the sinner



This post has been edited by yeeck: Mar 14 2015, 03:13 PM

Catholicism 101:
A Brief Primer





The Trinity

We believe the dogma expressed in the Nicene Creed, which states that God the Father, God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are Three Persons of the One Almighty God. [Read more about the Trinity]. The Three Persons of the Trinity are equally eternal, equally God, equally uncreated. They are the One God in the One Being Who is Being itself, Who is "I AM."


Creation and Fall

We believe that God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), starting with the creatures of the praeternatural order (the angels), one of whom -- Satan, the Evil One -- rebelled, taking a legion of angels with him; these evil ones are known as demons.

Then God created the Heavens, earth and light on the first day; the firmament on the second day; grass, herbs, and fruit trees on the third day; the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day; the creatures of the water and air on the fifth day; and, on the sixth day, the creatures of the land, and a man named Adam. From Adam, He formed Eve.

God created man in His image -- whole, free, and filled with sanctifying grace -- in a paradise known as Eden. But the Evil One tempted Eve to do what God commanded them not to do, and Adam sinned by following suit. Because of the sin of the first man, humankind lost its sanctifying grace and became condemned not only to concupiscence (a propensity to fulfill carnal desires), work, sickness, and death, etc., but to a loss of his likeness to God, and to separateness from God -- a separateness from which we cannot be saved except by the grace of God Himself. This loss of sanctifying grace is known as "original sin." Original sin isn't personal sin (that is, sin resulting from one's choices), but a lack of grace that we cannot overcome on our own. Through Adam and Eve and "the Fall of Man," we are broken and in need of redemption. Man cannot save himself and man-made utopia is not an option (Genesis 11).

We believe that the Old Testament tells the story of God's entrusting the Israelites, through Abraham, to be His People, and that the Prophets of this Old Covenant predicted the coming of the Messiah who would be able to reconcile man with God.


Incarnation

We believe that Second Person of the Trinity took on Flesh, by the Holy Ghost, through the ever-Virgin Mary. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, the Theotokos -- the God-Bearer -- in that she brought forth, through the Holy Spirit and her Grace-inspired "YES," the Son of the Living God Whose Name is Jesus and Who is the Messiah Whom the prophets foretold. Mary is not the mother of God the Father or of God the Holy Spirit. She is the Mother of the Divine Person Jesus, Who is God. The Christ's divine and human natures are in complete hypostasis and cannot be separated, and mothers are the mothers of persons, not "natures"; she is the Mother of the Person of Jesus, Who is God. She is, therefore, the mother of God. Though veneration of Mary is only because of her Son's grace, though she is not a "godess" in any way, and though she is not to be worshiped as God, she is to be emulated, loved and admired because she points the way to her Son. All generations will call her blessed! (Luke 1:26-48)

We believe that Jesus was crucified for our salvation and that all salvation comes from His sacrifice and only through His sacrifice. This Sacrifice was necessary because God is holy, loving, jealous, and just, but our sins are great and they offend Him. In order for God's honor -- offended by our sins -- to be preserved and for His wrath at our sins to be assuaged, there had to be atonement. In order for His holiness to not be offended and for us to see Heaven (nothing unholy can enter Heaven!), the Second Person of the Trinity Himself took on flesh and was crucified to satisfy the Father for our sins. As Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologia, III, 49:

...Christ's Passion is in two ways the cause of our reconciliation to God. In the first way, inasmuch as it takes away sin by which men became God's enemies, according to Wisdom 14:9: "To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"; and Psalm. 5:7: "Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity." In another way, inasmuch as it is a most acceptable sacrifice to God. Now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to appease God: just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him. Hence it is written (1 Kings. 26:19): "If the Lord stir thee up against me, let Him accept of sacrifice." And in like fashion Christ's voluntary suffering was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ in the aforesaid manner...

The Father sent the Son to suffer and die because He loves us and wants us to be with Him, to share in His divine nature -- something we can't do or earn on our own. So holy is He and so poor are we! It is by the Passion and Blood of Jesus that the Father is appeased, that we may be saved, and that the gates of Heaven are opened up to us. By no other Name than Jesus can any man see the Father.

We believe that Jesus bodily rose again after His Crucifixion and ascended into Heaven, sending the Holy Ghost after Him to sanctify, guide, and protect His Church. His Resurrection is a sign of His promise to us for our own lives if we believe, repent, are baptized, and obey the will of God as revealed to us in His Sacred Scripture and through the infallible teachings of His Church (i.e., the teachings handed down to us by Christ and the Apostles or explicitly and solemnly defined by the Pope or Church Councils).


The Four Last Things:
Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell

We believe that when a person dies, he faces a "particular judgement": he immediately goes to Heaven, to Hell (including the possibility of Limbo for the unbaptized who are innocent of personal sins), or to Purgatory. Purgatory is where those who, by the Blood of Christ, are already saved from the eternal effects of sin but who still have the temporal effects of sins on their souls go to be cleansed ("purged") before they are allowed to see the face of God when they enter Heaven (1 Corinthians 3:13-15, Hebrews 12:14, Hebrews 12:22-23, 1 Peter 4:6, Revelation 21:10-27). [Read more about Purgatory]

We believe that at the end of time, there will be a Last Judgement, when the King of Kings, Christ Jesus, will come in glory, to judge the entire world. This will happen after a Great Apostasy (which many traditional Catholics believe we are very possibly seeing now given the state of our hierarchy), a great Tribulation (from which the Church will not be spared via a "Rapture"), and a final Antichrist who will deceive many into believing he is a man of peace and justice. At this Last Judgement, the bodies of the dead will be resurrected and reunited with their souls. The Evil One and his demons will be thrown into the pit of Hell. Those bound for Hell will go to Hell; those who are in Hell will remain in Hell. Those who are bound for Heaven will go to Heaven, and those in Heaven will remain in Heaven, their bodies glorified, to endure in the Presence of Love forever and ever, world without end. [see End Times]



The Church

We believe that the Mystical Body of Christ -- the nation of priests and kings, Israel, the Church -- is of three parts:
the Church Militant: Christians on earth, the "Historical Church";

the Church Suffering: Christians in Purgatory where they are being cleansed before standing before God (also called the "Church Purificatory"); and
the Church Triumphant: Christians in Heaven
We believe that death does not separate the members of His Church and that we are exhorted to pray for one another and ask others to pray for us. [read more about the Saints and Purgatory]

We believe that Jesus Christ is the spiritual Foundation Stone, the High Priest and Head of the Church and that He authorized Peter, as the earthly rock of the Church, to shepherd His sheep (Matthew 16:18-19). The Christ-given authority entrusted to Peter and the other Apostles, with Peter as the Chief Apostle, is passed on by "apostolic succession" through the Bishops, with the Bishop of Rome as their source of unity and earthly king, and Christ Jesus as King of Kings (Acts 1:21-26, 1 Timothy 1:6, 1 Timothy 4:14, 1 Timothy 5:22, and the unanimous agreement of early Christian writings). [read more about Peter]

We believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, that while scandal may sometimes ensue, while Satan makes his efforts (as he is doing now with great success), the Church's dogma will be kept pure in that nothing against the Faith will be presented as infallible. We believe that the Apostles and their successors were given authority by Christ to teach, to interpret Sacred Scripture, to bind and loose, to exorcise demons, to ordain, to baptize, annoint the sick, and administer the other Sacraments. [read more about the Marks of the Church].

The Church Militant is made of the ritual Churches that are in communion with the Petrine Ministry (the office held by the successors of Peter). The particular churches in the full Catholic Communion use 6 different rites, or traditions concerning how the Sacraments (see below) are to be offered. These ritual churches of the One, True Church are dogmatically the same though their points of theological emphasis (and language for their expression), liturgical and devotional styles, canonical disciplines, martyrology (Saints and martyrs that they honor), sacred art, etc., differ. Members of these particular churches belong to the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.

The 6 main rites and the ritual Catholic churches of the One Catholic Church are:
The Roman Rite (The Mass of St. Gregory the Great): the Latin Church (or the "Roman Church" -- the ritual Church most Westerners think of when they think of "the Catholic Church" and whose Patriarch, the Bishop of Rome, is the Pope, who has primacy over all the particular Churches that make up the Catholic Church).


The Byzantine Rite (Liturgy of St. James, St. Basil and Others): Albanian Church; Belarussian/Byelorussian Church; Bulgarian Church; Croatian (Krizevci) Church; Georgian Church; Greek Church; Hungarian Church; Italo-Greek (or Italo-Albanian) Church; Melkite Church; Romanian Church; Russian Church; Ruthenian Church; Serbian Church; Slovak Church; and the Ukrainian Church


The Alexandrian Rite (Liturgy of St. Mark): Coptic Church; and the Ethiopian/Abyssinian Church. The languages of these Churches are Coptic (Egyptian) and Ge'ez, respectively.


The Antiochian Rite (Liturgy of St. James): Maronite Church; Syrian Church; and the Syro-Malankar Church. The language of these Churches is Aramaic (ancient Syriac).


The Chaldean Rite (Derived from Antiochene Rite): Chaldean Church; and the Syro-Malabarese Church. The language of these Churches is Syriac.


Armenian Rite (Greek Liturgy of St. Basil)
Each Catholic ritual church (known as a Church sui iuris) has its own Patriarch (sometimes called a "Metropolitan" or "pope" -- i.e., "papa") who is in communion with the Roman Pope, the man who holds the office of Peter. The (Roman) Pope has a triple role as Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West, and Supreme Pontiff of the entire Catholic Church.

Every Catholic, no matter his ritual church 1, believes the same dogma and may receive the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance, and Unction from any other ritual Catholic Church; in our union through the Petrine ministry, we are all one as Christ desires [Matthew 12:25, 16:18, John 10:16, John 17:20-23, Acts 4:32, Romans 12:5, Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, Corinthians 3:3-4, Corinthians 10:17, Corinthians 11:18-19, Corinthians 12:12-27, Corinthians 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Ephesians 4:3-6, Philippians 1:27, 2:2-3, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Titus 3:9-10, James 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1].

The Church has two types of members: living members (those in a state of grace, whether they be in the Church Militant, Suffering or Triumphant) and dead members (those not in a state of grace, i.e., those in mortal sin (I John 5:16-17), who are necessarily of the Church Militant). Dead members cannot be saved unless they are reconciled and returned to a state of grace through the Sacrament of Penance (or a perfect act of contrition if the Sacrament is unavailable).


No Salvation Outside of the Church :
"Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"

There is no salvation outside of Christ, and the Church is the Bride of Christ -- become His Body, one Flesh in marriage. Therefore, there is no salvation outside of the Church and not belonging formally to the Catholic Church is objectively sinful:

Matthew 18:17
"If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican"

Luke 10:16
"He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me, and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me"

Mark 16:16
"He that believeth not will be condemned"

John 3:18
"He that believeth not is already judged"

Luke 11:23
"He that is not with Me is against Me and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth"

This does not mean, however, that if one is necessarily damned if one is not a formal member of the visible society of God's Kingdom on earth -- the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. What it means is that: Christ founded one Church with Peter as His Vicar; that this Church was given the powers of binding and loosing, that this Church exists today; that it is the source of the Gospel and the earthly source of the Sacraments without which, normatively, one cannot be saved. Those who are not formal members might be saved and become associated with the soul of the Church if they:
are validly baptized by water and spirit, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (all who are baptized are subject to the Church even if they are not formal members because Baptism belongs to the Church), and have not committed a mortal sin (or who, if they have committed a mortal sin, have made a perfect act of contrition), which means a sin concerning a grave matter committed with full knowledge and consent of the will, and are animated by charity and a supernatural Faith in God's existence, and seek Him, and firmly believe that their religion is the true religion such that there is no conflict or doubt about such in their ill-formed conscience, and are not formally outside of the Church in spite of doubts about the possibility that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ (if one believes it is possible that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, one is duty-bound to investigate)

In addition, those individuals who, through no fault of their own, have no means to hear of Christ-given Baptism and are invincibly ignorant -- who've never heard the Name Jesus, know nothing of the Church, or misunderstand Church teachings -- but who obey the Natural Law written in all men's hearts and who truly seek God are left to the mercy of Christ Who may save them as He desires. Christ will judge our wills, hearts, intellects, and deeds, and shall have mercy and compassion on whom He will have mercy and compassion (Romans 9:15); those whom He deigns to save He can well give the grace of the Sacraments to in a manner beyond our ken -- perhaps even in their final breath, by illuminating their souls in a supernatural way such that they desire Baptism, even if implicitly, and therefore become associated with the Soul of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. This is something we can never presume -- but we can pray for.

I note here, too, that there is also the possibility of Limbo -- a state of perfect natural happiness -- for those who die unregenerated (unbaptized) and with the stain of original sin, but who've committed no personal sin. While these people would not enter Heaven as they are not born again of water and Spirit (or the desire for it), they would also experience no subjective sufferings. This teaching is not a part of revelation and is, therefore, not a matter of dogma. There is no consensus among the Church Fathers on the matter; some believed in the existence of Limbo (e.g., most of the Greek Fathers, St. Augustine in his early writings, St. Gregory Nanzianus, St. Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas) while others didn't (e.g., St. Augustine in his later writings, St. Anselm). But it is a most definite possibility that can be piously believed given the truths that God is not only merciful but just and, therefore, will not punish someone for that which involves no personal guilt. While believing this proposition, which is the prevalent belief among traditional Catholics, one must never forget how easy it is to sin -- and that most everyone who's reached the age of reason has (in fact, because of the rarity of those who've reached the age of reason and have not committed personal sins, "Limbo" is often referred to as "Children's Limbo.")

These possibilities are left to the mercy of God, however, and the presumption of salvation in any sense on the part of anyone who is not a formal member of the the visible Church is a sin against the Holy Spirit. We can pray for such, but we cannot presume such. We cannot presume this association with the Soul of the Church on the part of any particular individual who is not a manifest member the Church; in fact, we are to presume the opposite because they are objectively in sin, even if not culpably so, and we must do all we can to bring them to the Sacraments, which are true media of grace. We are to preach the fullness of the Truth, pray for God's mercy on all who are apart from the Sacraments, and always remember that material heresy is still heresy, no matter the level of culpability a material heretic might possess. While some who are not formal members of the Church might be illumined before death such that they desire Baptism and are then allowed to see Heaven by the Grace of Christ and become, therefore, associated with the Soul of the Church, the non-Catholic elements of other religions do not mediate grace in and of themselves, and it is always God's will that all formally become part of the eternally unified Mystical Body of Christ. The salvation of these souls would be in spite of, not because of, their religion.

In this regard, any "ecumenism" that is not false will have as its goal the bringing of all into the Church as formal members, be they Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, pagan, or secular. The goal of any true "ecumenism" isn't "unity" because the Church is already unified; His Body is already unified. The return of heretics, schismatics, and apostates to the bosom of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church is the only goal of true ecumenism.

The proper attitude to take toward the Truth that those who are not formal members of the Church might be saved if they meet the above criteria is expressed well in this analogy by Harold E. Welitz:

Let's say that a father kept a loaded gun in the house. Now, certainly it has occurred since the invention of the revolver that a bullet has failed to fire when the trigger was pulled. Therefore, based on this possibility should the father continually remind his children that if they play with a gun and shoot at each other, it may not go off? Would that be a wise and prudent father, one who truly cares for his children? If the father continually discussed the possibility that the gun may not go off if the trigger were pulled, would he be misleading his children? Yes! Although what he is saying is not false, it is deceptive because it implies that something that is rare is actually likely. The result will be that the children will become more negligent in playing with loaded guns, which most likely will kill one of them. Should the father not say: "Do not play with a loaded gun, whatever you do! If you play with a loaded gun, someone will get killed." A wise and prudent father may realize there are a very slight percentage of bullets that are defective, but he knows it is not wise to continually remind his children of this, lest they become forgetful of the dangers of playing with loaded guns.

To carry the metaphor further: Catholics don't let non-Catholics play with guns. When others do play with guns, we can pray and have human hope that they don't get shot, but we can't expect or have a "good hope" that they won't. If, in fact, they are not "shot," we know that they are a part of the Church outside of which there is no salvation.

Bottom line: We can't know the subjective states of the souls of manifest heretics, and we can't know how God might or might not illumine the the souls of the invincibly ignorant. But we can and do know what He has revealed about Himself, and we must tell others this Gospel. We can and do know what He told us about His Church, and we must bring people to it. We can and do know what He told us to do, and we must do it. And we must do these things with firmness, boldness, prudence, and great charity, all while begging mercy for sinners, including ourselves.



Authority

The authority of the Church rests on three pillars:
Scripture: The Bible is the inerrant word of God and is to be read as the earliest Christians read it: in the light of Tradition and under the guidance of those ordained to teach. The Books of the Old Testament were put together by the Hebrews in the Septuagint (ca 300 B.C.), which includes the seven Books called "Deuterocanonical" by Catholics and "Apocryphal" by Protestants, and was the Old Testament used by the Apostles. The Books of the New Testament were made canonical over time and were first listed over 300 years after the Resurrection. [see more on the Canon of the Bible and the Septuagint and on Sola Scriptura: The Fallacy of the Bible alone as the Rule of Faith]


Tradition: the teachings which the Church has preserved and passed down from Christ, His Apostles, and the unanimous teachings of the early Church Fathers (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6).

(The above two pillars are referred to as "The Deposit of Faith")
Magisterium: the teaching authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The teachings of Catholic hierarchs have three different levels of fallibility:

Extraordinary Magisterium:
Extraordinary infallible teaching given in the very rare exercise of the Pope alone, only when, in his capacity as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians and by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a dogma concerning faith and morals so as to be held by the whole Church and does so ex cathedra -- i.e., "from the chair" of Peter. Also called the "Solemn Magisterium."


Ordinary Magisterium:
Ordinary infallible teaching by Pope, Bishop, or anyone with the proper authority to teach which illumines doctrine that has always been believed and accepted by the universal Church. Also called the "Universal Magisterium" or the "Constant Magisterium" and its exercise can be recognized when a teaching is one that is has been held "always and everywhere" by the Church. [Note: some Catholics forget this category of teaching and believe that only if a teaching is solemnly defined ex cathedra is it infallible. These "Catholics," forgetting Tradition, are the "liberals" and "modernists" one always sees on TV]

Authentic Magisterium:
Teaching by Pope, Bishop, or anyone with the proper authority to teach, that does not fit into the above two categories. All authorized teaching is owed proper, intelligent, prayerful religious assent, but must be resisted if it leads to sin, compromises the Faith and the salvation of souls, or contradicts the above two levels of Magisterium, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, Scripture, and Tradition. [Note: some otherwise wonderful Catholics forget this category of teaching and think everything the Pope does and says is "infallible," an attitude that borders on papolatry. These Catholics are the "neo-conservatives" or "neo-Catholics" who defend the novelties since Vatican II and some of the scandalous behaviors of Bishops and the Holy Father -- e.g., Qu'ran-kissing, ecumenism that leads to indifferentism, etc. -- but while still truly trying to be orthodox.]

The Pope is supreme pastor, the "King of Bishops," and he outranks all Bishops, individually or collectively. "The Roman Pontiff has power over the entire Church, can exercise power over all, whether over the whole or over one; he can exercise power without being limited by anyone, neither Pastor nor faithful" (G. Siri, La giovimzza della Chiesa).

However, of course, neither the Pope as Pontiff nor any Bishop can lawfully or morally contradict Scripture or Tradition as interpreted and passed down by the universal Church. Any teaching of Pope, Bishop, or Council that attempts to nullify what has always been taught is null and void in se. In other words, magisterium that contradicts former magisterium is not infallible magisterium. From Pastor Aeternus, section De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio of Vatican I:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.

Doctrine and dogma may be clarified, explained more fully, and be more explicitly defined, but they cannot be contradicted by anyone, by neither Pope nor Council.



The Seven Sacraments or "Holy Mysteries"

The Church has 7 Sacraments -- "outward signs of invisible grace" and media of sanctifying grace. The Sacraments were given to us by Christ so that we may receive His grace and become more like Him. The Seven Sacraments are:
Baptism: with immersion in water, sprinkling of water, or the pouring of water over the skin of the forehead while the words "I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (or "Holy Spirit") are said by one who intends to initiate the baptized into the Christian life, one is baptized for the remission of all sins, both original sin and personal sins, and their effects.

Through Baptism in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19), we are born again (John 3) of water and of the Spirit and enter into the New Covenant. This is the initial rite of Christian initiation (Acts 2:38-39, Acts 16:32-35, Ephesians 4:3-5, Colossians 2:11-12, Didache ch. 7), and all who are baptized with water and Spirit, using these words, by anyone (layman or priest) who intends to do what the Church does, is validly baptized -- whether they are baptized by Pentecostals, Baptists, Orthodox, etc. -- and cannot be re-baptized. If one desires to formally join the Catholic Church but is unsure about the validity of his baptism, he is conditionally baptized with water and the words, "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Baptism replaces circumcision (Colossians 2:11–12), and just as children were circumcized at the age of 8 days in the Old Covenant, children, even infants, are welcome in God's Kingdom and are baptized as soon as possible (Matthew 19:14, Luke 18:15–16, Acts 2:39). This is the early practice of the Church, as evident by St. Paul's baptizing of entire households (Acts 16:15, 1 Corinthians 1:16) and the words of Christ and His Apostles (Mark 10:14, Acts 2:38-39). [Read more about Baptism]

Aside from the Baptism by water and Spirit, without the graces of which one can't be saved, there are the analogically-named "Baptism of Blood" and the "Baptism of Desire." Baptism of Blood is martyrdom -- that is, dying for the sake of the Faith. Baptism of desire is the vow to receive Baptism by one who has a a living faith and the desire to do all the Lord commands, but who doesn't have the earthly possibility of water baptism (or who dies before receiving it). Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire both have the saving effects of water Baptism, by the mercy of Christ.


Confirmation ("Chrismation" or the "Sacrament of the Seal"): Confirmation is the laying on of hands by a Bishop or authorized priest and becoming sealed to the Holy Ghost, becoming annointed spiritually and, literally, with sacred oil -- a consecrated olive oil called "chrism" or "oil of gladness." Confirmation is becoming infused with the Holy Ghost, sealed to Him by grace and fortified in becoming true soldiers of Christ (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, Ephesians 1:13, Hebrews 1:9, Hebrews 6:1-6).


Eucharist ("Communion"): We believe that at Mass (the "Divine Liturgy") the bread and wine truly become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ glorified and that no one should eat of it unworthily (John 6, Luke 22:19, John 6:52-58, Acts 2:42, 1 Corinthians 10, 1 Cor. 11:27-29, Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Smyraeans, Didache ch. 9 ). The Eucharist should only be received by the baptized who are in a state of grace (who have no unconfessed mortal sins on their soul), and after prayer and fasting. The bread used must be made only of wheat and water (nothing else may be added, though leaven is used in Eastern Churches); the wine must be true grape wine. The one offering the Mass at which the bread and wine become Christ must be a validly ordained priest using the proper form. See "Mass/Divine Liturgy" below.

(In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the above
three Sacraments are received at the same time, even infants.)

Penance ("Confession" or "Reconciliation"): We confess our sins to God, in the presence of his priests (through his priests), so that we can be freed from their eternal effects and reconcile with Him and with His Church (Matthew 9:5-8, Matthew 16:18-19, 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, 2 Corinthians 5:18, James 5:14-16, Didache 4:14, 14:1). For there to be a valid confession, one must confess his sins, with a contrite heart and the desire for pardon, to a priest with jurisdiction (ordinary or supplied) who uses the proper form of absolution, which is the words "Ego te absolvo" ("I absolve you"). If no priest is available, one may make an act of perfect contrition, confessing to God directly and begging forgiveness (one must resolve to go to a priest when one is available for a perfect act of contrition to be valid). Confession of sins to other Christians is a sacramental which remits venial sins and is encouraged, but it is not a Sacrament.


Holy Matrimony: See Matthew 5:31-33, Matthew 19:8-10, Mark 10:10-12, Luke 16:17-19, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. The Sacrament of Matrimony is the covenental joining of the validly baptized Bride and Groom as head of their own little domestic "church" and the source of their spirit of self-sacrifice that allows them to put their children first. A valid Sacramental marriage has as its primary purpose the begetting and raising of children; the unitive aspects of marriage are secondary. Marriage, therefore, is open to life if the marital right (the right of each spouse to the other's body, 1 Corinthians 7:4) is exercised. In the rare instance that both spouses mutually consent to not exercise their marital rights and decide to remain sexually continent in imitation of Joseph and Mary and for the sake of the Kingdom, the marriage is termed a "Josephite marriage."

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder": marriage lasts until the death of one of the spouses (Mark 10:11-12). "Re-marriage" after separation (as in physical separation due to threats of physical danger) in a valid, Sacramental and consummated marriage is impermissible.

A declaration of nullity ("annulment") is not a "Catholic divorce" (though, sadly, it is too-often treated as such by many modern hierarchs); it is a Church tribunal's finding that a valid Sacramental marriage never existed in the first place (i.e., God did not join the two in the first place) because, at the time the vows were exchanged, certain conditions were present indicating that one of the couple did not intend for a valid, Sacramental marriage to take place. Some of these conditions are impotence, unwillingness to be open to procreation if the marital right is exercised, unwillingness to commit to fidelity, etc..

For there to be a valid Sacramental marriage, there must be none of the impediments listed above, the two must be validly baptized, and both must mutually consent to marriage. The man and woman act as minister (the priest presides, but does not marry them; they marry each other).


Holy Orders ("Ordination"): the integration of men into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons which confers a gift of the Holy Ghost that permits the exercise of a sacred power (sacra potestas) which can come only from Christ Himself, through his Church, by the laying on of hands by a true Bishop in the line of Apostolic Succession (Mark 6:7, Luke 10:16, John 13:20, John 15:5, John 20:21, Acts 14:23, Romans 10:15, 2 Corinthians 5:20, 1 Timothy 4:14, 1 Timothy 5:23, the Book of Hebrews).

In the Latin Church's discipline, only unmarried men can become ordained. In many of the Eastern Churches, married men can become ordained, though they may not marry after ordination and may not become Bishops. In the early Church, married priests were sexually continent (abstinent); it is this Tradition that lives on only in the sexually continent and celibate (unmarried) priesthood of the Latin Church and in those Eastern Catholic priests who are sexually continent, whether celibate or not. See Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira (A.D. 300-306); Canon 1 of the Council of Neocæsarea (A.D. 315); Canon 3 of the Council of Carthage (A.D. 390); Canon III of the Quinisext Council of Trullo (A.D. 691) which speaks of the Eastern Churches changing their chastity rules while "they of the most holy Roman Church purpose to keep the rule of exact perfection," etc.

Women cannot and will never be ordained into the priesthood, though a female diaconate of sorts is part of our Tradition insofar as women, referred to as "deaconesses," sometimes helped minister to other women in the early Church (moreso in the East) when it came to such things as the Baptism of other women by immersion, where modesty was an issue, and caring for the sick. They were not, however, priests, they did not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, etc. (see Canon 19 of the First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.).


Extreme Unction ("Sacrament of the Sick"): See Matthew 10:1, Luke 9:1-2, Luke 9:6, and James 5:13-15. the annointing before death with consecrated olive oil is known as "Last Rites" or "Extreme Unction," and the Eucharist itself that is given at that time is known as "Viaticum" ("food for the journey" from the Latin viaticus meaning "journey". Unction purifies the soul by remitting sins, and heals the body if it is God's will.

Sacraments are not magic: while they impart sanctifying grace, in order for those who've reached the age of reason to benefit from them, he must receive them with the proper intention; in other words, they require faith! If one has attained the age of reason, for ex., and does not believe in Christ but is baptized, objectively, true grace is given, but, subjectively, he will receive the fruits of his Baptism only when/if he later believes. The Sacrament of Confession, as an other example, requires true contrition (e.g., one can't knowingly commit a sin, go to Confession without true repentance and while planning on committing that same sin again, and expect to receive Sacramental effects), etc.

The Sacraments are also normatively required: for example, if one is in the middle of a desert and no water is available to conduct the rite of Baptism in the proper way, as Christ desires we be baptised, one is still "baptised" by desire if he would be baptized in the proper way if the means were available to him. This does not make the rites less important; it only demonstrates the power of Christ's mercy. One who has no priest available may make a spiritual Communion and receive the fruits of the Eucharist. A perfect act of contrition can give one the fruits of Confession even though no priest is available. And so on. The point: God is not bound by the Sacraments; we are bound by the Sacraments!

The Sacraments also are not human works; they are the work of Christ operating through the priest (or other minister, as in some cases of Baptism and in Matrimony), and their effectiveness does not depend on the personal holiness of the minister. The necessary elements are that the priest have proper power and authorization, the proper intention, and that he uses the prescribed matter (e.g. water, oil, bread made of wheat and water, etc.) and form (i.e., the rite must be properly performed). In other words, if these things are followed, the Sacraments give sanctifying grace in a manner known as ex opere operato, or "by the deed done" -- by the very fact of the action. The grace is fruitful depending on the faith of the one who receives the Sacrament (or the faith of his parents, in the case of infant baptism).



The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist

Christ is our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek -- and in order for a priesthood of any kind to exist, there must be a sacrifice. When we go to Mass (the Divine Liturgy), the Sacrifice of Christ's once and for all, historical Passion and Crucifixion is re-presented; it is not repeated in any sense of Christ "dying again." While the Crucifixion was a specific, finite historical event from our physics-bound point of view, God is transcendent and outside of time, and Christ's offering of Himself is eternal. As one apologist puts it, "One can't 'repeat' what has never ended!"

At the Mass, the bread and wine become the sacramental Presence of Jesus Christ. It is not only "symbolic"; it is the real, true bringing-forth of the glorified Body and Blood of our Lord, Who is then offered to appease the Father as a perfect Sacrifice -- a re-presentation of Christ's Historical and perfect, once and for all Sacrifice at Calvary. This offering was predicted (see Malachi 1:10–11) and was believed to be sacrificial and propitiatory in nature by the very earliest Christians (I challenge all who call themselves Christian to research this! Read Ignatius, John Chrystostom, Pope Clement I, Justin Martyr, the Didache -- any of the very earliest Christians' writings!).

The reality of the Presence of God in the Eucharist is made clear in the 6th chapter of John, and Luke 22:19-20 minces no words when it says "This IS my Body... This IS my Blood." The Jews in John 6, even some of His followers, walked away from Him out of disgust over this teaching, but Jesus didn't backtrack at all; He maintained that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. The Temple walls fell as Jesus said they would, and those "last days" of the Old Covenant have ended. But the Sacrifice continues with Christ's eternal offering to us the gift of Himself. The New Covenant is here, and we are all invited to enter into it! The tabernacle lamps still burn brightly in Catholic churches... (at least the ones that follow pre-Vatican II rubrics).

In our liturgy, Christ's ordained priests offer Christ under the appearances of bread and wine (Genesis 14:18, Psalm 110:1-4, Malachi 1:10–11, John 6:53–58) as a pure sacrificial offering to the Father in order to appease Him; Christ offers Himself to us by His Real Presence in the Eucharist after the Holy Ghost changes these gifts from "bread and wine" into Sacrament; and we, members of the royal priesthood (what Protestants call "the priesthood of believers"), offer ourselves to God, worshipping Him with the angels in Heaven who sing "Holy, Holy, Holy!" without ceasing. (Listen to Real Audio lessons about the Eucharist at the bottom of the Scott Hahn Apologetics page of this site, and listen to how the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) describes, in part, the Heavenly liturgy)



Salvation

In the Old Testament, the Israelites upheld their Covenant with God by keeping Moses' Law and, of course, the great Commandments. Christians are freed from The Law (later twisted into Talmudism by the Pharisees) and enter into the New Covenant by Baptism. We are saved by the grace of His Passion and Blood alone, a grace we have to actively cooperate with through metanoia (repentance and a turning of the heart toward Christ), submitting our wills to our Father's, and obedience. When we enter into this Covenant, we literally become His children, His family. God the Father becomes for us Abba and Christ seals us to Him with His own Blood. Our task -- and our reward -- is to "become divinized" (to undergo "theosis"), to "put on Christ" and share in the Divine Energies of God and Christ's Sonship. We become the heirs of God Himself. In this divinization, this theosis, His Chosen will share in God's divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) -- but still as creatures of God and not as God Himself or in any way apart from God. We will forever and always be creatures, "becoming God" by sharing in His divine nature, but never in His divine essence -- and never, ever apart from God, which is the lie Satan first told to Eve. The created can never become Uncreated.

We agree entirely with the many Protestants who say one has to "have a personal relationship with Jesus" or "let Jesus into one's heart" if, by that, they mean that we are to pray earnestly, walk the walk, make His Will manifest in our lives, preach the Gospel, etc. We are to turn our hearts toward Christ! We must experience true conversion! We believe, too, that no aspect of our relationsip with Christ can be more intimate and awesome than by prayerfully and humbly receiving Him through the Eucharist and receiving His graces through His other Sacraments!

We refute the idea that all one needs to do in order to be saved is to say "The Sinner's Prayer" (though it is a nice prayer, as far as it goes); we believe that we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12) lest we be cast away (I Corinthians 9:27) -- but always with the knowledge of God's Fatherly Love and Mercy for us, His adopted children. Likewise, we reject the idea that one can work his way into Heaven or that any Christian's works have salvific merit outside of Christ's grace. Neither faith alone, nor works alone, nor faith and works together saves us or puts God into debt to us; He owes us nothing! Neither getting on your knees once and saying the "Sinner's Prayer," no matter how sincerely, nor a lifetime working at soup kitchens, but without faith and the Sacraments, will save you. It is His grace alone that saves -- a grace we accept in faith and by doing His will!

Though we believe in predestination (Ephesians 1:11), we see it as an inscrutable Mystery, and we reject any ideas of predestination that deny the free will of man or which make God the Author of sin by seeing Him as also predestining some souls to go to Hell (i.e., as in any idea of "double predestination"). We assert that we are created by God in His image, that He created us freely able to choose Him or to choose sin, and that predestination beyond recognizing His omniscience, would render His divine plan meaningless. We believe that free will exists both before and after justification. In other words, a person who enters the Covenant may freely leave it and lose his salvation (2 Peter 2:20-21). While we do believe that whom God elects, He will save, we don't presume to know who the elect are (I Corinthians 4:4)! This is a Mystery of God that we can't presume to know, let alone base an entire theology and soteriology on.

Summary: We are saved by grace alone, through a saving faith (i.e., a faith that works in love, Galatians 5:6), and as a fruit of Christ's having suffered and shed His blood for us. Christianity is both a "head religion" and a "heart religion"; we intellectually assent to the Truths given to us by the Church through Her Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and these Truths affirm that we must give our hearts to Jesus. In other words, we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). To focus only on the heart without including the mind (i.e., to forget doctrine and rely on "experience" and "feelings") is to lapse into heresy and subjectivism; to focus on the intellect without including the heart (i.e., to forget humility, repentance, and, above all, charity) is to lapse into a legalistic Pharisaism.

To be saved: believe and trust in Jesus, repent of your sins, be baptized, receive the Eucharist, and obey the will of God as taught to us in the Bible and the constant teachings of the Church. Love God with all your heart and mind and soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Source: Fisheaters

This post has been edited by yeeck: Mar 16 2015, 04:23 PM

An interesting article since it was mentioned during Sunday sermon regarding our modern-day Judaizers who comes knocking on your doors once in a while, i.e. Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists.

From: Catholic Encyclopedia

Judaizers

(From Greek Ioudaizo, to adopt Jewish customs — Esther 8:17; Galatians 2:14).

A party of Jewish Christians in the Early Church, who either held that circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were necessary for salvation and in consequence wished to impose them on the Gentile converts, or who at least considered them as still obligatory on the Jewish Christians. Although the Apostles had received the command to announce the Gospel to all the nations, they and their associates addressed themselves at first only to Jews, converts to Judaism, and Samaritans, that is to those who were circumcised and observed the law of Moses. The converts, and the Apostles with them, continued to conform to Jewish customs: they observed the distinction between legally clean and unclean food, refused to eat with Gentiles or to enter their houses, etc. (Acts 10:14, 28; 11:3). At Jerusalem they frequented the Temple and took part in Jewish religious life as of old (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 21:20-26), so that, judged from external appearances, they seemed to be merely a new Jewish sect distinguished by the union and charity existing among its members. The Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be permanent indeed, but the time had not yet come for abolishing its observance. The intense attachment which the Jews had for it, amounting to fanaticism in the case of the Pharisees, would have forbidden such a step, had the Apostles contemplated it, as it would have been tantamount to shutting the door of the Church to the Jews.
But sooner or later the Gospel was also to reach the Gentiles, and then the delicate question must immediately arise: What was their position with respect to the Law? Were they bound to observe it? And if not, what conduct should the Jews hold towards them? Should the Jews waive such points of the Law as were a barrier to free relations between Jew and Gentile? To the mind of most Palestinian Jews, and especially of the zealots, only two solutions would present themselves as possible. Either the Gentile converts must accept the Law, or its provisions must be enforced against them as against the other uncircumcised. But national sentiment, as well as love for the Law, would impel them to prefer the first. And yet neither solution was admissible, if the Church was to embrace all nations and not remain a national institution. The Gentiles would never have accepted circumcision with the heavy yoke of Mosaism, nor would they have consented to occupy an inferior position with regard to the Jews, as they necessarily must, if these regarded them as unclean and declined to eat with them or even to enter their houses. Under such conditions it was easy to foresee that the admission of the Gentiles must provoke a crisis, which would clear the situation. When the brethren at Jerusalem, among whom probably were already converts of the sect of the Pharisees, learned that Peter had admitted Cornelius and his household to baptism without subjecting them to circumcision, they loudly expostulated with him (Acts 11:1-3). The cause assigned for their complaints is that he "had gone in to men uncircumcised and had eaten with them", but the underlying reason was that he had dispensed with circumcision. However, as the case was an exceptional one, where the will of God was manifested be miraculous circumstances, Peter found little difficulty in quieting the dissatisfaction (Acts 11:4-18). But new conversions soon gave rise to far more serious trouble, which for a time threatened to produce a schism in the Church.

Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 50 or 51)

The persecution that broke out at the time of St. Stephen's martyrdom providentially hastened the hour when the Gospel was to be preached also to the Gentiles. Some natives of Cyprus and Cyrene, driven from Jerusalem by the persecution, went to Antioch, and there began to preach not only to the Jews, but also to the Greeks. Their action was probably prompted by the example set by Peter at Caesarea, which their more liberal views as Hellenists would naturally dispose them to follow. With the help of Barnabas, whom the Apostles sent on hearing that a great number of Gentiles were converted to the Lord at Antioch, and of the former persecutor Saul, a flourishing church, largely Gentile, was established there (Acts 11:20 sqq.). Soon after (between A.D. 45-49) Saul, now called Paul, and Barnabas founded the South Galatian churches of Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Derbe, and Perge, thus increasing the Gentile converts (Acts 13:13-14:24). Seeing the Gentile element growing so large and threatening the outnumber the Jewish, the zealots of the Law took alarm. Both their national pride and their religious sentiment were shocked. They welcomed the accession of the Gentiles, but the Jewish complexion of the Church must be maintained, the Law and the Gospel must go hand in hand, and the new converts must be Jews as well as Christians. Some went down to Antioch and preached to the Gentile Christians that unless they received circumcision, which as a matter of course would carry with it the observance of the other Mosaic prescriptions, they could not be saved (Acts 15:1). As these men appealed to the authority of the Apostles in support of their views, a delegation, including Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, was sent to Jerusalem to lay the matter before the Apostles, that their decision might set at rest the disquieted minds of the Christians at Antioch (Acts 15:2).
In a private interview which Paul had with Peter, James (the brother of the Lord), and John, the Apostles then present at Jerusalem, they approved his teaching and recognized his special mission to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:1-9). But to still the clamours of the converts from Pharisaism who demanded that the Gentile converts "must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the Law of Moses", the matter was discussed in a public meeting. Peter arose and after recalling how Cornelius and his household, though uncircumcised, had received the Holy Ghost as well as they themselves, declared that as salvation is by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the yoke of the Law, which even the Jews found exceedingly heavy, should not be imposed on the Gentile converts. James after him voiced the same sentiment, but asked that the Gentiles should observe these four points, namely "that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood". His suggestion was adopted and, with slight change in the wording, incorporated in the decree which "the apostles and ancients, with the whole church" sent to the churches of Syria and Cilicia through two delegates, Judas and Silas, who were to accompany Paul and Barnabas on their return. "Forasmuch as we have heard," so ran the decree, "that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls: to whom we gave no commandment;. . .it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication [by which marriages within certain degrees of kindred are probably meant]; from which things keeping yourselves you shall do well" (Acts 15:5-29). These four prohibitions were imposed for the sake of charity and union. As they forbade practices which were held in special abhorrence by all the Jews, their observance was necessary to avoid shocking the Jewish brethren and to make free intercourse between the two classes of Christians possible. This is the drift of the somewhat obscure reason which St. James adduced in favour of his proposition: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath." The four things forbidden are severely prohibited in Lev., xvii, xviii, not only to the Israelites, but also to the Gentiles living among them. Hence the Jewish Christians, who heard these injunctions read in the synagogues, would be scandalized if they were not observed by their Gentile brethren. By the decree of the Apostles the cause of Christian liberty was won against the narrow Judaizers, and the way smoothed for the conversion of the nations. The victory was emphasized by St. Paul's refusal to allow Titus to be circumcised even as a pure concession to the extremists (Galatians 2:2-5).

The incident at Antioch

The decision of Jerusalem regarded the Gentiles alone, since the only question before the council was whether circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were to be imposed on the Gentiles. Nothing was decided with regard to the observance of the Law by the Jews. Still even they were implicitly and in principle freed from its obligations. For, if the legal observances were not necessary for salvation, the Jew was no more bound by them than the Gentile. Nor was anything explicitly decided as to the relations which were to subsist between the Jews and the Gentiles. Such a decision was not demanded by the circumstances, since at Antioch the two classes lived together in harmony before the arrival of the mischief-makers. The Jews of the Dispersion were less particular than those of Palestine, and very likely some arrangement had been reached by which the Jewish Christians could without scruple eat with their Gentile brethren at the agape. However, the promulgation of the four prohibitions, which were intended to facilitate relations, implied that Jew and Gentile could freely meet. Hence when Peter came to Antioch shortly after the council, he, no less than Paul and Barnabas and the others, "did eat with the Gentiles" (Galatians 2:12). But the absence of any explicit declaration gave the Judaizers an opportunity to begin a new agitation, which, if successful, would have rendered the decree of Jerusalem nugatory. Foiled in their first attempt, they now insisted that the law of not eating with the Gentiles be strictly observed by all Jews. They very likely expected to reach by indirect methods, what they could not obtain directly. Some zealots came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Nothing warrants the assertion that they were sent by St. James to oppose St. Paul, or to enforce the separation of the Jewish from the Gentile Christians, much less to promulgate a modification of the decree of Jerusalem. If they were sent by St. James — pro tou elthein tinas apo Iakobou — probably means simply that they were of James's entourage — they came on some other commission.
On their arrival Peter, who up to this had eaten with the Gentiles, "withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision", and by his example drew with him not only the other Jews, but even Barnabas, Paul's fellow-labourer. Foreseeing the consequences of such conduct, Paul publicly rebuked him, because he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel". "If thou being a Jew," he said to him, "livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" This incident has been made much of by Baur and his school as showing the existence of two primitive forms of Christianity, Petrinism and Paulinism, at war with each other. But anyone, who will look at the facts without preconceived theory, must see that between Peter and Paul there was no difference in principles, but merely a difference as to the practical conduct to be followed under the circumstances. "Conversationis fuit vitium non praedicationis", as Tertullian happily expresses it. That Peter's principles were the same as those of Paul, is shown by his conduct at the time of Cornelius's conversion, by the position he took at the council of Jerusalem, and by his manner of living prior to the arrival of the Judaizers. Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26 sqq.). The difference between them was that Peter, recently come from Jerusalem, thought only of not wounding the susceptibility of the zealots there, and was thus betrayed into a course of action apparently at variance with his own teaching and calculated to promote the designs the Judaizers; whereas Paul, not preoccupied with such a consideration and with more experience among the Gentiles, took a broader and truer view of the matter. He saw that Peter's example would promote the movement to avoid close relations with the Gentiles, which was only an indirect way of forcing Jewish customs upon them. He saw, too, that if such a policy were pursued, the hope of converting the Gentiles must be abandoned. Hence his bold and energetic action. St. Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that St. Peter saw the justice of the rebuke. (In the above account Galatians 2:1-10, is with the large majority of commentators taken to refer to the Council of Jerusalem, and the incident at Antioch is consequently placed after the council. Some few interpreters, however, refer Galatians 2:1-10, to the time of St. Paul's journey mentioned in Acts 11:28-30 [A.D. 44], and place the dispute at Antioch before the council.)

The Judaizers in other churches

After the foregoing events the Judaizers could do little mischief in Syria. But they could carry their agitation to the distant churches founded by St. Paul, where the facts were less well known; and this they attempted to do. The two Epistles to the Corinthians give good reason to believe that they were at work at Corinth. The party or rather faction of Cephas (1 Corinthians 1:12) very probably consisted of Judaizers. They do not seem, however, to have gone beyond belittling St. Paul's authority and person, and sowing distrust towards him (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:1-5; 2 Corinthians 11:5-12; 12:11-12; 1:17-20; 10:10-13). For while he has much to say in his own defence, he does not attack the views of the Judaizers, as he would certainly have done had they been openly preached. His two letters and his subsequent visit to Corinth put an end to the party's machinations. In the meantime (supposing Galatians to have been written soon after 1 and 2 Corinthians as it very probably was) Judaizing emissaries had penetrated into the Galatian churches, whether North or South Galatian matters little here (see EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS), and by their skillful maneuvers had almost succeeded in persuading the Galatians, or at any rate many of them, into accepting circumcision. As at Corinth they attacked St. Paul's authority and person. He was only a secondary Apostle, subordinate to the Twelve, from whom he had received his instruction in the Faith and from whom he held his mission. To his teaching they opposed the practice and teaching of the pillars of the Church, of those who had conversed with the Lord (Galatians 2:2 sqq.). He was a time-server, changing his teaching and conduct according to circumstances with the view of ingratiating himself with men (Galatians 1:10; 5:11). They argued that circumcision had been instituted as a sign of an eternal alliance between God and Israel: if the Galatians then wished to have a share in this alliance, with its blessings, if they wished to be in the full sense of the term Christians, they must accept circumcision (Galatians 3:3 sq.; 5:2). They did not however insist, it would seem, in the observance of the whole Law (v, 3).
On hearing the news of the threatened defection of the churches which he had founded at such cost to himself, St. Paul hastily indited the vigorous Epistle to the Galatians, in which he meets the accusations and arguments of his opponents step by step, and uses all his powers of persuasion to induce his neophytes to stand fast and not to be held again under the yoke of bondage. The letter, as far as we know, produced the desired effect. In spite of its resemblance to the Epistle to the Galatians, the Epistle to the Romans is not, as has been asserted, a polemical writing directed against the Judaizing party at Rome. The whole tone of the Epistle shows this (cf. in particular i, 5-8, 11-12; xv, 14; xvi, 19). If he refers to the Jewish Christians of Rome, it is only to exhort the Gentiles to bear with these weak brethren and to avoid whatever might scandalize them (xiv, 1-23). He would not have shown such forbearance towards the Judaizers, nor spoken of them in such gentle tones. His purpose in treating of the uselessness of circumcision and legal observances was to forewarn and forearm the Romans against the Judaizing disturbers, should they reach the capital, as he had reason to fear (Romans 16:17-18). After their attempt in Galatia, St. Paul's opponents seem to have relaxed their activity, for in his later letters he rarely alludes to them. In the Epistle to the Philippians he warns against them in very severe terms: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil-workers, beware of the concision" (Philippians 3:2). They do not seem, however, to have been active in that church at the time. Beyond this only two allusions are found — one in 1 Timothy 1:6-7: "From which things some going astray, are turned aside unto vain babbling: desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm"; the other in Titus 3:9: "Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable things and vain."

Final history

With the disappearance of the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem at the time of the rebellion (A.D. 67-70), the question about circumcision and the observance of the Law ceased to be of any importance in the Church, and soon became a dead issue. At the beginning of the second century St. Ignatius of Antioch, it is true, still warns against Judaizers (Magnes., x, 3; viii, 1; Philad., vi, 1), but the danger was probably more a memory than a reality. During the rebellion the mass of the Jewish Christians of Palestine retired beyond the Jordan, where they gradually lost touch with the Gentiles and in the course of time split up into several sects. St. Justin (about 140) distinguishes two kinds of Jewish Christians: those who observe the Law of Moses, but do not require its observance of others — with these he would hold communion, though in this all his contemporaries did not agree with him — and those who believe the Mosaic Law to be obligatory on all, whom he considers heretics (Dialogue with Trypho 47). If Justin is describing the Jewish Christians of his day, as he appears to do, they had changed little since Apostolic times. The accounts of later Fathers show them divided into three main sects: (a) the Nazarenes, who, while observing the Mosaic Law, seem to have been orthodox. They admitted the Divinity of Christ and the virginal birth; (b) the Ebionites, who denied the Divinity of Christ and virginal birth, and considered St. Paul as an apostate. It should be noted, however, that though the Fathers restrict the name Ebionite to the heretical Jewish Christians, the name was common to all; © an offshoot of the last infected with Gnosticism (cf. art. EBIONITES). After the middle of the fifth century the Jewish Christians disappear from history.

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o'er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Mar 17 2015, 11:24 PM

40 hours devotion at the London Oratory...the amount of candles...gulp...

Happy belated feast of Saint Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, Foster Father of our Redeemer. St Joseph, pray for us!

LOL...shisha smoke is of no comparison.

Normally it should be frankincense. Myrrh is also used sometimes, but the smell....let's say frankincense smells way better..lol.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/...ng-richard-iii/

Hail, O Queen of Heaven enthroned.
Hail, by angels mistress owned.
Root of Jesse, Gate of Morn
Whence the world's true light was born:
Glorious Virgin, Joy to thee,
Loveliest whom in heaven they see;
Fairest thou, where all are fair,
Plead with Christ our souls to spare.



This post has been edited by yeeck: Mar 21 2015, 02:53 AM

Veiling statues in Lent
April 12, 2014

Question Time by Fr John Flader

I recently visited a church at the end of Lent where all the statues and the crucifix were covered by purple veils. Why is the cross hidden from view at the very time when we should be meditating more on the passion of Christ?



Lent, until Holy Saturday was once common but now is much less so.
After the Second Vatican Council there were moves to abolish the custom altogether but it has survived.
Even more, the Bishops’ Conference of each country can decide whether to make the custom obligatory in its territory.
Where the custom is lived the crucifix and all other statues in the church are covered with a purple cloth without ornamentation from First Vespers on Passion Sunday to before the Easter Vigil.
The crucifix is unveiled after the Good Friday service, during which the cross is venerated by the faithful.
The only images not covered by a veil are those on the Stations of the Cross and any stained glass windows.
The statue of St Joseph, if outside the sanctuary, may remain uncovered during the month of March, when his feast occurs and he is specially honoured.
What is the origin of the custom?
According to Fr Edward McNamara it may have derived from a practice in Germany in the ninth century of extending a large cloth before the altar from the beginning of Lent.
This cloth, known as the “Hungertuch” or hunger cloth, hid the altar from the view of the people until the reading of the Passion on Wednesday of Holy Week at the words “the veil of the temple was rent in two.”
The veil in the temple of Jerusalem separated the Holy of Holies from the main body of the temple.
Some scholars say the custom was a remnant of the ancient practice of ritually expelling public penitents from the church at the beginning of Lent.
After the custom of public penance fell into disuse and the entire congregation was symbolically incorporated into the order of penitents through the imposition of ashes on Ash Wednesday, it was no longer possible to expel them from the church and so instead the altar, or “Holy of Holies”, was shielded from view until they were reconciled with God at Easter.
Later on in the Middle Ages the images of crosses and saints were also covered from the start of Lent.
The custom of limiting this veiling to the last two weeks of Lent, appears in the Ceremonial of Bishops in the seventeenth century.
The great nineteenth-century Benedictine liturgist Dom Prosper Gueranger gives a mystical interpretation of the veiling, based on the Gospel of St John, which was formerly read on Passion Sunday.
Just as Jesus hid himself from the Jews who wanted to stone him (cf. Jn 8:59), so by the veils he is now hidden from the world in preparation for the mysteries of his passion.
The statues of the saints are covered too since, if the Master himself is covered, so should be his servants.
Dom Gueranger also explains that while on the two feasts of the Finding and the Exaltation of the Holy Cross the cross is honoured as the throne of Christ’s victory, with its veiling in Lent it speaks to us of his suffering and humiliation.
Another spiritual interpretation of the veiling is based on the fact that in Christ’s passion not only was his divinity obscured but so was, in a certain sense, his humanity.
He was so disfigured by the blows and scourges that he was hardly recognisable as a human being.
We read in the prophet Isaiah’s depiction of the Suffering Servant, which has always been taken to refer to Christ: “As many were astonished at him – his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men – so shall he startle many nations” (Is 52:14).
Likewise, we read in the psalm Jesus quoted while he hung on the cross: “But I am a worm, and no man; scorned by men, and despised by the people” (Ps 22:6).
So, in a sense, the veil hides Our Lord’s divinity and humanity, as did the wounds suffered in his passion.
Regardless of the original meaning of the veiling of the crucifix and statues, it has much to commend it as a way of helping us prepare for Our Lord’s Passover in the last two weeks of Lent.

Written by: The Catholic Leader

The process of Islamisation in Malaysia has long started. Don't really need someone from France to tell us that as it has also affected France by their easy immigration for those from the Middle East. When the Muslims are getting more in numbers, they will certainly demand more of their rights to do this and that, including changing the Constitution since they are in the majority. Catholics certainly has a role to play by not using contraception as taught by Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae and be more fervent in their Faith.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Mar 21 2015, 03:50 PM

No, the Church does not encourage any form of contraceptives be they natural or artificial. Only under very serious reasons are NFP tolerated.

I. CATHOLIC TEACHING ABOUT MARRIAGE AND THE REGULATION OF BIRTHS

WHAT DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF MARRIAGE?

Marriage is a permanent relationship created by God and entered into by
the free consent of man and woman. It is a relationship of love and
service, and it is a Christian sacrament.

"The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by
the Creator and qualified by His laws. It is rooted in the conjugal
covenant of irrevocable personal consent.. .

"By that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other,
a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too
is a lasting one . . . A man and a woman, who by the marriage convenant of
conjugal love 'are no longer two, but one flesh' (Mt 19:6), render mutual
help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons
and of their actions ... Christian spouses have a special sacrament by
which they are fortified and receive a kind of consecration in the duties
AND DIGNITY OF THEIR STATE" (GAUDIUM ET SPES, 48).[1]

WHAT DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACH ABOUT PARENTHOOD?

"Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the
begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift
of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their
parents. The God Himself who said, 'It is not good for man to be alone'
(Gen. 2:18) and 'who made man from the beginning male and female' (Mt.
19:4), wished to share with man a certain special participation in His own
creative work. Thus He blessed male and female, saying: 'Increase and
multiply' (Gen. 1:28).

"Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account,
the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family
life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with
stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior, who
through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.

"Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting
human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They
should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the
Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love" (Gaudium et
Spes, 50).

DOES THE CHURCH TEACH THAT A COUPLE MUST HAVE AS MANY CHILDREN AS THEY
PHYSICALLY CAN?

No. In decisions about family size, the married couple "will thoughtfully
take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those
already born and those which may be foreseen. For this accounting they
will reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the
times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they will consult the
interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church
itself" (Gaudium et Spes, 50).

WHAT DOES THE CHURCH TEACH ABOUT AN IDEAL FAMILY SIZE?

The Church has no specific teaching about an ideal family size. As
indicated previously, couples may take many factors into consideration. On
the other hand, there is a general Christian warning against
decision-making based solely on materialistic factors. Life is a gift to
be shared, and the Christian couple are called to be generous in the
service of life according to their circumstances.

For example, Pope John Paul II has noted that "decisions about the number
of children and the sacrifices to be made for them must not be taken only
with a view to adding comfort and preserving a peaceful existence.
Reflecting upon this matter before God, with the graces drawn from the
Sacrament, and guided by the teaching of the Church, parents will remind
themselves that it is certainly less serious to deny their children
certain comforts or material advantages than to deprive them of the
presence of brothers or sisters who could help them to grow in humanity
and to realize the beauty of life at all ages and in all its variety."[2]

WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the
responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does
not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It
must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of
the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual
self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal
cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely
practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not
undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by
the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"
(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birth
control are immoral and blameworthy? Yes. In Humanae Vitae, the
first-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control is
abortion (n. 14).[3]

Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has
frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or
temporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemns
tubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill.

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the
conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14). Such unnatural forms include
the Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,
mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.

Are some forms of unnatural birth control worse than others? Yes. Those
forms that act after conception has occurred to prevent the continuation
of the pregnancy participate in the additional evil of abortion. "From the
moment of its conception life must be guarded with greatest care, while
abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes" (Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Surgical abortion is the most obvious but not the only form. The
intrauterine device (IUD) acts primarily as an early abortion agent by
preventing implantation of the week-old human life.

The birth control Pill makes the inner lining of the uterus very hostile
to implantation. It is not known how often the Pill acts in this way, but
it cannot be denied that the Pill may be acting as an early abortion agent
in any given cycle in any given woman.[4]

WHAT METHODS OF BIRTH REGULATION ARE MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?

"If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive
from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from
external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to
take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have
coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception
without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier"
(Humanae Vitae, 16).

Thus, the same teaching of the Church which condemns the use of the
unnatural methods of birth control explicitly approves of the use of
Natural Family Planning when there is a sufficient reason to avoid or
postpone pregnancy. With its emphasis on the necessity of a serious reason
to use even the natural methods, the Church is warning against selfishness
in family planning.

SINCE BOTH THE NATURAL AND THE UNNATURAL METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL HAVE THE
PURPOSE OF LIMITING FAMILY SIZE, AREN'T THEY MORALLY THE SAME?

Not at all. The end does not justify the means; a common purpose does not
make morally equal all the possible means of achieving that purpose. "It
is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may
follow therefrom" (Humanae Vitae, 14). A prime purpose of the Ten
Commandments is to teach us that we may not act against our created human
nature in pursuing some purpose or pleasure. Thus, we may not kill or
steal or commit adultery to advance ourselves. The Church affirms that
efforts at birth regulation "must be done with respect for the order
established by God" (Humanae Vitae, 16).

WHY IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OPPOSED TO UNNATURAL BIRTH CONTROL?

The basic reason for the Church's opposition to any sort of sinful action
is that such actions are contrary to the nature God has given us. Jesus
said about marriage, "Let no one take apart what God has put together" (Mk
10:9). This can also be applied to the act of sexual intercourse which has
been called "the marriage act" for centuries of Christian history.

In the natural act of completed marital sexual intercourse, there is a
symbolic bodily unity of man and wife. However, in every form of unnatural
birth control, there is a positive effort to destroy the procreative
potential of an act that God has given us as a unique sign of married
love.

Looked at in another way, the sex act is meant by God to be a symbolic way
in which a couple are called to renew, at least implicitly, their marriage
covenant. In this bodily union, they are called to affirm anew their
original promises of married love, to take each other for better or for
worse, to be as one until death.

Unnatural birth control contradicts the symbolic renewal of the marriage
covenant. Instead, it says, "I take you for better but not for the
imagined worse of parenthood."

IS THERE A BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE CHURCH'S TEACHING AGAINST CONTRACEPTION?

Yes. The 38th chapter of Genesis tells the story of Judah, his sons, and
Tamar. One of the sons, Onan, practiced the sin of
contraception--withdrawal in this case--with Tamar, and the Bible tells us
that God slew him because he had done an abominable thing (Gen. 38:10).

It is recognized today that Judah, Onan, and another brother were all
guilty of violating an ancient Eastern brotherhood law called the law of
the Levirate. However, the punishment for violating that law was very mild
and is spelled out in Deuteronomy 25:5- 10. Judah himself admitted his
guilt (Gen. 38:26). It is therefore clear that the special punishment
meted out to Onan was not just for the violation of the Levirate but
rather for the way in which only he had sinned--his contraceptive behavior
of going through the motions of the covenantal act and then "spilling his
seed" (Gen. 38:9).

This interpretation is backed up by the only incident in the New Testament
where immediate death is the punishment for sin--the deaths of Ananias and
Saphira who went through the motions of a giving act but defrauded it of
its meaning (Acts 5:1-11).

ARE THERE ANY OTHER BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO BIRTH CONTROL?

Probably yes. In the New Testament, it is possible that the Greek
"pharmakeia" refers to the birth control issue. "Pharmakeia" in general
was the mixing of various potions for secret purposes, and it is known
that potions were mixed in the first century A.D. to prevent or stop a
pregnancy. The typical translation as "sorcery" may not reveal all of the
specific practices condemned by the New Testament. In all three of the
passages in which it appears, it is in a context condemning sexual
immorality; two of the three passages also condemn murder. (Gal. 5:19-26;
Rev. 9:21, 21:8). Thus it is very possible that there are three New
Testament passages condemning the use of the products of "pharmakeia" for
birth control purposes.

DOES THE BIBLE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT HUMAN LOVE AND SEXUALITY?

Yes. There is simply no doubt that the entire biblical notion of human
love points to the fact that man is called to subordinate "eros," erotic
love, to "agape," self-giving love. While not referring specifically to
the issue of birth control, St. Paul's most famous discourse on love is
still applicable to this discussion. It is noteworthy that he begins and
ends on the two aspects of love that are needed for the happy practice of
natural family planning. "Love is always patient and kind; . . . it is
always ready . . . to endure whatever comes" (1 Cor. 13:4, 7). Christian
husbands are also told to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and
sacrificed himself for her (Eph. 5:25). All Christians were told by Christ
on the night before His death to love one another as He loved them, a
statement that has obvious overtones about self- giving love (Jn 15:12).
St. Paul also tells his listeners that the fruits of the Spirit are "love,
joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness, and
self-control." He reminds them that they cannot really belong to Christ
unless they "crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires" (Gal. 5:22,
24).

The above is incomplete but serves one limited purpose. It shows that it
is legitimate to state that the religious doctrine of marital
non-contraception has a basis in Scripture and that the practice of
natural family planning with its necessity of a certain amount of sexual
self-control fits well within the Christian biblical tradition.

WOULDN'T IT BE HELPFUL IF THE BIBLE CONTAINED CONDEMNATIONS OF
CONTRACEPTION THAT WERE MORE EXPLICIT AND MORE FREQUENT?

Not really. The lack of multiple references doesn't disturb the person who
has a sense of theological realism. Such a person is aware that the Bible
could hardly be more explicit in its condemnation of homosexual behavior
(e.g. Romans 1:26-32), but those who want to justify homosexual behavior
simply dismiss the biblical texts as not relevant to today or interpret
St. Paul to mean "promiscuous" sodomy although St. Paul makes no such
distinctions. Even if the Bible were filled with explicit condemnations of
abortion, sterilization, and contraception, the same approach would be
used on such texts by those who wished to justify such behavior as
compatible with biblical Christianity.

Thus it is the belief of the Roman Catholic faith and of many other
Christians that Jesus did not leave us with only a book subject to
everyone's personal and sometimes contradictory interpretations but also
established His Church as an authoritative teacher guided by the Holy
Spirit. The constant teaching by the Church on a matter of faith and
morals is called Tradition.

IS THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AGAINST UNNATURAL BIRTH CONTROL A NEW TEACHING?

No. The question of birth control has been raised many times for 19
centuries of Christian life, and the Church has always responded with a
firm and universal negative to abortion, sterilization and all forms of
unnatural birth control. The encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968 simply
reaffirmed this universal Tradition.

DOES THIS CONSTANT TEACHING HAVE ANY SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE?

Yes. At the Last Supper, Jesus promised repeatedly that the Holy Spirit
would lead His Church into the fullness of the truth (Jn, chapters 14-17).
When a teaching has been taught with such unanimity and constancy
throughout the centuries, those who believe in Christ have every reason to
believe that such a teaching is from the Spirit and therefore true. Some
theologians believe that this constancy of teaching fulfills all the
requirements set forth by Vatican II for an infallible teaching by the
universal ordinary teaching of the Church's magisterium.[5]

HAVE PROTESTANT CHURCHES SHARED IN THIS TRADITION?

Yes. Before 1930, no Protestant Christian church accepted contraception,
sterilization or abortion. However, in 1930 the Church of England accepted
contraception. Many churches followed that path, but there are still some
Protestant churches that reject all forms of unnatural birth control. The
Eastern Orthodox churches likewise retain the authentic Christian
Tradition against contraception.

HAVE CHURCHES THAT ACCEPTED CONTRACEPTION ALSO ACCEPTED ABORTION?

Unfortunately, some churches have accepted abortion, using the same type
of reasoning that was used to accept contraception. Fortunately, not all
have taken this step, and some are rejecting their initial acceptance of
abortion.

DO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS HAVE SIMILAR TEACHINGS?

Yes, some do. It is difficult to find specific moral teachings in some of
the non-Christian world religions. However, there is no doubt that one of
the famous Hindus of modern times, Mahatma Gandhi, was completely opposed
to unnatural birth control. He called for self-control, and his statements
in the 1920s have many similarities to the statements of Humanae Vitae in
1968.

WHAT IS THE RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE OF PRIESTS OR THEOLOGIANS WHO APPEAR
CONFUSED OR NOT TO BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH?

The chief significance seems to be that people need to distinguish between
the authentic teaching of the Church and that of some theologians. The
Canadian bishops responded to this question with a Statement on the
"Formation of Conscience." "'To follow one's conscience' and to remain a
Catholic, one must take into account first and foremost the teaching of
the magisterium. When doubt arises due to a conflict of 'my'' views and
those of the magisterium, the presumption of truth lies on the part of the
magisterium. (The magisterium is the official teaching of the Church.) ...
And this must be carefully distinguished from the teaching of individual
theologians or individual priests, however intelligent or persuasive."[6]

HAS THERE BEEN SUCH CONFUSION BEFORE?

Yes. This is not the place for a history of such things, but special
mention might be made of the problems of the 16th and 17th centuries when
theologians went wild with moral heresies in both directions, laxism and
rigorism.

HAS THE TEACHING OF HUMANAE VITAE BEEN BACKED UP BY BISHOPS AROUND THE
WORLD?

Yes. With the exception of a very small number of hierarchies, every
national body of bishops that has commented on Humanae Vitae has supported
it. Even where positive support was not offered, there was no real
divergence from the doctrine of the encyclical.[7]

Pope John Paul II has repeatedly reaffirmed the teaching against
contraception, sterilization and abortion.[8] The World Synod of Bishops in
1980 reaffirmed this Tradition, and both the Pope and the Synod have
referred to this teaching as a divine precept.[9]

In the United States, the Catholic bishops reaffirmed the Tradition
immediately after Humanae Vitae[10], again in their specifically moral
pastoral[11] and again in documents on religious education.[12]


II. NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING: THE SOLUTION

HAS GOD PROVIDED ANY MORALLY ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF BIRTH REGULATION
BESIDES TOTAL ABSTINENCE?

Yes. In His providence, God has provided natural means of birth regulation
sufficient for our sociological needs. From the creation of the first
family, breast-feeding has provided a certain amount of spacing between
babies. More recently, other natural methods have been developed.

CAN BREAST-FEEDING REALLY SPACE BABIES?

Yes. More pregnancies are postponed throughout the world through
breast-feeding than through any of the methods that can be called
conscious efforts at birth regulation. However, this is true only of
"ecological" breast-feeding in which mothers are constantly with their
babies who in turn suckle frequently. This natural form of pregnancy
postponement is morally acceptable. (Further documentation may be found
in Does Breast-feeding Really Space Babies?[13]

The usual spacing of babies with ecological breast-feeding ranges between
18 and 24 months. Thus the Author of Nature seems to have designed Nature
so that mothers should be with their babies, nurse, and enjoy a natural
spacing between pregnancies.

WHAT ABOUT "RHYTHM"?

The first type of Natural Family Planning based on periodic abstinence was
Calendar Rhythm. This was used during the 1930s. It could be just as
effective as the barrier methods then available (condoms, diaphragms) if
the woman had regular cycles and if she were properly instructed. However,
because of a combination of cycle irregularity and generally inadequate
instruction, Calendar Rhythm was unreliable for many couples. It must be
emphasized that the modern method, of Natural Family Planning are very
different from Calendar Rhythm.

WHAT ARE THE MODERN METHODS OF NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING?

The two most popular modern methods of Natural Family Planning are the
Sympto-Thermal Method and the Ovulation Method. Both of these methods are
based on an awareness of a woman's present signs of fertility or
infertility. Thus, they are both a far cry from Calendar Rhythm which was
based only on past cycle history.

The Sympto-Thermal Method makes use of changes in a woman's cervical mucus
pattern and changes in her basal temperature pattern, and some women also
record physical changes that occur in the cervix. These signs of fertility
and infertility are used in a cross-checking way. The Ovulation Method
uses only the mucus pattern.

HOW DO THESE MODERN METHODS OF NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING WORK?

Modern Natural Family Planning (NFP) methods enable a couple to identify
the times of fertility and infertility of the wife. Couples seeking to
achieve pregnancy have coitus (sexual intercourse) at the most fertile
time. Couples seeking to postpone or avoid pregnancy have coitus only
during the infertile times and avoid genital contact during the fertile
time.

DOES NFP REQUIRE EXTENDED PERIODS OF CONTINENCE?

Usually not. Some couples may have only a week of abstinence per cycle,
and most couples will not have more than the 12 to 14 day period of
abstinence that has been practiced by Orthodox Jews for approximately
3,000 years. With the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit,
many couples are finding that the abstinence of NFP is not a drawback but
a definite asset for their growth as a married couple.

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THE MODERN METHODS OF NFP?

Both are highly effective when properly used, but in comparative studies,
experience has shown that the Sympto-Thermal Method (STM) may be easier to
teach and to learn than the Ovulation Method and that it has higher
overall effectiveness rates. The STM has effectiveness rates in the same
range as the Pill and the IUD, and it is more effective than the
contraceptive barrier methods.

HOW CAN I LEARN TO PRACTICE NFP?

The most complete book on the subject is "The Art of Natural Family
Planning."[14] The most widespread NFP education service is The Couple to
Couple League. For further information about learning NFP or establishing
a CCL chapter, contact the League at an address at the end of this
pamphlet.


III. THE MARITAL EFFECTS

HOW DOES THE USE OF UNNATURAL BIRTH CONTROL AFFECT MARRIAGE?

In general, it has a negative effect. The growing use of unnatural birth
control since 1913 has been accompanied by an almost 500% rise in the
divorce rate. Among Catholics, the divorce rate formerly was much lower
than the national average, but the divorce rate has risen sharply since
the mid-1960s when Catholics began using unnatural birth control at about
the same rate as the rest of a culture that is no longer Christian.[15] Even
if other factors have contributed to the breakdown of family stability,
there are ample indicators that the use of unnatural birth control has
been a significant factor.

HOW DOES THE USE OF NFP AFFECT MARRIAGE?

The general effect is positive. Many couples who have left unnatural
methods of birth control have reported an improved marriage relationship
with NFP. This has been confirmed by scientific social studies[16][17]
and by informal surveys showing an extremely low divorce rate among
couples practicing NFP.[18]

Improved communication, absence of feelings of being used, development of
non-genital courtship, peace of conscience, and no fear of the dangerous
effects of some unnatural methods have all been mentioned as contributing
to the improved relationship. In addition, the practice of NFP helps to
develop the same character strengths that are necessary for marital
fidelity and life-long marriage.

Summary. God is love and the Author of life and human sexuality. Authentic
religion is concerned with sex because sex is concerned with love and with
life. God is truth, and it is Catholic belief that the Church is guided by
the Holy Spirit in teaching the truth about love--including sexual love.
"If you make my word your home you will indeed be my disciples you will
learn the truth, and the truth will make you free." Jn 8:31-32

--John F. Kippley

Imprimatur: Most Reverend Daniel E. Pilarczyk, V.G.
Archdiocese of Cincinnati
February 25, 1981
Cincinnati, Ohio


ENDNOTES

1. Vatican II, "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World."
Subsequent references are solely within the text and use the common name
of this document derived from the first words of its Latin text, "Gaudium
et Spes.' References are to numbered sections in the official text.

2. Pope John Paul II, homily at Mass on the Washington Mall October 7,
1979.

3. Pope Paul VI, encyclical letter titled "Humanae Vitae," July 25 1968.
References are to numbered sections within the official text.

4. "The Pill and the IUD: Some Facts for an Informed Choice "(Cincinnati:
The Couple to Couple League) 1980.

5. This has been developed by John C. Ford, S.J., and Germain Grisez,
"Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium,"
"Theological Studies," 39:2 (June, 1978) 258-312.

6. Canadian Catholic Conference, "Statement on the Formation of
Conscience," n. 41, December 12,1973

7. Marcellino Zalba, "The Magisterium of the Pope and of the Episcopal
Conferences...," "Natural Family Planning" (Milwaukee, WI.: DeRance, Inc.)
1980, 215-218.

8. Noteworthy affirmations of "Humanae Vitae" by Pope John Paul II include
his statement to the bishops of the United States (October 5, 1979) and
his "Message to Christian Families," 5th General Assembly, World Synod of
Bishops, October 25, 1980 ("Origins" 10, Nov. 6,1980).

9. John Paul II, "Message to Christian Families" op cit Synod of Bishops,
"The Message to Christian Families," nn 9-11, October 25,1980. (Origins
10, Nov. 6,1980)

10. National Council of Catholic Bishops, "Human Life in Our Day" November
15, 1968.

11. NCCB, "To Live in Christ Jesus" (Nov. 11 1976) pp. 17-18.

12. NCCB, "Sharing the Light of Faith" (1979) nn 105-B, 131.

13. "Does Breast-feeding Really Space Babies?" (Cincinnati: The Couple to
Couple League) 1980.

14. John and Sheila Kippley, "The Art of Natural Family Planning"
(Cincinnati: The Couple to Couple League) 1979.

15. For further evidence, see "The Legacy of Contraception: Fornication,
Divorce, Abortion" (Cincinnati: The Couple to Couple League) 1980.

16. Mary Peter McCusker, "Couples' Perceptions of the Use of Fertility
Awareness Methods of Natural Family Planning on Their Marriage
Relationship," (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America) A
Master's degree thesis, June, 1976.

17. Joseph Tortorici, "Conception Regulation, Self Esteem and Marital
Satisfaction among Catholic Couples: Michigan State University Study,"
"International Review of Natural Family Planning" 3:3 (Fall, 1979) 191-205.

18. One survey showed that less than 1% of responding NFP users had been
divorced and remarried. (Nona Aguilar, "No-Pill No- Risk Birth Control"
(New York, Rawson Wade) 1980, 104-105) Priests with long experience in
Catholic marriage tribunals have said that in almost all cases of divorce
it has been preceded by unchastity--either contraception during the
marriage or by premarital sex or both.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c 1981 The Couple to Couple League International Inc.

Further Information

For further information about Natural Family Planning (NFP), for referral
to Couple to Couple's NFP instruction in your vicinity, or for information
on self-instruction contact:

The Couple to Couple League
P.O. Box 111184
Cincinnati, OH 45211
(513) 661-7612

This information is from a brochure titled "What Does the Catholic Church
REALLY Teach about Birth Control?" The brochure and related material may
be ordered from Couple to Couple League direct or through CRNET's Catholic
MarketPlace.


Source: https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CCLBC.TXT

The point I'm trying is make is that, there are some Catholics who are trying to lower the bar to use NFP when they have no grave reasons to do so. This is not in accordance with the mind of the Church when it tolerates NFP.

Only under certain grave situations.

Everyone needs God. Even militant atheists.

The last two weeks of Lent are centered around the death attempts on Jesus life by the Jewish authorities. His betrayal, arrest, mock trials, beatings, the final “Via Doloroso” and crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross.



And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him:

Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth.

He was taken away from distress, and from judgment: who shall declare his generation? because he is cut off out of the land of the living: for the wickedness of my people have I struck him.

And he shall give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death: because he hath done no iniquity, neither was there deceit in his mouth.

And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked: and he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.

--Isaias 53