Today is my last day

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Straybow
Tsk, tsk. 'Tisn't as bad as that. We're nothing like the TV preachers, for the most part.

True, but theologically, the protestant values (i.e. "either you say you worship Jesus and go straight to heaven, or you don't and you go straight to hell") go completely against my values, and they go completely against what I think a benevolent God stands for.

Besides, the literal worship of the Bible is just absurd, considering that the Bible has been written (and translated) by faillible humans. In particular, the religious worship of the Old Testament srikes me as especially strange, considering that the OT is the mythology from which Christianty radically broke off.

If I believed in God, the Catholic dogma would strike much close to my home than the protestant one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry for the delay in my reply Straybow.

So you are saying that vernacular mass is sin? No, the "caution" was more due to political maneuvering rather than any concern that the gospel should be known and believed.

And the vernacular mass had nothing to do with nationalism or politics?

I do not say that the vernacular mass is sin, rather that the sin lies in other errors promulgated by Luther.

But that's what you said, that the reluctance of the RCC and late adoption of the vernacular had "more success" than Luther...

No, I was obviously not clear enough. The adoption of the mass in the vernacular will be more successful than what happened under Luther in the Lutheran church, simply because of the scope of Christianity involved.

Yes, the whole Latin Mass was error. Origen and Jerome translated the NT and other works into Latin. This was a good thing. Then Bishop Ulfilas devised the Gothic alphabet for his translation of the gospels into Gothic (East Germanic) and later Germanic tongues were rendered in a modified Latin alphabet. The driving force was to present the gospel in the vernacular wherever it spread.

Then Rome decided it couldn't exert control if everybody was using their own vernacular and forced converts to attend Latin Mass. What did this accomplish? Nothing but the ignorance of the masses.

And what would the translation of the mass accomplish in an age where Latin was the lingua franca, and was understood by anyone who was educated in those times? The ignorance of the masses had very little to do with the Latin mass.

No, you still don't get it. You are still subscribing to this fiction that the Church is somehow immune and infallible no matter what corruption exists in the "human element."

The Church is the human element. They cannot be separated. The Godhead is the only element that is not fully human with all the flaws and foibles that engenders. To believe otherwise is deception of the highest order, comparable to the fall of Lucifer.

No, the church has a human nature and a divine nature. The divine nature cannot be corrupted, even as the human nature corrupts, in the same way that the Lord's supper remains regardless of the priest who performs the service.

My question to you, is that if there is no divine nature in the church, why do you go? If there is solely human corruption, then the church cannot give you anything which you do not already have in yourself.

I can't imagine what definition of grace you are applying here. Certainly not Luther's.

First, "Justification is a legal act of God..." By this I mean that justification is a legal declaration, not a surgical operation. We will see more about this in a little bit. For now it is enough to know that justification does not mean that God makes you righteous, but that God declares you to be righteous. While a surgeon operates inwardly on you to make you better, a judge simply declares what your status is before the law. He doesn't make you righteous, but if you are righteous he declares you accordingly. Likewise, justification is not an act of God in you, but an act of God about you. It is a change of our standing before God, not a change of our character.

But what if someone says "I am detestable in God's sight. I'm so rotten and miserable in my sin that God abhors me"? I even have good news for this person: Christ will clothe you in His righteousness and cover your shame.

This is from www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/just2.html

Which is a defense of Justification by faith. Given time, I am sure I could find a defense of Luther from a direct citation, but this will have to do for now. Suffice to say, Luther says that Justification is a legal act, it cannot change your inner self, it cannot make you holy. This is the problem that I have with Luther's teachings on Justification.

Most churches posit their teachings as interpretations of scriptures, not bodies of work elevated to equality with and de facto functionally superior to scripture.

Every church has doctrine that must be accepted in order to call oneself a member, even if this doctrine is limited to the declaration that Christ is the son of God.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, that isn't authority. Anyone inside or outside the church can point out the obvious. The RC laity has no authority to suspend or remove a RC priest for sin or error.

The inherent error is in the RC doctrine creating Priests as an overclass, relegating the laymen to second class citizens in the kingdom of heaven.

"And the greatest among you must be servant to all". RC doctrine affirms the principle that the priests are to serve, and not be served.

You did nothing to address my point that a shepherd without a flock is hardly a shepherd. The laity has authority beyond that of mere discipline, they do not need to be able to suspend or remove a priest in order to have authority.

I answered in the paragraph you quoted next:
The need for tradition (small "t") is that scripture is necessarily terse. For example, the authors of the Gospels cannot be expected to explain the cultural basis for certain statements and practices reflected in their testimonies. Only as new cultures are exposed to or emerge from the old can comparisons arise.

First of all, is there a cultural base to the statements and practices in the Gospel? I thought most who wished to restore the primitive church deny that these statements have a cultural base and rather ought to be followed by congregations today.

Secondly, you leave out the interpretation of the church of certain doctrine that has become the tradition of the church on these matters. I suspect this is because you reject the notion that tradition can have any influence on the doctrinal issues inside Christianity. Given the history of Christianity, the doctrinal issues seem a central part of the tradition of the church to clarify things that have not been explicitly stated in the Gospels.

One of these doctrines is the Trinity. How does it make sense to ascribe the formulations of the Trinity to the Apostles, given that they were declared by the church as tradition?

For example, without understanding post-Exile Jewish tradition of the Seder you can't properly understand or interpret the things Jesus says and does in the Last Supper.

Agreed. However, I should say that the first time I ever heard the term Seder is in the Catholic church.

Had the Roman and Greek church stuck to Jewish tradition as both Jesus and the Apostles taught of Christianity instead of supplanting it with western philosophy there would be neither these errors nor these disputes.

If God wanted to base His church on western philosophy Jesus would have been born a gentile. God chose the Jews, shaped their history and culture, and used them as His intrument.

Yet we are all ingrafted branches. If God wanted to base his church solely on Jewish tradition than all Christians would be circumcised. They are not, and so we cannot rest solely upon Jewish tradition in order to understand Christianity. Both are together, Jews and Gentiles alike in Christ.

It does, but in general human understanding fares poorly in crossing cultural borders. True tradition explains the things that scripture assumes the reader understands. False tradition introduces things the scriptures never assumed nor permitted.

Yet the Trinity seems a strange thing to infer from a simple reading of the Gospels. In knowing the Trinity, the Gospels make much more sense, which to me is the sign of proper tradition, in drawing out truth from Scripture.

As for human understanding not crossing cultural boundaries, I am unsure of what to say of that. Culture is the family that one grows up in, and if the family practices, then the tradition of the church will be part of the culture of that family, regardless of where and how they live.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not at all. Couples have used the "rhythm method" from the beginning. Only recently have materials been available to make workable prophylactics (latex condoms, hormone pills, etc) and thus there is no lengthy history of modern birth control.

Which begs the question. Does not the Catholic church approve of natural family planning?

ALso, in saying there is no lengthy history you admit that the acceptance of artificial contraception is an innovation to Christianity, without foundation in either scripture or tradition.

The difference between the two of them, is that there is no difference between abstaining from sex and from natural family planning. The two are of the same nature, since scripture affirms that the couple are not to deny each other except for a short time, according to mutual agreement! This is not true of artificial contraception which seeks to allow the union of the couple, without the consequences therein. You are always witholding yourself from your wife.

Yes, I concur that the industrialized nations have foolishly constricted their birth rates, and that there are economic consequences to follow. But does not contradict the fact that birth control is a matter of conscience!

My point is that it is alien to the Christian conception of the family, and we see this through the withered fruits of contraception.

[Ben Kenobi]

They are not absolute, neither are they obsolete. They are attempts to explain some important things in the vernacular. Another explanation may, in fact, be superior to them. In their day there were many who disagreed with them, and their establishment was a political action rather than some mythical Triumph Of Truth Over Heresy.

Actually, if you read about the history behind them, political action cannot be ascribed solely to the establishment of the creeds, often political action opposed the creeds in the form in which we now know them.

Absolutely incorrect! The work must be repeated in each individual. That is the nature of Christianity. You must become mature in Christ. I must become mature in Christ. Reciting creeds doesn't cut it.

Becoming mature doesn't mean repeating the work that has already been done, but in understanding what has been done. Reciting creeds is different than understanding, and I agree, but it is not necessary to throw away everything that has been done by mature Christians that have gone before you.

As for my wisdom, I have so much to learn I am sure that I will still be learning for all the time that I am alive. If what I say makes some sense to others than that is all that matters.

[Ben Kenobi]

That RC teaching is error. Paul instructs us that the resurrection is yet to come, that those who have died will not rise until after those who are still alive have been transformed at Christ's Appearing. Christ the firstfruits, then we who remain, then the dead in Christ.

Now, whether Luther said the dead in Christ are unconscious in the grave I neither know nor care. The scriptures are available for all to study, some rightly and some less so.

Yet does not scripture also say that some of the dead are already in heaven? The question I had the hardest time working out is Moses. He died on earth, and yet, we see him on the Mount of the Transfiguration. If he is dead, how can he be with Elijah?

Nice try, Ben. Mary is treated as a junior goddess, able to understand us better than Jesus, able to present our pleas to Jesus with her motherly influence better than we can,

First off, where does RC doctrine say that Mary can understand us better than Christ? Secondly, just because Mary understands Christ better than we understand him, is not the same as saying that she understands us better than Christ.

Hide behind Mary's skirt if you like, but it will hinder you from seeing and hearing from God and open yourself to deception.

Perhaps, but I don't consider defending Catholic teachings as hiding behind her skirt. Why are you so afraid of Mary?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And the vernacular mass had nothing to do with nationalism or politics?

I do not say that the vernacular mass is sin, rather that the sin lies in other errors promulgated by Luther.

Politics is reality. The leaders make choices for their own reasons, and some of those choices will benefit God and the believers while other choices will not. Translation of the scriptures and liturgy into the vernacular is of the first group, beyond all doubt. Even Rome in its myopic groping has come to this conclusion.

Then Rome decided it couldn't exert control if everybody was using their own vernacular and forced converts to attend Latin Mass. What did this accomplish? Nothing but the ignorance of the masses.

And what would the translation of the mass accomplish in an age where Latin was the lingua franca, and was understood by anyone who was educated in those times? The ignorance of the masses had very little to do with the Latin mass.

Except mass isn't for the tiny percentage of educated Latin speakers, it is for the whole body.

You see, this whole doctrine of forcing Latin upon the church is born of obsession and fear. The church in Rome had an unhealthy obsession for control, and fear that any tiny slip in that control would lead to error. They had no vision of God at work in the believer.

No, the church has a human nature and a divine nature. The divine nature cannot be corrupted, even as the human nature corrupts, in the same way that the Lord's supper remains regardless of the priest who performs the service.

My question to you, is that if there is no divine nature in the church, why do you go? If there is solely human corruption, then the church cannot give you anything which you do not already have in yourself.

God does not inhabit things, God indwells believers. The mass is just a lump of bread. It is not the priest who makes it holy, it is the one who receives for whom it is holy or profane. Or at least Paul said so, and I think he was on the mark.

Just so, we are not made holy by belonging to an organization. We are made holy by belonging to God, born of the spirit. Or at least Jesus said so, and I think He knew better than our fourth century theologians.

This ... www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/just2.html ... is a defense of Justification by faith. Given time, I am sure I could find a defense of Luther from a direct citation, but this will have to do for now. Suffice to say, Luther says that Justification is a legal act, it cannot change your inner self, it cannot make you holy. This is the problem that I have with Luther's teachings on Justification.

You are trying very hard to put the cart in front of the horse. I think you've misread the article. Nowhere does the writer say that God does not make you righteous. The application of justification (as defined) is not that part of the process. The author explains it thus:

It is very important to recognize the difference between imputed righteousness and inherent righteousness. This distinction is at the heart of the matter. Inherent righteousness would be:

1. Good things you do for God.
2. Good things that God does in you.

It is not the ground of your justification. God does not justify you on the basis of righteousness that inheres in you. That is, He does not declare you righteous because He has first transformed you into a good person...

If you'll read a little more on the same website you will find a more complete and theological treatment of the doctrine. Here you will see that the doctrine is broken into two parts for analysis, Justification: Redemption Applied and Sanctification: Redemption Expressed.

I will only say that you have much studying to do before you are ready for the tests, young Obiwan. If you have not properly understood the teaching, how can you make a proper decision?

Every church has doctrine that must be accepted in order to call oneself a member, even if this doctrine is limited to the declaration that Christ is the son of God.

Straw man. Unless you care to show a doctrine which not only does not derive from scripture but at least superficially appears to contradict it you have no point here except in gainsaying me.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
"And the greatest among you must be servant to all". RC doctrine affirms the principle that the priests are to serve, and not be served.

You did nothing to address my point that a shepherd without a flock is hardly a shepherd. The laity has authority beyond that of mere discipline, they do not need to be able to suspend or remove a priest in order to have authority.

Interesting take... so that one little phrase is the basis for creating a priestly overclass and a lay underclass? Please explain to me this alleged "authority" that the laymen have. You keep refering to it but there is nothing there.

First of all, is there a cultural base to the statements and practices in the Gospel? I thought most who wished to restore the primitive church deny that these statements have a cultural base and rather ought to be followed by congregations today.

No, the efforts to restore primitive worship assert that the fourteen centuries of Greco-Roman tradition added to the Gospel are foreign and don't belong there. That assumes that there is (or was) a native culture in which the Gospel stands without need for extra-cultural education.

Secondly, you leave out the interpretation of the church of certain doctrine that has become the tradition of the church on these matters. I suspect this is because you reject the notion that tradition can have any influence on the doctrinal issues inside Christianity. Given the history of Christianity, the doctrinal issues seem a central part of the tradition of the church to clarify things that have not been explicitly stated in the Gospels.

No, it is that latecoming tradition is not of equal value or authority to the scriptures. They are perptually provisional, always subject to correction including rejection. And thus we have rejected the greater part of those traditions as unworthy of comparison to the glory of the Gospel.

Yet we are all ingrafted branches. If God wanted to base his church solely on Jewish tradition than all Christians would be circumcised. They are not, and so we cannot rest solely upon Jewish tradition in order to understand Christianity. Both are together, Jews and Gentiles alike in Christ.

Sorry, that argument is nullified in scripture: Peter conceded the point to Paul. The basis of Christianity is not the practices of Jewish religion. The Jewish Messiah came for both Jew and Gentile. I'm not going to quote a dozen verses and argue the point here, you are certainly capable of reading the epistles for yourself.

One of these doctrines is the Trinity. How does it make sense to ascribe the formulations of the Trinity to the Apostles, given that they were declared by the church as tradition?

I don't recall that any "formulations of the Trinity" are ascribed to the original Apostles. In fact, they seemed to speak plainly and openly about God and Christ and the Holy Spirit without feeling the slightest need to define them in human terms.

It does, but in general human understanding fares poorly in crossing cultural borders. True tradition explains the things that scripture assumes the reader understands. False tradition introduces things the scriptures never assumed nor permitted.

Yet the Trinity seems a strange thing to infer from a simple reading of the Gospels. In knowing the Trinity, the Gospels make much more sense, which to me is the sign of proper tradition, in drawing out truth from Scripture.

As for human understanding not crossing cultural boundaries, I am unsure of what to say of that. Culture is the family that one grows up in, and if the family practices, then the tradition of the church will be part of the culture of that family, regardless of where and how they live.

Not at all. Traditions can be very fluid. It takes great effort to preserve a tradition faithfully, and in most cases those traditions shift over time. You say you first heard of the Seder in the Catholic Church, but do Roman Catholics observe the Seder? Was the connection between the Seder and last Supper routinely taught to the laymen in the Roman Catholic church over the last sixteen centuries? Assuredly not.

The RCC substituted its own inventions in place of the Seder. The Sacraments became mystical ceremonies that worked their magic in the realm of the unseeable, unknowable Substance while we muggles remained stuck in the mere Accident.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Which begs the question. Does not the Catholic church approve of natural family planning?

ALso, in saying there is no lengthy history you admit that the acceptance of artificial contraception is an innovation to Christianity, without foundation in either scripture or tradition.

The difference between the two of them, is that there is no difference between abstaining from sex and from natural family planning. The two are of the same nature, since scripture affirms that the couple are not to deny each other except for a short time, according to mutual agreement! This is not true of artificial contraception which seeks to allow the union of the couple, without the consequences therein. You are always witholding yourself from your wife.

My point is that it is alien to the Christian conception of the family, and we see this through the withered fruits of contraception.

By no means. The RC tradition of opposing contraception is based on an inductive reading of one passage from Genesis and another from Leviticus/Deuteronomy which ignores the context in both cases.

Both passages are illustrative of a pre-Kassite Aramean tradition which was substantially preserved in early Hebrew tradition. When a man dies without issue his widow is entitled to bear a child in the name of the dead husband by way of a full or half brother.

In Genesis we have two brothers who lustfully agree to bed the lovely widow but cheat her of her entitlement. In Lev/Deut we see a prohibition of this shameful abuse of a widow. In no place is a man prohibited from using the withdrawal method or any other contraconception with his own wife. Expanding this inductively to a broad prohibition against any form of contraception is at best questionable.

Catholics believe that just as Christ is very much risen, so have the saints of the church.

That RC teaching is error. Paul instructs us that the resurrection is yet to come, that those who have died will not rise until after those who are still alive have been transformed at Christ's Appearing. Christ the firstfruits, then we who remain, then the dead in Christ.

Yet does not scripture also say that some of the dead are already in heaven? The question I had the hardest time working out is Moses. He died on earth, and yet, we see him on the Mount of the Transfiguration. If he is dead, how can he be with Elijah?

Who says that those in heaven are resurrected? Who says that Elijah was either "alive" or resurrected? Scripture only says that Elijah was taken away and didn't leave a body behind. There are a multitude of assumptions between that and RC doctrine.

I can only say, once again, that you seem to have settled upon the answer given by the RC church without fully investigating the matter either within the RC position or positions from Protestant theology.

[Alexander's Horse]

The RC teaching on Birth control is stupid. Its an open secret that the commission that inquired into it recommended birth control be allowed but the findings were rewritten by conservatives in the Vatican.

This more than any other reason has caused the mass loss of parishioners in Western countries over the past 30 years. Humanae Vitae insults the intelligence of the faithful. Its widely ignored by practicing catholics.

[Ben Kenobi]

Politics is reality. The leaders make choices for their own reasons, and some of those choices will benefit God and the believers while other choices will not. Translation of the scriptures and liturgy into the vernacular is of the first group, beyond all doubt. Even Rome in its myopic groping has come to this conclusion.

Beyond all doubt? Isn't that saying that the translation of scripture and the liturgy into the vernacular is an infalliable teaching?

That is the very point you are fighting against, that any tradition of the church can be considered infalliable. The translation of the mass into the vernacular is a part of the tradition of the church, and not explicitly directed in scripture.

Except mass isn't for the tiny percentage of educated Latin speakers, it is for the whole body.

You see, this whole doctrine of forcing Latin upon the church is born of obsession and fear. The church in Rome had an unhealthy obsession for control, and fear that any tiny slip in that control would lead to error. They had no vision of God at work in the believer.

Fair enough, but my question is did it make much sense, before the invention of a printing press, to give mass in the vernacular? Back then, books were precious, and to translate the bible, a very onerous and difficult task. Most of the priests themselves would not have read the scripture, even given their responsibilities to the church.

The only time any such translation would be undertaken, is if the situation warranted, as Jerome did, from the Greek Septuagint to the Latin Vulgate. Enough people spoke Latin, and understood Latin to make such a translation worthwhile.

I am convinced that the two come hand in hand, the translation of scripture, into the vernacular, and the development of the printing press. It made it far more easy to perform such translations.

God does not inhabit things, God indwells believers. The mass is just a lump of bread. It is not the priest who makes it holy, it is the one who receives for whom it is holy or profane. Or at least Paul said so, and I think he was on the mark.

What is the difference between God indwelling believers, and inhabiting things?

Second of all, what do the Catholics teach about the real presence? It is called the real presence, because they believe that the bread becomes the body of Christ, not that Christ inhabits the bread.

Just so, we are not made holy by belonging to an organization. We are made holy by belonging to God, born of the spirit. Or at least Jesus said so, and I think He knew better than our fourth century theologians.

The relationship between Christ and his church is an interesting topic that we could spend plenty of time talking about. You are right that belonging to a church does not make one holy, but belonging to Christ does.

I'm going to set aside justification to do the topic justice.

Straw man. Unless you care to show a doctrine which not only does not derive from scripture but at least superficially appears to contradict it you have no point here except in gainsaying me.

A profession of faith is not the same as scripture, as a condensation of the essential teachings of any church. If you look at different Christian churches, they will have different professions of faith, reflecting the differences between the churches.

Now my question is this. If these individual professions of faith vary, yet scripture does not, and all these churches use the same canon, then why do their professions differ? I think the differences arise from the traditions of the church, in emphasising certain teachings of scripture over others.

Secondly, if you say that if the profession of faith does not contradict scripture, it must be valid, then why do you not accept the profession of faith given in the Catholic church? They say that according to their interpretation, their profession does not contradict scripture, as will any other church say about their own profession.

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting take... so that one little phrase is the basis for creating a priestly overclass and a lay underclass? Please explain to me this alleged "authority" that the laymen have. You keep refering to it but there is nothing there.

First of all, that one little phrase states that anyone who is given authority is to act as a servant. As such any 'overclass' cannot act as one, because they are to serve the 'underclass'. In effect, the heirarchy is turned upside down.

Secondly, if all the parish leaves, then the priest doesn't have any laypeople to lord it over. This is the real authority of the laypeople.

No, the efforts to restore primitive worship assert that the fourteen centuries of Greco-Roman tradition added to the Gospel are foreign and don't belong there. That assumes that there is (or was) a native culture in which the Gospel stands without need for extra-cultural education.

Okay, but to assume that there is a primitive 'culture' is subject to the same critique. If the teaching is simply part of the cultural mileau, then the church in modern times, ought to discard such cultural artifacts, which no longer make sense in our new culture.

No, it is that latecoming tradition is not of equal value or authority to the scriptures. They are perptually provisional, always subject to correction including rejection. And thus we have rejected the greater part of those traditions as unworthy of comparison to the glory of the Gospel.

Much of what is assumed today, is because of these 'latecoming' traditions. The nature of Christ, the formulation of the Trinity, all of this is 'latecoming' tradition added onto the Gospels.

Sorry, that argument is nullified in scripture: Peter conceded the point to Paul. The basis of Christianity is not the practices of Jewish religion. The Jewish Messiah came for both Jew and Gentile. I'm not going to quote a dozen verses and argue the point here, you are certainly capable of reading the epistles for yourself.

If Peter lost, then why are you rejecting Paul's argument of the Gentile influence over Christianity?

I don't recall that any "formulations of the Trinity" are ascribed to the original Apostles. In fact, they seemed to speak plainly and openly about God and Christ and the Holy Spirit without feeling the slightest need to define them in human terms.

Agreed. The formulation of the Trinity fits with scripture, but it only arose given controversy over the imprecision of the Gospel accounts.

Not at all. Traditions can be very fluid. It takes great effort to preserve a tradition faithfully, and in most cases those traditions shift over time. You say you first heard of the Seder in the Catholic Church, but do Roman Catholics observe the Seder? Was the connection between the Seder and last Supper routinely taught to the laymen in the Roman Catholic church over the last sixteen centuries? Assuredly not.

Well, the protestants don't teach the connection between the seder and the last supper today, so I don't see how they can complain that the Catholic church makes that connection clearer.

The RCC substituted its own inventions in place of the Seder. The Sacraments became mystical ceremonies that worked their magic in the realm of the unseeable, unknowable Substance while we muggles remained stuck in the mere Accident.

The idea of a mystery is that it is not fully comprehended by ourselves and our limitations. That does not mean it cannot be somewhat understood, but only that we have to understand these limitations.

Secondly, even the wizards are muggles, there is no 'secret knowledge' available to a few. Everything that is known is out there and available to anyone who wishes to know more.

[Ben Kenobi]

By no means. The RC tradition of opposing contraception is based on an inductive reading of one passage from Genesis and another from Leviticus/Deuteronomy which ignores the context in both cases.

Is that so? I suggest you should read what the Roman Catholics say about themselves, and how they defend their teachings against contraception.

They do not refer to either passage, rather they refer to Matthew's gospel, which teaches that the two in marriage are to become one flesh.

Who says that those in heaven are resurrected? Who says that Elijah was either "alive" or resurrected? Scripture only says that Elijah was taken away and didn't leave a body behind. There are a multitude of assumptions between that and RC doctrine.

I can only say, once again, that you seem to have settled upon the answer given by the RC church without fully investigating the matter either within the RC position or positions from Protestant theology.

You skillfully avoided my question. Moses died here on Earth, while Elijah was bodily assumed into heaven. Yet Moses appears with Elijah on the Mount of the Transfiguration. How can this be? The only satisfactory answer I have received to this question is the Catholic understanding of the saints.

[Ben Kenobi]

Humanae Vitae insults the intelligence of the faithful.

So only the simple bother reading it?

[Alexander's Horse]

it isn't very long

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

The only good thing about it from my pov is it bans sterilisation