O tempora!!!! O Mores!!!!: Paltalk Errores

*note that the 'claims' are false if not heretical assertions, and the 'answer' is the truth/orthodox view.

**NEW**(the brown is the false claim, blue is the rebuttal) Sedevacantist claims by “Christ_Saved_Me:

question #1: What about the Assisi Prayer meeting and why Pope John Paul 2 prayed with various false religions and recieved paganistic blessings from pagan priests even though the church has always condemned these things as being Idolatrous ?

Answer: Prove he prayed WITH them.

question #2: Why the new code of canon law and vatican 2 allow for noncatholics to recieve holy communion, when dogmatic teaching of the Church has always been that one must be a Catholic in full communion to receive Holy Communion in Mass from a Catholic Priest ?

Answer: IExceptions CAN be made, and this only applies to people like the EASTERN ORTHODOX, not Protestants. This is a DISCIPLINE, not "dogma". Besides the Church can bind and loose.

question #3: Why Pope Benedict 16 gave communion to the protestant "monk" Bro. Roger Shutz and then after he died told every one "Bro. Roger went straight to heaven, he has arrived at eternal joy." When there is no salvation outside the church, especially for those who knows of Catholic teachings and yet reject them ?

Answer: A day before Brother Roger's death, Benedict XVI received an affectionate letter from him in which he assured him of his ecumenical community's intention to "walk in communion with the Holy Father."( http://www.zenit.org/article-16724?l=english )

question #4: Why did Pope John Paul 2 approve of the Balamand Statement which was signed by Vatican officials saying that they will not try to convert the Eastern "Orthodox" ?

Answer: Have you even READ IT, can you even read? Was it even approved of by the Pope? Union is to be achieved by the hierarchies.

question #5: Why does Pope Benedict 16 constantly say that the "Orthodox" are part of the "true church" and that its bishops are "pastors in the church of Christ" ?

Answer: The Orthodox have valid local churches and apostolic succession and sacraments

question #6: Why does Vatican 2 teach this about Buddhists, "with a devout and trustful spirit may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or relying ON THEIR OWN EFFORTS OR FROM A HIGHER SOURCE, THE HIGHEST ILLUMINATION"?

Answer: False claim. Here is what Vatican II states about what the BUDDHISTS CLAIM TO BELIEVE: Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. " Nothing in this is says Buddhists are right as sedevacantists want you to believe.

question #7: Does Vatican II teach that "EVERY TYPE OF DISCRIMI

Answer: Not even a sentence.

(From here on it will just be claim and answer)

Sancti claim: Contraception should be allowed in certain instances.

Answer: Humanae Vitae condemns its use, and so do several other papal letters, no exception, only Natural Family Planning is allowed in certain grave instances, not artificial contraception.

Sancti: It is not infallible teaching.

Answer: Humanae Vitae itself in paragraph 14 says "we...declare..." and furthermore states it is in the magisterium, and previous popes and Fathers have called it nothing short of conspiracy to murder. AIDS is not a valid reason to use contraception, people with AIDS should abstain, period; they have no business having sex. Rome has spoke.

“14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)”

see later when I address CIA on the same issue

Sancti: Is it ok for one of them to "please themselves" if one has AIDS?

Answer: Sick, it does not matter what you have, it's still a mortal sin.Having sex for the sole purpose of pleasure is sin.

Sancti: Confirmation is no longer required by the Church before a Catholic marriage.

Answer: Another claim by Sancti officii which we can only assume is part of his "spirit of Vatican 2" unfortunately for Sanctii the current Code of Canon Law says a couple MUST receive confirmation prior, unless it’s a grave inconvenience.

Can. 1065 ß1 Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are to receive it before being admitted to marriage, if this can be done without grave inconvenience.

Sancti: The Church abolished or changed its teaching on Limbo.

Answer: The media abolished limbo, the International Theological Commission that was reported to abolish limbo did in fact not, it is not capable of it, and it furthermore more than once states that Limbo ""REMAINS therefore a possible theological hypothesis." See my page on Limbo. It’s sad your sister died, but that does not determine truth, the church says Limbo is possible at the VERY least. The issue with limbo is not whether a state would exist if a person died in original sin alone, but whether or not it is possible to die in original sin. Since Florence and various popes defined original sin makes heaven impossible.

Sancti: Romans 16:7 has a female apostle. [Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles]

Answer: No it just says Junia/s was noted BY the apostles, she was recognized by them. Whether or not Junia’s was male or female is debated, but ultimately irrelevant to the debate since the text does not say Junia(s) was an Apostle. Some of the Early Fathers that mention Junia say it was female, St John Chrysostom seems to think she is female, but the text of Romans is ambiguous. Here is a translation from Aramaic.

“Say shalom to Andronicus and Youniya my brethren, who stuck with me and are well-known by the apostles, and ahead of me in Christ.”—V-A.com of Romans 16:7

If Junias was of such great prominence AS an Apostle you would expect more mention of her especially since she is female. Furthermore, in the commentary of St John Chrysostom he explains in the same homily that women are not meant to be teachers, or leaders in the church in the same sense as ordained me. (homily 31, 7 on Romans) If the word apostle is applied to her it is in the broader sense, not the Apostolic office.

CIAlovesyou: I can't believing God did the things in the Old Testament such as destroy Sodom for being homosexual...[then says it goes against his perception of God's love]

Answer: Why did Jesus mention it, assuming it didn't happen why is it so horrible--God throughout the Old Testament says "I did evil (affliction) to such and such city" God casts souls into hell and punishes sinners--this though does not make Him a non loving God...Anyway you do NOT have a valid reason to reject the DIVINE INSPIRATION of scripture, especially since the Lord, St Paul, St Jude, St John the Divine quote Sodom in the gospels and epistles and use it to show the horrors of damnation (Matthew 10:15, Luke 17:29, Romans 9:29, Jude 1:7, Rev. 11:8 etc.). I asked Jacob Michael this question

7/14/2007 - Is it permissible for a catholic to reject the events of the old testament where God pours out his wrath on men for their sins such as Korah, Sodom, and the wars and executions ordered by God simply because they go against the slogans: "a loving God would never do such a thing" and "God hates the sin not the sinner!"? Thank you

[he answered] No, of course it's not alright for a Catholic to simply reject those events. However, caution must be exercised when interpreting those passages and drawing application from them - "God is Love" is what St. John tells us, and so these kinds of passages must in some way be reconciled with God's love and desire for all men to be saved. {lumengentleman.com}

CIAlovesyou: Contraception is a "small t" tradition, and is not defined. (and presents the liberal point of view, stating no proof for this view)

Answer: By saying it’s a tradition rather than a Tradition means that it can be changed and was not always believed. Vatican document and other texts prove otherwise that it IS a Tradition.

"The Church has ALWAYS taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as DEFINITIVE and IRREFORMABLE . Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life."--VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE, 2:4 (12 February AD 1997)

"Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15) ... Similarly excluded is ANY ACTION which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)"--Humanae Vitae --Pope Paul VI (25 July A.D. 1968)

"One can find no period in history, no document of the Church, no theological school, scarcely one Catholic theologian, who ever denied that contraception was always seriously evil. The teaching of the Church in this matter is absolutely constant. Until the present century this teaching was peacefully possessed by all other Christians, whether Orthodox or Anglican or Protestant."--"Minority Papal Commission Report”, written by the minority of theologians who upheld the traditional, historic view on the evils of contraception and reported to Pope Paul VI (AD 1968)

Acts of contraception, abortion etc have been taught since the times of the Early Church Fathers and Jewish rabbis before Christ as an wicked and damnable act, to say it is not consistent or always have been taught is error.

“The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule.”— Instruction  on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian IV:A:24

But SINCE this matter has been called irreformable, definitive, affirmed of the magisterium, and labeled by so countless times as “intrinsically evil” and has VERY much history to it, and a case of morals-- the following:

“When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed. When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)” -- Instruction  on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian IV:A:23

Scripture:

'So Judah said to Onan, "Come to your brother's wife and perform the rite of the levirate, and raise up progeny for your brother." . Now Onan knew that the progeny would not be his, and it came about, when he came to his brother's wife, he wasted [his semen] on the ground, in order not to give seed to his brother. Now what he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and He put him to death also.'--Genesis 38:8-10

"..he wasted [his semen] on the ground"-- He practiced coitus interruptus. [From Gen. Rabbah 85:5 Jewish Commentary

Furthermore on this point, Jewish tradition states that ‘wasted his seed’ DOES refer to masturbation also, and that WAS part of the sin on Onan.

Furthermore Jewish Midrash states that one of the sins that led up to the days of Noah was the use of an ORAL contraceptive! As it is written:

“In the early time of creation, in the time of Lemech, a medicine was known, the taking of which prevented a woman's conception.”--Gen. Rabba 23.

"[A man] with injured testicles or whose member is cut, may not enter the assembly of the LORD."--Deuteronomy 23:2

"whose member is cut" Heb. וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה, one whose male organ is cut, [to the extent] that his semen no longer shoots forth in a continuous flow, but rather drips and trickles, and thus he cannot produce children. — [Yev. 75a] Jewish Commentary

"Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God"--1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile [quotes Humanae Vitae]...In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, THE CHURCH ACCEPTS THE TEACHING OF SACRED SCRIPTURE. The Apostle Paul emphatically states [quotes 1 Corinthians 6:9-10] [emphasis mine]…

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act "subjectively" good or defensible as a choice.”—Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor 80-81 [A.D. 1993]

The Church has....ALWAYS....

"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness"'-- Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

The second commandment of the teaching is this: “Thou shalt not commit murder; thou shalt not commit adultery.” Thou shalt not commit sodomy; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use magic: thou shalt not use drugs; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide--Didache, II, 1-2 [c A.D. 100]

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted"--Patriarch St Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]

Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to “be fruitful and multiply.” He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word Exechiel: “Put away your fornications.” Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor"--Patriarch St Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogues (Instructor), 2, 10; 95, 3, GCS, 12, 214) [cAD 190]

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature"----Patriarch St Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3 [A.D. 191]

"There are some women of rank and great wealth, so-called believers, who began taking drugs to make themselves sterile; and then they bound themselves tightly to procure an abortion because they do not want to have a child born of a slave father or of a man of lower station"-- Origen Contra Haereses, 9; PG 16c, 3387-8 [c.AD 240]

"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion]" --St Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 9:12 [A.D. 225]

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife"--Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]

"There are those who when they have intercourse deliberately prevent having children. They indulge in pleasure not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy their passion. To such an extent has the devil deceived these wretched people that they betray the work of God by perverting it to their own deceits. Moreover, they are so willing to satisfy their carnal desires as to pollute each other with impure seed, by which offspring is not conceived but by their own will evil desires are satisfied. Moreover, if a man should by mistake deposit some of his emitted seed and his wife becomes pregnant, listen to what further crime they descend. They remove the unformed fetus from the womb anytime they please and actually grind the aborted child (infantem) with mortar and pestle. Then to avoid the nausea they use pepper and other spices or ointments."--St Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses Panarium, PG 41, 339 [c AD 374]

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption"--St Epiphanius, Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

"What of the covetous man? Is he not like this? For who will ever be able to bind him? Are there not fears and daily threats, and admonitions and counsels? All these bonds he burst asunder…The covetous man is more fierce even than this, assailing all like hell, swallowing everything up, and going around as a common enemy of the human race. Why, if he could he would have no one else exist, so that he might possess all things. He does not stop at this. While longing that all men should be destroyed, he longs also to mar the substance of the earth, and to see it all become gold …To convince you that we have not finished describing his madness … let us ask him if he is not forever framing to himself such fancies as show him ranging in mind among all kinds of people with the idea (if necessary) to put them out of the way. This includes his friends and relatives and even his parents.You do not have to ask them if they harbor such feelings.[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless [birth control pill anyone?], and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]"--Patriarch St John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]

[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5 :12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and be impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds"----Patriarch St John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, Homilies on Matthew 62:3 [A.D. 391]

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well.... Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks"-- Patriarch St John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

"Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers . . . 'I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5:12] .... On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: 'For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition." If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated' [Titus 3:10]. Where then are those who dare to mutilate [sterilize] themselves, seeing that they drawn down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?"--Patriarch St John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, Commentary on Galatians 5:12 [A.D. 395].

"This is the reason for the intrinsic unlawfulness of contraception: it introduces a substantial limitation into this reciprocal giving, breaking that "inseparable connection" between the two meanings of the conjugal act, the unitive and the procreative, which, as Pope Paul VI pointed out, are written by God himself into the nature of the human being (n. 12)."-- Pope John Paul II to To Professor Anna Cappella 2:3 (27 February AD 1998)

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation. (compendium)

Individual judgment/conscious condemned:

“The weight of public opinion when manipulated and its pressure to conform also have their influence. Often models of society promoted by the "mass media" tend to assume a normative value. The view is particularly promoted that the Church should only express her judgment on those issues which public opinion considers important and then only by way of agreeing with it. The Magisterium, for example, could intervene in economic or social questions but ought to leave matters of conjugal and family morality to individual judgment.” –Instruction  on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian IV:B:32 “On Dissent”

Etcetera...

CIAlovesyou: Universal Salvation is possible (and hell should not be spoken of since the Gospel is only good news). [Later this view was also pushed by TheTenthDoctor (who is also a follower of spellsix). Both these individuals cite Balthasar for their belief in universal salvation]

Answer: Scripture and tradition certainly do not believe that. "wide is the gate to destruction...many are called, few are chosen" Saints have preached what some call hellfire and brimstone, including the LORD, who said FEW are CHOSEN (Matthew 22:14 etc). Most explicit verse NEGATING universal salvation is:” "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.” (Luke 13:24). Once again CIA seems to deny the material sufficiency of scripture and favor modern innovations over holy writ. The Father of Vatican II stated the council professed that there WILL be people in hell.

Holy Scripture:

"How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few."--Matthew 7:14

“Many are invited, but few are chosen."—Matthew 22:14

“I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth."—Matthew 8:11-2

Luke 10

"Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.”—Luke 13:24

"..in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water."--1 Peter 3:20

“..in blazing fire, inflicting punishment on those who do not acknowledge God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal ruin, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power”—2 Thessalonians 1:8-9

“The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”—Jude 1:6-7

“For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but condemned them to the chains of Tartarus and handed them over to be kept for judgment; and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, together with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the godless world; and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (to destruction), reducing them to ashes, making them an example for the godless (people) of what is coming; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people (for day after day that righteous man living among them was tormented in his righteous soul at the lawless deeds that he saw and heard), then the Lord knows how to rescue the devout from trial and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment”—2 Peter 2:4-9

“Next I saw a large white throne and the one who was sitting on it. The earth and the sky fled from his presence and there was no place for them. I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls. The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. (This pool of fire is the second death.) Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire.”—Revelation 20:11-15

"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some shall live forever, others shall be an everlasting horror and disgrace."—Daniel 12:2

“For the LORD shall judge all mankind by fire and sword. and many shall be slain by the LORD.”—Isaiah 66:16

“There be many created, but few shall be saved.”—Apocryphal book of 2 Esdras 8:3 circa AD 1^st Century

The following Church Fathers reject universal salvation:

‘Let us beware lest we be found [fulfilling that saying], as it is written, "Many are called, but few are chosen. "’—Epistle of Barnabas Chapter 4

“But I shall ask you one thing, O child: that impious Herod, where is he? The child says to him: Since you have asked, hear his dwelling-place. He dwells, indeed, in Hades; and there has been prepared for him fire unquenchable, Gehenna without end, bubbling mire, worm that sleeps not, because he cut off three thousand infants, wishing to slay the child Jesus, the ancient of the ages; but of all these ages I am father.”—Acts and Martyrdom of St Matthew

“His works that He had come as the Savior, not the Judge of the world. But the wicked traitor refused to understand this, and took measures against himself, not in the self-condemnation of repentance, but in the madness of perdition, and thus he who had sold the Author of life to His murderers, even in dying increased the amount of sin which condemned him.”—St Leo Sermon 62:4

“He was it is true but one man "who had not the wedding garment. Cast him out." But why is he cast out? "For many are called, but few chosen. " Leave alone the few, cast out the many. It is true, that man was but one. Yet undoubtedly that one not only was many, but those many in numbers far surpassed the number of the good…[continues on the few saved]”—St Augustine Homily 40:4 On the New Testament

The "way of the ungodly" is but a transitory happiness; at the end of the way the happiness is at an end also. Why? Because that way is "the broad road; " its termination leads to the pit of hell. Now, your way is narrow; and "few there be" that enter in through it: [Matthew 7:13-14] but into how ample a field it comes at the last, you ought to consider. "Fret not yourself at him who prospers in his way; because of the man who brings wicked devices to pass."—St Augustine Exposition of Psalm 37

“Do you not see that it is better to have one healthy sheep, than ten thousand with the murrain; that fine children, though few, are better than many children diseased withal; that in the Kingdom there will be few, but in hell many? What have I to do with a multitude? what profit therein? None. Rather they are a plague to the rest. It is as if one who had the option of ten healthy persons or ten thousand sick folks, should take to himself the latter in addition to the ten.”—St John Chrysostom Homily 8 on Acts

“In our city among so many thousands, scarcely can one hundred be found who will be saved, for in the youngers is great wickedness, and in the elders deadness.”--St John Chrysostom Homily 40 to the Antiochenes

“Judas also repented, but in an evil way.”—St John Chrysostom Homily 31

“Have you never noticed what He did even in this world? How when He met with two thieves, He counted them not worthy of the same estate, but one He led into the Kingdom, and the other He sent away into Hell?”—St John Chrysostom, Homily 25

"I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish: and the reason is, that it is an affair that requires a great mind."--St John Chrysostom Homily 3 on Acts of the Apostles

"Many, after they have found the way of truth, caught by the pleasures of the world, desert midway."—St Jerome

"Yet doubtless there are but few who are saved. You remember a question which was lately set before us out of the Gospel, "Lord," it was said, "are there few that be saved?" What said the Lord to this? He did not say, "Not few, but many are they who are saved." He did not say this. But what said He, when He had heard, "Are there few that be saved? Strive to enter by the strait gate." [Luke 13:24] When you hear then, "Are there few that be saved?" the Lord confirmed what He heard. Through the "strait gate" but "few" can "enter." In another place He says Himself, "Strait and narrow is the way which leads unto life, and few there be that go thereby: but broad and spacious is the way that leads to destruction, and many there be which walk thereby." Why rejoice we in great numbers? Give ear to me, you "few." I know that you are "many," who hear me, yet but "few" of you hear to obey.”—St Augustine Sermon 61 On The New Testament

“Consider therefore that you belong to the few and elect; and do not grow cold after the examples of the lukewarmness of many: but live as the few, that with the few you may be worthy of a place in the kingdom of God: for "many are called, but few chosen," and it is a "little flock to which it is the Father's good pleasure to give " an inheritance.”—St John Cassian Institutes 4:38

"There be very many come to the faith, yet but few arrive at the heavenly kingdom; many follow God in words, but shun Him in their lives. Whereof spring two things to be thought upon. The first, that none should presume ought concerning himself; for though he be called to the faith, he knows not whether he shall be chosen to the kingdom. Secondly, that none should despair of his neighbor, even though he see him lying in vices; because he knows not the riches of the Divine mercy."—Pope Gregory the Great c AD 600

"Omnipotent God wishes all men without exception to be saved [1 Tim. 2:4] although not all will be saved. However, that certain ones are saved, is the gift of the one who saves; that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish."—Council of Quiersy chapter 3, AD 853, (Denz. 318)

"Likewise concerning the redemption of the blood of Christ, because of the great error which has arisen from this cause, so that some, as their writings indicate, declare that it has been shed even for those impious ones who from the beginning of the world even up to the passion of our Lord, have died in their wickedness and have been punished by eternal damnation, contrary to that prophet: "O death, I will be Thy death, O hell, I will be thy bite" [Hosea 13:14]..."--Council of Valence Canon 4, AD 855 (Denz 323)

"There are few who are saved."--St Anselm c. AD 1100

"That all Christians are to be saved."[CONDEMNED]—Pope Pius II, 2nd Article condemned in "Cum Sicut", Nov. 14, 1459 Denz. 717b

"Poor Judas! he has spent more than eighteen hundred years in hell, and his hell is still at its commencement. Poor Cain, he is in fire for more than five thousand eight hundred years, and his hell is at its beginning."—St Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Church, Preparation for Death, Consideration XXVII: The Eternity of Hell, Point III:Eternity is Unchangable, p. 127

"So what must we do, we who know that the greater number is going to be damned, and not only out of all Catholics? What must we do? Take the resolution to belong to the little number of those who are saved."--St. Leonard of Port Maurice AD 1751

"And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: 'We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of [vincible?] ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect'"—Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis #3, citing Benedict XIV, Instit., 27:18

“One duty of the bishop is to encourage the development of genuine Christian hope. One could say that there is considerable silence and some confusion on such Christian hope especially as it touches the Last Things, death and judgment, heaven and hell. Limbo seems to have disappeared, purgatory has slipped into limbo, hell is left unmentioned, except perhaps for terrorists and infamous criminals, while heaven is the final and universal human right; or perhaps just a consoling myth.”-- H.E. Most Rev. George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia AD 2007

Catechism:

"The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.""—Catechism §1036 on Hell (notice it quotes Luke 13:24 and interprets it as being Hell) 

Rebuttal by CIA: Pope John Paul II stated universal salvation was possible:

“Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, July 28, 1999)

Answer: This quote is misunderstood, CIA and a few others used this to justify their belief that universal salvation is possible, but this is not exactly an accurate quote. His reasoning is the word “whether” but this speech was not first said in English—it is a translation and according to translators it does not imply universal salvation is possible.

“La dannazione rimane una reale possibilità, ma non ci è dato di conoscere, senza speciale rivelazione divina, se e quali esseri umani vi siano effettivamente coinvolti.”—Papa Giovanni Paolo II, Udienza Generale, 28 luglio 1999

It now reads: “the knowledge of which human beings are effectively involved in it” in the book form.

“This appears in the official version of the Pope's talks, Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, but without the doctrinally difficult wording "whether" (se e in Italian). Presumably someone in the Vatican noticed that the words, as they were actually spoken, were problematic and intervened to make sure the official version conforms unambiguously to Church teaching. Still, it is the publicly spoken version that has received so much attention. Thus the Holy Father's spoken words appear to deny that the sources of public revelation (i.e., Scripture and Tradition) are sufficient to tell us whether any human souls at all are damned.”—Fr Brian Harrison

Furthermore on this passage an Italian website says this text, before being edited by the Vatican to omit “se e” because of its difficult understanding, says it has two possible understandings: 1) Universal salvation is possible. 2) “se e” is referring to how many are in hell so it would be rendered: knowledge of how many (se e) or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” Since the Vatican decided to later omit the words “se e” it must be understood this does not refer to the belief that universal salvation is possible. What pope said is we don’t know specifically who or how many exactly are damned. Other Vatican translations of the text do not imply universal salvation.

Spanish:“La condenación sigue siendo una posibilidad real, pero no nos es dado conocer, sin especial revelación divina, cuáles [which plural] seres humanos [human beings] han quedado implicados efectivamente en ella.”

French:“La damnation demeure une possibilité réelle, mais il ne nous est pas donné de connaître, sans révélation divine particulière, quells [which plural] êtres humains [human beings] sont effectivement concernés.”

Portugese:“A perdição continua uma real possibilidade, mas não nos é dado conhecer, sem especial revelação divina, quais [which plural] os seres humanos [the humanbeings] que nela estão efectivamente envolvidos.”

German:”Die Verdammnis bleibt eine wirkliche Möglichkeit. Aber uns ist es nicht bestimmt, sie zu kennen, ohne besondere göttliche Offenbarung, welche menschlichen Wesen wirklich darin verwickelt sind.”

This misunderstanding was perpetuated

Another rebuttal of CIA initially was that Jesus did not really say what He said about hell, but that it came from the community of Matthew [such a statement violates Vatican I on Special Revelation Ch 2:5 “contained in written books …were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself”-], after realizing no one would buy that reasoning he went on to say Jesus was “making a warning, not a promise.” I would agree to this if His statement ended with “How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life,” however, He goes on to say: “And those who find it are FEW” (Matt 7:14) why would a warning state that FEW will find their way to eternal life, CIA’s reason boils down to Jesus making a pious lie, like a parent who tells a child that children who stay out past dark are eaten by the big, bad wolf. On this point the liberal argument is:

 "Ah, but God is merciful!" 

Are these then mere words? and was not that rich man punished for despising Lazarus? Are not the foolish virgins cast out of the Bride-chamber? Do not they who did not feed Him go away into "the fire prepared for the devil?" (Matthew 25:41). Will not he that hath soiled garments be "bound hand and foot" (Marthew 22:13), and go to ruin? Will, not he that demanded the hundred pence to be paid, be given over to the tormentors? Is not that said of the adulterers  true, that "their worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched?"  (Mark 9:43). Are these but mere threats then? Yea, it is answered. And from what source pray dost thou venture to make such an assertion, and that too when thou passest judgment of thine own opinion? Why, I shall be able to prove the contrary, both from what He said, and from what He did. (See John 5:22). For if you will not believe by the punishments that are to come, at least believe by those that have happened already. For what have happened, and have come forth into reality, surely are not threats and words. Who then was it that flooded the whole world, and affected that baleful wreck, and the utter destruction of our whole race! Who was it that after this hurled those thunders and lightnings upon the land of Sodom? [Genesis 19] Who that drowned all Egypt in the sea? Who that consumed the six hundred thousand men in the wilderness? Who that burnt up the synagogue of Abiram? Who that bade the earth open her mouth for the company of Core and Dathan, and swallow them up [Numbers 16]? Who that carried off the threescore and ten thousand at one sweep in David’s time? Shall I mention also those that were punished individually! Cain, who was given up to a continual vengeance? [Genesis 4] (the son of) Charmi, who was stoned with his whole family? Or him, that suffered the same thing for gathering sticks on the sabbath? [Numbers 15:32-] The forty children who were consumed by those beasts, and obtained no pardon even on the score of their age [for mocking the prophet Elisha in 2 Kings 2::23-4]?"--St John Chyrostom, Homily 25, On Romans 1, response to "Ah, but God is merciful!"

On Judas, another person stated that Jesus only called Judas a “son of perdition” and told him "It would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Matt. 26:24) since He was angry and being emotional, which is unacceptable and implies that Jesus sinned by letting His anger go out of control. Jesus in John 6 even states He knew what Judas would do and that he was a “devil”

“Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.”—John 6:64

Further reason to believe Judas is lost is that:

“That he may be judged and found guilty, that his plea [or prayer] may be in vain. May his days be few; may another take his office.”—Psalm 109:7-8 is quoted by St Peter:

“'May another take his office.’”—Acts 1:20

Notice Psalm 109:7 says he “may be judged and found guilty…his plea may be in vain”

It is true Pope John Paul II said Matthew 26:54 that “His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation,” however what they fail to recognize is that the pope did not rule it out, and its highly likely that Christ’s words did spell out the foreknowledge of the damnation of Judas, as it is a common theological interpretation. Furthermore, what I fail to understand about the liberals who CITE the pope saying this IGNORE the previous sentences where the pope rules out universal salvation:

“Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46).”—Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Chapter 28: Does Eternal Life Exist? c.AD 1994

Cardinal Dulles recently did an essay on the “Population of Hell” in which he states the position of various people, and states scriptures used by both sides, of which he does well. However, he does not seem to be clear on his position and does not really address the verses which state there are people who will be damned. In fact, he falls into the common errors of the liberal argument. Some Cardinals seem to hold that universal salvation is possible.

Cardinal Ratzinger four years before he rose to the papacy as Pope Benedict, and two years after the speech by Pope John Paul II, which liberals claim teaches the possibility of universal salvation, the Cardinal wrote this in his book:

“This is why God’s all-embracing desire to save people does not involve the actual salvation of all men. He allows us the power to refuse.”— Joseph Alois Cardinal Ratzinger, “Gott ist uns nah. Eucharistie: Mitt des Lebens” (God is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life), Chapter II: God’s Yes and His Love Are Maintained Even in Death, point 2, p. 37 (concerning pro multis in the Mass.) Published June 1, AD 2003

Note that Cardinal Ratzinger frequently reference liberal theologians like Karl Rahner, de Lubac, and many times Hans Ur von Balthasar, which taught universal salvation was possible. Yet, Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly rejects universal salvation is possible!

Though not exactly pertinent to the topic the current pope states:

"Jesus came to tell us that he wants us all in heaven [paradise] and that hell, of which so little is said in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love.”—Pope Benedict XVI March 25, 2007 at the Parish of St. Felicity and Martyred Sons

On this point Pope Benedict was asked by Father Pietro Riggi, Salesian of Borgo Ragazzi Don Bosco, in a question and answer session with the Roman clergy the following:

“Without sin, not speaking of hell, Christ’s redemption is diminished too. Does it not seem to you that with the loss of the sense of sin the salvific, sacramental figure itself of the priest, who has the power to absolve and celebrate in the name of Christ, is also lost? / Today, unfortunately, we priests as well, when the Gospel speaks of hell, we avoid the Gospel itself. It is not spoken of.”

To which the Pope responded in the affirmative:

“You rightly spoke of fundamental themes of the faith, which unfortunately rarely appear in our preaching…”

“So, you are right: We must speak of all this out of responsibility for the world, for the men who live today. We must also speak precisely of sin as the possibility of destroying ourselves and so also of other parts of the earth. In the encyclical I tried to show that indeed the last judgment of God guarantees justice….”

“I tried to say: Perhaps there are not many who are destroyed in this way, who are forever incurable, who have no element on which God’s love can rest, who do not have a minimal capacity to love in them. This would be hell. On the other hand, there are certainly few -- or, in any case, not many -- who are so pure that they can immediately enter into communion with God…”—Pope Benedict XVI, Question and Answer Session February 7, 2007

To reply to CIA—yes hell must be spoken of, the Pope said so himself and agreed with the priest that it is spoken of rarely and that is bad to ignore and be silent on hell. Hell is part of the gospel, if you ignore hell you downplay the gospel.

Furthermore, one of Balthasar’s critics commenting on Vatican II states:

“In reference to the text from Vatican II it is to be noted that initially there was no reference to the "eternal fire." The reference was explicitly inserted at the request of many bishops. We know as well, from the official Relatio, that the text was not intended to speak of the salvation of all men.[45] From the same source we learned that "one bishop wanted a sentence to be included in which it would be clear that there are damned defacto, lest damnation remain as a mere hypothesis." The request was refused by the Theological Commission responsible for drafting the document, with the comment that "In no. 48 there are cited the words of the Gospel in which the Lord Himself speaks about the damned in a form which is grammatically future."[46] The significance of that remark is that when the Church speaks of damnation of humans she speaks, as Christ himself did, not in a form of grammar which is conditional (i.e., speaking about something which might happen), but in the grammatical future (i.e., about something which will happen). And it was with this understanding that the bishops of Vatican II voted upon and accepted Lumen Gentium.”—James T. O'Connor

It is clear that NEITHER the Scripture or the Church state that damnation of men is conditional. CIA will have you believe other and reword the scriptures to have damnation as a conditional event (as mentioned previously) which may not even happen thereby twisting Sacred Scripture!

CIAlovesyou: God doesn't hate. God's love is perfect & etc..

Answer: "Hates the sin not sinner"---not biblical...Psalms, Sirach etc... Most people who claim God can’t hate use 1 John 4, or John 3:16, or Romans which don’t not say God can’t hate

"...for the Highest hateth sinners, and hath mercy on the penitent."-Sirach 12:3 DRV

"The Most High Himself hates sinners, and upon the wicked He takes vengeance."--Sirach 12:7 NAB

"Say not: "It was God's doing that I fell away"; for what he hates he does not do."--Sirach 15:11 NAB

"Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him."--Sirach 15:13 NAB

"Everyone who is dishonest in any of these matters is an abomination to the LORD, your God." --Deuteronomy 25:16 NAB (hateth in DRV)

“Do not conform, therefore, to the customs of the nations whom I am driving out of your way, because all these things that they have done have filled me with disgust for them.”--Leviticus 20:23

"..In my abhorrence of you [unrepentant sinner]"--"Leviticus 26:30

"Was not Esau Jacob's brother? says the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, but hated Esau"--Malachi 1:3 NAB

'As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau."'--Romans 9:13 NAB

"the arrogant cannot stand before You. You hate (in Heb. שָׂנֵאתָ saw-nay, Greek. ἐμίσησας, ) all who do evil;" --Psalm 5:5(6) NAB

"you destroy all who speak falsely. Murderers and deceivers the LORD abhors."--Psalm 5:6(7) NAB

"The LORD tests the good and the bad, hates those who love violence,"--Psalm 11:5 NAB

"There are six things the LORD hates...The false witness who utters lies"—Proverbs 6:16, 19 NAB

"But to God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"—Wisdom 14:9.*God hates the sinner and the sin, not the sin alone

Recently the folloiwng webpage was made after I posted this argument http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0606-park which explains the true meaning of the extra biblical phrase “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner”

etc.....Now for the Church Fathers

“Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hates those that commend themselves.”—Pope St Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians Chapter 40

“For if, when we have a son, (and what is there more our own than a son,) if therefore when we have a son, and are blasphemed through him, we publicly renounce him, turn away from him, and will not receive him; how much more will God, when He has ungrateful servants who blaspheme and insult Him, turn away from them and hate them? And who will take up him whom God hates and turns away from, but the Devil and the demons?”—St John Chrysostom Homily 6 On Philippians

“How, do you think, the devil is pleased and laughs, when he hears such a prayer? and how, God is provoked, and turns from and abhors you, when you beseech things like these?”—St John Chrysostom Homily 5 On Second Corinthians

“For it may be that God hates a person to that degree more mildly, as not to destroy him, but whom He destroys He hates the more exceedingly, by how much He punishes more severely. Now He hates all who work iniquity[Psalm 5:5]: but all who speak leasing He also destroys.”—St Augustine On Lying Section 9

For, as our Scriptures say, "the wicked boasts of his heart's desire, and blesses the covetous, whom the Lord abhors. "  Away, then, with these deceitful masks, these deluding whitewashes, that things may be truthfully seen and scrutinized. –St Augustine The City of God Book III:14

“God at the same time set before him good and evil, and that He loves the good, and hates the evil which is contrary to this; but that He permitted the evil on this account, that the good also might shine forth, since, as I have often taught, we understand that the one cannot exist without the other.”—Lactantius On the Anger of God Ch 15

I am not trying to say necessarily that God does not love sinners, since the council of Orange II does teach that and so does scripture several times, but I am simply trying to demonstrate YOU CANNOT simply ignore scripture or pass it off.  Somehow God must both in some way have hate for sinners and love for them.  It seems that God hates the unrepentant sinner, but shows love and mercy to those who will or want to repent. At the same time we cannot earn the love of God, or love God without Him loving us first.  The word for hate in the Semitic thought can simply mean to show less love or favor, not necessarily revile. Throughout scripture it states God does not hear the (unrepentant) sinner's prayer. Pope John Paul II tells children:

“The beautiful Christmas carol Tu scendi dalle stelle says: “Oh, how much it cost you to have loved me!”. The Son of God loved us, who offended him; we too must love those who offend us, and thus conquer evil with good. To hate sin but to love the sinner: this is the way to peace, the way that the Lord teaches us from the mystery of his birth.” –Pope John Paul II, Address to Catholic Action Children …but this seems to be more of a statement regarding the expected actions of Christians.

Scripture does say...

For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.—Wisdom 11:24 (God did not create man to sin, sin is not a creation of God, elsewhere in Wisdom it says God hates sinners Wisdom 14:9)

But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.—Romans 5:8 (Us, is Christian who repented)

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.—John 3:16

We love because he first loved us.—1 John 4:19 (context is a person who did repent, Christians)

These verses are understood as refering to prevenient grace, and God knowing before hand people would repent. A side note on this...Dr Robert Sungenis I read on his site flip flops on this matter.  In his questions archive (August 2005) when ask if God hates sinners, Sungenis answered:

“That's not what Scripture says. Psalm 5:5 and 11:5, and many other passages say God hates the wicked for who they are and what they do, not merely in the sense that hate is punishment.”

While in next month, September of the same year he implies otherwise:

First of all, God loves all people. The Gospel plainly tells us that He causes his sun to shine on the wicked and the good alike (Matt 5:40-48). It tells us that He is not slow concerning His promise to return, since He wishes that all men would come to repentance (2Pet 3:9). So this is not an issue whether God "loves" idolators.

I have no come across patristic evidence for the interpretation of Matthew 5:40-8 as God not hating sinners, or hearing their prayers. One states God gives rain and sun for the sake of the just, others say sun and rain are spiritual for baptism and confirmation,

People: God hears the prayers of sinners.

Answer: This depends, God will hear the prayer of sinners if it is for their salvation, prayers that are not relevant to their own salvation won't be heard generally.  The bible even says even if your prayer is for salvation, but you won't repent of your sins, it will be rejected. Here are some examples in Scripture of God rejecting prayers of 'sinners.'

[Formerly blindman talking to Pharisees] "We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does his will, he listens to him."—John 9:31

The Lord is far from the wicked: and He will hear the prayers of the just.—Proverbs 15:29

When one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.--Proverbs 28:9

When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood!--Isaiah 1:15

So a man that fasteth for his sins, and doth the same again, what doth his humbling himself profit him? who will hear his prayer?--Sirach 34:31

Therefore, thus says the LORD: See, I bring upon them misfortune which they cannot escape. Though they cry out to me, I will not listen to them.--Jeremiah 11:11 (because the Israelites followed idols)

Had I cherished evil in my heart, the Lord would not have heard.--Psalm 66:18

(some taken from here)

Psalm 34:15  1pt 4:18

CIAlovesyou: [statement against limbo]

Answer: Several councils at the very LEAST show its possible (see Sancti argument). Baptism is necessary for salvation, whether or not it’s possible to baptize a baby without is possible, maybe, but the church seems to doubt that in Florence, Constance etc..The CCC says pray for them, not saying their fate. Limbo seemed to be believed in Apocryphal works after the time of the Apostles (The Apocalypse of Peter, 25), St Augustine, St-Pope Gregory the Great (Moralia), St Thomas Aquinas etc..

“Can a man be found who is clean of defilement? There is none, however short his days. “—Job 14:4

“Limbo seems to have disappeared, purgatory has slipped into limbo, hell is left unmentioned, except perhaps for terrorists and infamous criminals, while heaven is the final and universal human right; or perhaps just a consoling myth.”-- H.E. Most Rev. George PELL, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia

CIAlovesyou: People who commit a sin, ignorant of knowing it is a sin are not guilty for committing a sin.

Answer: People who commit a sin while ignorant of committing it are responsible as the old saying goes “Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law” but ignorance in this case does lessen the guilt and responsibility for committing the sin, the gravity of the sin may change, possibly making a mortal sin a venial, or just lessen the gravity of a mortal sin. A person could be guilty of not learning it is a sin, or refusing to learn it is a sin also. Only extreme ignorance, senility, some mental disorder or something else along those lines could make committing a sin in ignorance not a sin, as the Catechism states, but in most cases ignorance may only diminish the gravity or responsibility. The error here is that committing a sin in ignorance is never a sin, which is wrong. NOT ALL IGNORANCE IS INCULPABLE, especially for Christians, which was more of the context of the discussion. Guilt for sinning in ignorance appears in both New and Old Testament and the Church Fathers as follows:

Old Testament the LORD said:

“Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally [by committing one] of all the commandments of the Lord, which may not be committed, and he commits [part] of one of them. If the anointed kohen [priest] sins, bringing guilt to the people, then he shall bring for his sin which he has committed, an unblemished young bull as a sin offering to the Lord.”—Leviticus 4:2-3 *For commentary 1 and 2.

“And if the entire community of Israel errs because a matter was hidden from the eyes of the congregation, and they commit one of all of all the commandments of the Lord, which may not be committed, incurring guilt; When the sin which they had committed becomes known, the congregation shall bring a young bull as a sin offering. They shall bring it before the Tent of Meeting.”—Leviticus 4:13-14 *Meaning they were misinstructed on the Torah, or possibly just ignorant, some say it refers to doubting whether something was a sin and doing it.

“If a person sins and commits one of the commandments of the Lord which may not be committed, but he does not know, he is guilty, and he shall bear his transgression.”—Leviticus 5:17 *Many interpolate the words ignorance or inadvertently to show the context. For commentary 1 and 2

See Numbers 15 also.

In the New Testament the LORD declares:

“That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.”—Luke 12:47-8

Commentary on Luke 12:47-8

The commentary of states that “Shall be beaten with few stripes.” means “ignorance, when it proceeds from a person's own fault, doth not excuse, but only diminisheth the fault.” (Witham)

That is, with fewer than he who knew his lord’s will, according to the measure as well of his ignorance as of his act and fault. There are four degrees of ignorance, the first invincible, which is without blame; the second vincible, but hardly so, which has some fault and is subject to punishment; the third crass, which has more blame; the fourth wilful, which has the most blame and the heaviest punishment. Of this the xxxvi. Psalm speaks, verse 4, “He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good, he abhorreth not evil.” “This man,” says Euthymius, “despised everything; that one was slothful. But contempt is worse than sloth.” For the slothful man knew not when he might have known, and, as Titus says, he neglected to learn and despised, and derided contemptuously. Hence it is plain against Jovinian and modern heretics that there are degrees even of mortal sin, and some are worse than others, and will therefore meet with more heavy punishment in hell, but one of a milder the other of a more severe punishment. (Cornelius À Lapide)

St Augustine also held that sins done in ignorance were sins, just with less gravity in his work “On Grace and Freewill”

“For without faith in Christ no man can be delivered; and therefore they will be so judged that they perish. If, indeed, the condition of those who are ignorant of the law of God is worse than the condition of those who know it, how can that be true which the Lord says in the gospel: "The servant who knows not his lord's will, and commits things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes; whereas the servant who knows his lord's will, and commits things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with many stripes"? [Luke 12:47-48] Observe how clearly He here shows that it is a graver matter for a man to sin with knowledge than in ignorance. And yet we must not on this account betake ourselves for refuge to the shades of ignorance, with the view of finding our excuse therein. It is one thing to be ignorant, and another thing to be unwilling to know. For the will is at fault in the case of the man of whom it is said, "He is not inclined to understand, so as to do good." But even the ignorance, which is not theirs who refuse to know, but theirs who are, as it were, simply ignorant, does not so far excuse any one as to exempt him from the punishment of eternal fire, though his failure to believe has been the result of his not having at all heard what he should believe; but probably only so far as to mitigate his punishment.”—St Augustine On Grace and Freewill Chapter 5

St Thomas Aquinas on ignorance:

“Not every ignorance causes involuntariness, as stated above (6, 8). Hence not every ignorance excuses from sin altogether.”—Summa Theologicae Question 76, Article 3:1

“I answer that, Since every sin is voluntary, ignorance can diminish sin, in so far as it diminishes its voluntariness; and if it does not render it less voluntary, it nowise alleviates the sin. Now it is evident that the ignorance which excuses from sin altogether (through making it altogether involuntary) does not diminish a sin, but does away with it altogether. On the other hand, ignorance which is not the cause of the sin being committed, but is concomitant with it, neither diminishes nor increases the sin.

Therefore sin cannot be alleviated by any ignorance, but only by such as is a cause of the sin being committed, and yet does not excuse from the sin altogether. Now it happens sometimes that such like ignorance is directly and essentially voluntary, as when a man is purposely ignorant that he may sin more freely, and ignorance of this kind seems rather to make the act more voluntary and more sinful, since it is through the will's intention to sin that he is willing to bear the hurt of ignorance, for the sake of freedom in sinning. Sometimes, however, the ignorance which is the cause of a sin being committed, is not directly voluntary, but indirectly or accidentally, as when a man is unwilling to work hard at his studies, the result being that he is ignorant, or as when a man willfully drinks too much wine, the result being that he becomes drunk and indiscreet, and this ignorance diminishes voluntariness and consequently alleviates the sin. For when a thing is not known to be a sin, the will cannot be said to consent to the sin directly, but only accidentally; wherefore, in that case there is less contempt, and therefore less sin.

Reply to Objection 1. The ignorance whereby "every evil man is ignorant," is not the cause of sin being committed, but something resulting from that cause, viz. of the passion or habit inclining to sin.

Reply to Objection 2. One sin is added to another makes more sins, but it does not always make a sin greater, since, perchance, the two sins do not coincide, but are separate. It may happen, if the first diminishes the second, that the two together have not the same gravity as one of them alone would have; thus murder is a more grievous sin if committed by a man when sober, than if committed by a man when drunk, although in the latter case there are two sins: because drunkenness diminishes the sinfulness of the resulting sin more than its own gravity implies.

Reply to Objection 3. The words of Ambrose may be understood as referring to simply affected ignorance; or they may have reference to a species of the sin of ingratitude, the highest degree of which is that man even ignores the benefits he has received; or again, they may be an allusion to the ignorance of unbelief, which undermines the foundation of the spiritual edifice.

Reply to Objection 4. The drunken man deserves a "double punishment" for the two sins which he commits, viz. drunkenness, and the sin which results from his drunkenness: and yet drunkenness, on account of the ignorance connected therewith, diminishes the resulting sin, and more, perhaps, than the gravity of the drunkenness implies, as stated above (ad 2). It might also be said that the words quoted refer to an ordinance of the legislator named Pittacus, who ordered drunkards to be more severely punished if they assaulted anyone; having an eye, not to the indulgence which the drunkard might claim, but to expediency, since more harm is done by the drunk than by the sober, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii).”—Summa Theologicae Question 76, Article 4

Here St Jerome addresses sins done in ignorance

The following the Angelic Doctor says are excused from sin:

“If the ignorance be such as to exclude the use of reason entirely, it excuses from sin altogether, as is the case with madmen and imbeciles: but such is not always the ignorance that causes the sin; and so it does not always excuse from sin altogether.”—Summa Theol. Question 76, Article 3

Local Council:

[Condemned:] “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered as sin.”—Council of Sens AD 1140, The Errors of Peter Abelard Article 10, Denz 377

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”—§1735

“Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.”—§1801

Conclusion: To say ignorance excuses a sin is wrong—only in very specific cases it does. Generally ignorance only DIMINISHES the sin.

Sancti Officii: God will allow people to repent after they die, so they will not go to hell

Answer: Repentance is for this world, people have up until their death to repent of their sins and be saved, Jesus said people will go to hell. Ecclesiastes 9 is about repentance, and states it’s for the living not the dead. Some Church Fathers and St Jude used Sodom and Gomorrah as proof of hell, though Sancti and CIA deny this event ever happened-- I will use it anyway. However the Catechism mentions “salutary repentance,” for those who commit suicide, but Peter Kereft's commentary says it occurs at the moment of death. Nonetheless:

Scripture:

"whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."--Matthew 12:32 *here is a clear example of a sin that can never be forgiven--repenting after death will do nothing.

“Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north, wherever it falls, there shall it lie.”—Ecclesiastes 11:3 *Commonly used to state once you die if you are in mortal sin you go to hell and can't change position

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."--Council of Florence Session 6 *Theologians at the ITC stated this defined immediate punishment after death for mortal sin

“If anyone disbelieves hell, let him consider Sodom, let him reflect upon Gomorrah, the vengeance that has been inflicted, and which yet remains. This is a proof of the eternity of punishment.”—St John Chrysostom Homily 8 On 1^st Thessalonians

"There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."—St John Damascene De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877

It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."— CCC §393

CIAlovesyou: Christ (in His Divinity) was not omniscient while on earth after the incarnation. (Uses Philippians 2 and Mark 13:32) [Later this position was accepted as possible by FC.]

Answer: I used to think this was possible, but when it goes down to it denies Jesus was Fully Man and FULLY GOD. The main argument people use for this is Mark 13:32 which reads "But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” It was condemned some Church Fathers, while a few others could not explain it and said Christ may have been ignorant of this fact alone. Christ was omniscient when He said this and His omniscience was due to His Divine nature, not His human nature, which only knew this because of His Divine Nature. Philippians does not at all say Christ lose an attribute of His Divinity, it nearly says He humbled himself as a servant. To say Jesus was not omniscient after the incarnation is can easily be interpreted as apostacy or heresy at the VERY LEAST since it is and assault on the divinity of Jesus Christ, by far the worst thing he has said. The Church Fathers that explain this verse and claim Christ was omnipotent while on Earth:

Scripture:

"His [Jesus’] disciples said, "Now you are talking plainly, and not in any figure of speech. Now we realize that you know everything and that you do not need to have anyone question you. Because of this we believe that you came from God."—John 16:29-30

…Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You."…—John 21:17

“…Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”—1 Corinthians 1:24

"..Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."—Colossians 2:3

Fathers (just to prove that the Classical view is the only real view):

"If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ, true Son of God and true Son of Man, was ignorant of future things, or of the day of the last judgment ... let him be anathema."—Pope Vigilius May 14, 553 (Denzinger, 29th ed., No. 419).

"If anyone does not say that the Son of God is true God just as [His] Father is true God [and] He is all-powerful and omniscient and equal to the Father, he is a heretic."—Council of Rome, Tome of Pope Damasus, Canon 12 (A.D. 382), in DEN,31

"If any one denies that the Son of God is very God, omnipotent and omniscient, and equal to the Father, let him be anathema."—Theodoret, On Pope Damacus' decree in Ecclesiastical History Book V Chapter 11

“These things being so, come let us now examine into 'But of that day and that hour knows no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son ;'[Mark 13:32] for being in great ignorance as regards these words, and being stupefied about them, they think they have in them an important argument for their heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it and prepare themselves with it, see in them the giants again fighting against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom all things were made, has to litigate before them about day and hour; and the Word who knows all things is accused by them of ignorance about a day; and the Son who knows the Father is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day; now what can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be likened to this? Through the Word all things have been made, times and seasons and night and day and the whole creation; and is the Framer of all said to be ignorant of His work? And the very context of the lection shows that the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance. For after saying, 'nor the Son,' He relates to the disciples what precedes the day, saying, 'This and that shall be, and then the end.' But He who speaks of what precedes the day, knows certainly the day also, which shall be manifested subsequently to the things foretold. But if He had not known the hour, He had not signified the events before it, as not knowing when it should be. And as any one, who, by way of pointing out a house or city to those who were ignorant of it, gave an account of what comes before the house or city, and having described all, said, 'Then immediately comes the city or the house,' would know of course where the house or the city was (for had he not known, he had not described what comes before lest from ignorance he should throw his hearers far out of the way, or in speaking he should unawares go beyond the object), so the Lord saying what precedes that day and that hour, knows exactly, nor is ignorant, when the hour and the day are at hand….Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious where He has been silent; for 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor [Romans 11:34] ?' but why, though He knew, He said, 'no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word's deficiency , but of that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant...[continues in arguing]”—St Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians Chapter 28, c. AD 370

"Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, 'Father, the hour is come, glorify Your Son ,'[John 17:1] it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man , and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Savior's love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant , to say 'I know not,' that He may show that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh . And therefore He said not, 'no, not the Son of God knows,' lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, 'no, not the Son,'[Mark 13:32] that the ignorance might be the Son's as born from among men." --St Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians Chapter 43, c. AD 370

"The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself.""—St Augustine (doctor of the Church), On the Trinity, 15:14 (A.D. 416), in NPNF1, III:213

"For one who is not prescient of all things is not God."--St Augustine, The City of God, Book 5 Chapter 9 ca. AD 400

"But when His disciples (who are our apostles) put this question to the all-knowing Christ, they were told: "It is not yours to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put in His own power"[Acts 1:7]."—St Jerome (doctor of the Church) Letter 144 section 8

"No man save Him who for our salvation has designed to put on flesh has full knowledge and a complete grasp of the truth."--St Jerome, Letter to Pope Damacus in reply to Genesis 27:23, ca. AD 400

also see St John Chrysostom Matthew 77:1

“Enquiry has already frequently been made concerning the saying of the gospels as to our Lord Jesus Christ's ignorance of the day and of the hour of the end; [Mark 13:32] an objection constantly put forward by the Anomœans to the destruction of the glory of the Only-Begotten, in order to show Him to be unlike in essence and subordinate in dignity; inasmuch as, if He know not all things, He cannot possess the same nature nor be regarded as of one likeness with Him, who by His own prescience and faculty of forecasting the future has knowledge coextensive with the universe. This question has now been proposed to me by your intelligence as a new one. I can give in reply the answer which I heard from our fathers when I was a boy, and which on account of my love for what is good, I have received without question. I do not expect that it can undo the shamelessness of them that fight against Christ, for where is the reasoning strong enough to stand their attack? It may, however, suffice to convince all that love the Lord, and in whom the previous assurance supplied them by faith is stronger than any demonstration of reason.

Now no man seems to be a general expression, so that not even one person is excepted by it, but this is not its use in Scripture, as I have observed in the passage there is none good but one, that is, God. For even in this passage the Son does not so speak to the exclusion of Himself from the good nature. But, since the Father is the first good, we believe the words no man to have been uttered with the understood addition of first. So with the passage “No man knows the Son but the Father”; [Matthew 11:27] even here there is no charge of ignorance against the Spirit, but only a testimony that knowledge of His own nature naturally belongs to the Father first. Thus also we understand “No man knows,” [Matthew 24:36] to refer to the Father the first knowledge of things, both present and to be, and generally to exhibit to men the first cause. Otherwise how can this passage fall in with the rest of the evidence of Scripture, or agree with the common notions of us who believe that the Only-Begotten is the image of the invisible God, and image not of the bodily figure, but of the very Godhead and of the mighty qualities attributed to the essence of God, image of power, image of wisdom, as Christ is called the “power of God and the wisdom of God?” [1 Corinthians 1:24] Now of wisdom knowledge is plainly a part; and if in any part He falls short, He is not an image of the whole; and how can we understand the Father not to have shown that day and that hour— the smallest portion of the ages— to Him through Whom He made the ages? How can the Creator of the universe fall short of the knowledge of the smallest portion of the things created by Him? How can He who says, when the end is near, that such and such signs shall appear in heaven and in earth, be ignorant of the end itself? When He says, “The end is not yet.” [Matthew 24:6] He makes a definite statement, as though with knowledge and not in doubt. Then further, it is plain to the fair enquirer that our Lord says many things to men, in the character of man; as for instance, “give me to drink” [John 4:7] is a saying of our Lord, expressive of His bodily necessity; and yet the asker was not soulless flesh, but Godhead using flesh endued with soul. So in the present instance no one will be carried beyond the bounds of the interpretation of true religion, who understands the ignorance of him who had received all things according to the œconomy, and was advancing with God and man in favor and wisdom.

2. It would be worthy of your diligence to set the phrases of the Gospel side by side, and compare together those of Matthew and those of Mark, for these two alone are found in concurrence in this passage. The wording of Matthew is of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. That of Mark runs, “But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” [Mark 13:32] What is noticeable in these passages is this; that Matthew says nothing about the ignorance of the Son, and seems to agree with Mark as to sense in saying but my Father only. Now I understand the word only to have been used in contradistinction to the angels, but that the Son is not included with His own servants in ignorance.

He could not say what is false Who said “All things that the Father has are Mine,” [John 16:15] but one of the things which the Father has is knowledge of that day and of that hour. In the passage in Matthew, then, the Lord made no mention of His own Person, as a matter beyond controversy, and said that the angels knew not and that His Father alone knew, tacitly asserting the knowledge of His Father to be His own knowledge too, because of what He had said elsewhere, “as the Father knows me even so know I the Father,” [John 10:15] and if the Father has complete knowledge of the Son, nothing excepted, so that He knows all knowledge to dwell in Him, He will clearly be known as fully by the Son with all His inherent wisdom and all His knowledge of things to come. This modification, I think, may be given to the words of Matthew, “but my Father only”. Now as to the words of Mark, who appears distinctly to exclude the Son from the knowledge, my opinion is this. No man knows, neither the angels of God; nor yet the Son would have known unless the Father had known: that is, the cause of the Son's knowing comes from the Father. To a fair hearer there is no violence in this interpretation, because the word only is not added as it is in Matthew. Mark's sense, then, is as follows: of that day and of that hour knows no man, nor the angels of God; but even the Son would not have known if the Father had not known, for the knowledge naturally His was given by the Father. This is very decorous and becoming the divine nature to say of the Son, because He has, His knowledge and His being, beheld in all the wisdom and glory which become His Godhead, from Him with Whom He is consubstantial.”—St Basil of Caesarea, Letter 236

[here we see that ST Gregory declares that Jesus Christ "does not empty himself of any part that makes up his divine nature, and not-withstanding this he saves me like a healer who bends over festering wounds.... He was of the line of David, but was the Creator of Adam; he was made of flesh, but was also a stranger to it; he was generated by a mother, but by a virgin mother; he was limited, but also immense; he was born in a stable, but a star led the Magi to him, who brought him gifts and bowed down and knelt before him. As a mortal man he battled with the devil, but, invincible as he was, he overcame the tempter with a three-fold strategy.... He was victim, but also High Priest; he was sacrificed, but was God; he offered his blood to God and in this way he purified the entire world. A cross raised him up from the earth, but sin remained nailed to it.... He descended to the dead, but came back from the netherworld redeeming many who were dead. The first event is typical of human misery, but the second is part of the richness of the incorporeal being..., that earthly form the immortal Son takes upon himself because he loves us"—St Gregory Nazianzus, Doctor of the Church c. AD 370 (Carmina arcana, 2:  Collana di Testi Patristici, LVIII, Rome, 1986, pp. 236-238). (quoted by Pope Benedict XVI October 26, 2005 in General Audience)

“For He, as the Only-begotten Son of the Father, and the Word, both was and is omnipotent, and there is nothing that is not easy to Him.”—St Cyril of Jerusalem Homily 47, On Luke

“He performs the miracle not only in word, but also touches the bier, to the end that you might know that the sacred body of Christ is powerful to the saving of man. For it is the body of Life and the flesh of the Omnipotent Word, whose power it possesses. For as iron applied to fire does the work of fire, so the flesh, when it is united to the Word, which quickens all things, becomes itself also quickening, and the banisher of death.”—St Cyril, quoted by St Thomas Aquinas in the Golden Chain

"We can now understand why He said that He knew not the day. If we believe Him to have been really ignorant, we contradict the Apostle, who says, "In Whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden" [Colossians 2:3] . There is knowledge which is hidden in Him, and because it has to be hidden, it must sometimes for this purpose be professed as ignorance, for once declared, it will no longer be secret. In order, therefore, that the knowledge may remain hidden, He declares that He does not know. But if He does not know, in order that the knowledge may remain hidden, this ignorance is not due to His nature, which is omniscient, for He is ignorant solely in order that it may be hidden. Nor is it hard to see why the knowledge of the day is hidden."—St Hilary of Poiters (doctor of the Church) On the Trinity Book IX  paragraph 67

“The Son is ignorant, then, of nothing which the Father knows, nor does it follow because the Father alone knows, that the Son does not know. Father and Son abide in unity of nature, and the ignorance of the Son belongs to the divine Plan of silence, seeing that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. This the Lord Himself testified, when He answered the question of the Apostles concerning the times, “It is not yours to know times or moments, which the Father has set within His own authority” [Acts 1:7] . The knowledge is denied them, and not only that, but the anxiety to learn is forbidden, because it is not theirs to know these times. Yet now that He is risen, they ask again, though their question on the former occasion had been met with the reply, that not even the Son knew. They cannot possibly have understood literally that the Son did not know, for they ask Him again as though He did know. They perceived in the mystery of His ignorance a divine Plan of silence, and now, after His resurrection, they renew the question, thinking that the time has come to speak. And the Son no longer denies that He knows, but tells them that it is not theirs to know, because the Father has set it within His own authority. If then, the Apostles attributed it to the divine Plan, and not to weakness, that the Son did not know the day, shall we say that the Son knew not the day for the simple reason that He was not God? Remember, God the Father set the day within His authority, that it might not come to the knowledge of man, and the Son, when asked before, replied that He did not know, but now, no longer denying His knowledge, replies that it is theirs not to know, for the Father has set the times not in His own knowledge, but in His own authority. The day and the moment are included in the word 'times': can it be, then, that He, Who was to restore Israel to its kingdom, did not Himself know the day and the moment of that restoration? He instructs us to see an evidence of His birth in this exclusive prerogative of the Father, yet He does not deny that He knows: and while He proclaims that the possession of this knowledge is withheld from ourselves, He asserts that it belongs to the mystery of the Father's authority.

We must not therefore think, because He said He did not know the day and the moment, that the Son did not know. As man He wept, and slept, and sorrowed, but God is incapable of tears, or fear, or sleep. According to the weakness of His flesh He shed tears, slept, hungered, thirsted, was weary, and feared, yet without impairing the reality of His Only-begotten nature; equally so must we refer to His human nature, the words that He knew not the day or the hour[Mark 13:32].”— St Hilary of Poiters (doctor of the Church) On the Trinity Book IX  paragraph 74

"Those, then, who say that He is a servant divide the one Christ into two, just as Nestorius did. But we declare Him to be Master and Lord of all creation, the one Christ, at once God and man, and all-knowing. "For in Him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the hidden treasures[Col 2:3]""—St John of Damascus (doctor of the Church) An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Book III  Chapter 21

(But) concerning that which has been written: That neither the Son, nor the angels know the day and the hour [cf. Mark 13:32], indeed, your holiness has perceived rightly, that since it most certainly should be referred not to the same son according to that which is the head, but according to his body which we are . . . . He [Augustine] also says . . . that this can be understood of the same son, because omnipotent God sometimes speaks in a human way, as he said to Abraham: Now I know that thou fearest God [Gen. 22:12], not because God then knew that He was feared, but because at that time He caused Abraham to know that he feared God. For, just as we say a day is happy not because the day itself is happy, but because it makes us happy, so the omnipotent Son says He does not know the day which He causes not to be known, not because He himself is ignorant of it, but because He does not permit it to be known at all. Thus also the Father alone is said to know, because the Son (being) consubstantial with Him, on account of His nature, by which He is above the angels, has knowledge of that, of which the angels are unaware. Thus, also, this can be the more precisely understood because the Only-begotten having been incarnate, and made perfect man for us, in His human nature indeed did know the day and the hour of judgment, but nevertheless He did not know this from His human nature. Therefore, that which in (nature) itself He knew, He did not know from that very (nature), because God-made-man knew the day and hour of the judgment through the power of His Godhead. . . . Thus, the knowledge which He did not have on account of the nature of His humanity-by reason of which, like the angels, He was a creature this He denied that He, like the angels, who are creatures, had. Therefore (as) God and man He knows the day and the hour of judgment; but On this account, because God is man. But the fact is certainly manifest that whoever is not a Nestorian, can in no wise be an Agnoeta. For with what purpose can he, who confesses that the Wisdom itself of God is incarnate say that there is anything which the Wisdom of God does not know? It is written: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . All things were made by him [John 1:13]. If all, without doubt also the day of judgment and the hour. Who, therefore, is so foolish as to presume to assert that the Word of the Father made that which He does not know? it is written also: Jesus knowing, that the Father gave him all things into his hands [John 13:3]. If all things, surely both the day of judgment and the hour. Who, therefore, is so stupid as to say that the Son has received in His hands that of which He is unaware?—Pope St Gregory the Great (I) (doctor of the Church) to Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, "Sicut aqua frigida" August AD 600 (Denz. old 248)

"If any one denies that the Son of God is very God, omnipotent and omniscient, and equal to the Father, let him be anathema."—Theodoret, On Pope Damacus' decree in Ecclesiastical History Book V Chapter 11

"If any one deny that the Holy Spirit is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, as also the Son of the Father, let him be anathema."—Theodoret, On Pope Damacus' decree in Ecclesiastical History Book V Chapter 11

“The Lord wishing to prevent His disciples from asking about that day and hour, says, But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. For if He had said, I know, but I will not reveal it to you, He would have saddened them not a little; but He acted more wisely, and prevents their asking such a question, lest they should importune Him, by saying, neither the Angels nor I.” --THEOPHYL on Mark 13:32 (quoted in St Thomas in the Golden Chain)

"We believe that the same Son of God, the Word of God, is eternally born from the Father, consubstantial, co-omnipotent, and equal through ALL things to the Father in divinity, temporally born from the Holy Spirit and Mary ever Virgin with a rational soul; having two births, one eternal birth from the Father, the other temporal from the mother; true God and true man, proper and perfect in each nature, not adopted nor phantastic, but the one and only Son of God, in two and from two natures, that is divine and human, in the singleness of one person impassible and immortal in divinity, but in humanity for us and for our salvation having suffered in the true passion of the flesh, died, and was buried,"—Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus, Council of Lyons AD 1274

"He is one and the same undivided, both natures, God and man, remaining in their own peculiar properties, God and man, Son of God and Son of man, equal to the Father according to divinity, less than the Father according to humanity, immortal and eternal from the nature of divinity, passible and temporal from the condition of assumed humanity."—A Decree to the Jacobites, Cantata Domino, February 4, 1442

“It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.”—Pope St Pius X LAMENTABILI SANE Article 32 July 3, 1907, Condemning Modernist Errors (Denz. Nos. 2032)

“The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity.”—Pope St Pius X LAMENTABILI SANE Article 34 July 3, 1907, Condemning Modernist Errors (Denz. Nos. 2034)

The recent popes reiterate Christ’s emptying and humbling are because He became man, not because He “deposited” or temporarily ceased having divinity powers:

The recent popes reiterate Christ’s emptying and humbling are because He became man, not because He “deposited” or temporarily ceased having divinity powers:

“Commenting on this text of the Letter to the Philippians, St. Athanasius says, "This expression, 'has exalted him,' does not imply that the nature of the Word was exalted. The latter has been and always will be equal to God. It indicates, however, the exaltation of human nature. These words, therefore, were uttered only after the Incarnation of the Word, so that it would be clear that terms such as humbled and exalted refer solely to the human dimension. In fact, only what is humble can be exalted" (Athanasius, Adversus Arianos Oratio I, 41). Here we shall add merely that the whole of human nature, all humanity, humiliated in the painful condition to which it has been reduced by sin, finds the source of its new glory in the exaltation of Christ the man.”—Pope John Paul II, General Audience: Jesus Christ Emptied Himself, February 17, 1988 *Notice here Pope John Paul II in this General Audience DIRECTLY refers to the “kenosis,” he says the emptying refers to the fact Christ is TRUE MAN, not at all changing His divinity in ANYWAY. Whenever Pope John Paul II said Christ gave up his “glory” he means Christ became a MAN, not losing His Divine powers even temporarily.

“Although he felt united with the Father in so intimate a way, Jesus admitted that he did not know the hour of the final and decisive coming of the kingdom. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" (Mt 24:36). This is an indication of the "emptying of himself" proper to the Incarnation, which conceals the eschatological end of the world from his human nature.”—Pope John Paul II, General Audience on March 3, 1999 *notice Pope John Paul II said it is just his HUMAN nature that was ignorant

“He 'emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,' but without abandoning his divine form. Consequently, he who was God, made himself man, taking on what he was not without losing what he was; thus, God became man.”—Pope John Paul II, General Audience on August 4, 2004 commenting on Philippians 2:6-11

"Undoubtedly, he possesses divine nature with all its prerogatives. But he does not interpret and live this transcendent reality as a sign of power, of greatness, and of dominion. Christ does not use his being equal to God, his glorious dignity and his power as an instrument of triumph, sign of distance, expression of crushing supremacy (see verse 6). On the contrary, he "emptied" himself, immersing himself without reserve in the miserable and weak human condition. The divine "form" ("morphe") is hidden in Christ under the human "form" ("morphe"), that is, under our reality marked by suffering, poverty, limitation and death (see verse 7)."—Pope Benedict XVI commentary on Phil 2:6-11 of "emptying"

“If neither the angels nor the Son (insofar as he is man and not insofar as he is God) know the day or hour of the end, is it possible that a member of some sect or some religious fanatic would know and be authorized to announce it?”--Father Cantalamessa, On the End of the World, November 17, 2006

for more read The Inflated reputation of Han Ur von Balthsar

One of CIA’s rebuttals was that Jesus was not omnipotent because Mark says He could not do miracles…though he did not present the text I assume CIA referred to Mark 6:5 which reads: “…he was not able to perform any mighty deed” which I admit looks bad if you read only THAT part of the chapter and verse and not try understanding it and not reading the next verse and ignoring Church Fathers interpretation of it… However, what the whole verse says is: “So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them.” The reason Christ did no miracles because He did not want to do it THERE, and scripture says he did SOME miracles there he CURED the sick! The next verse further explains why: “He was amazed at their lack of faith.”(v. 6) Here is St Thomas Aquinas’ rebuttal to this argument in his Summa Theologicae:

Reply to Objection 1: When it is said that "He could not do any miracles there," it is not to be understood that He could not do them absolutely, but that it was not fitting for Him to do them: for it was unfitting for Him to work miracles among unbelievers. Wherefore it is said farther on: "And He wondered because of their unbelief." In like manner it is said (Gn. 18:17): "Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" and Gn. 19:22: "I cannot do anything till thou go in thither."—Summa Theologica, Question 43, Article II, Rebuttal to Objection I

Likewise, reads St John Cassian in Conference 13, Chapter 15:

"But among others the unfathomable depth of Christ's beneficence was so stopped up, that it was said: And Jesus could do there no mighty works because of their unbelief. [Mark 6:5-6] And so the bounty of God is actually shaped according to the capacity of man's faith, so that to one it is said: According to your faith be it unto you: [Matthew 9:29] and to another: Go your way, and as you have believed so be it unto you; [Matthew 8:13] to another Be it unto you according as you will, [Matthew 15:28] and again to another: Your faith has made you whole. [Luke 18:42]"

Tatian's Diatessaron (fourfold gospel harmony) has the corresponding verse reading 

"And he was not able to do there many mighty works, because of their unbelief ;"--Diatessaron Section 17, Tatian c. AD 175 

In fact St Matthew's Gospel reads:

"And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith."--Matthew 13:58

In reponse to those who say that Jesus as God while being a child in the flesh was ignorant of things and have to learn and grow. (possibly citing Luke 2:52):

 "Do not think to yourself, "How can God grow?" "How can he who gives grace to angels and to men receive fresh wisdom?"  Rather reflect upon the great skill with which we are initiated into his mystery.  For the wise Evangelist did not introduce the Word in his abstract and incorporeal nature.  He says of him that "he increased in stature and wisdom and grace," [Luke 2:52] but after having shown that he was born in the flesh of a woman and took our likeness, he then assigns to him these human attributes.  Only then does he call a child and say that he grew in stature, as his body grew little by little, in obedience to corporeal laws. So he is said to have increased in wisdom, not as receiving fresh supplies of wisdom.  God is perceived by the understanding to be entirely perfect in all things and altogether incapable of being destitute of any attribute suitable to the Godhead.  So God the Word gradually manifested his wisdom proportionally to the age which the body had attained. 

The body then advances in stature, and the soul, in wisdom.  The divine nature is incapable of increase in neither one nor the other, seeing that the Word of God is all perfect.  With good reason he connected the increase of wisdom with the growth of the bodily stature, because the divine nature revealed its own wisdom in proportion to the measure of the bodily growth."--St Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Luke, Homily 5, (CGSL 36-64**)

St Jerome says likewise:

"How does he who is Wisdom receive understanding? "Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and men."[Luke 2:52] This means not so much that the Son was instructed by the Father but that his human nature was instructed by his own divinity. There is the seer's prophecy of him who blossomed from the root of Jesse," The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and of understanding."--St Jerome, Homily on Psalm 15(16) (FC 57:26**)

Also see St John Damacus in Orthodox Faith 3.22

Here is the Catechism on this issue:

Christ's soul and his human knowledge

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.¹⁰⁰

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man",¹⁰¹ and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.¹⁰² This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".¹⁰³

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person.¹⁰⁴ "The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."¹⁰⁵ Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.¹⁰⁶ The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.¹⁰⁷

474 By its [ie human nature] union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.¹⁰⁸ What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.¹⁰⁹

109 Cf. Mk 13:32, Acts 1:7.

Simply put, Christ as God knew EVERYTHING, but He was not sent to reveal everything, for this reason His Divine nature did not reveal the hour to his human.

Furthermore the "kenotic" view that CIA takes is condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1951:

There is another enemy of the faith of Chalcedon, widely diffused outside the fold of the Catholic religion. This is an opinion for which a rashly and falsely understood sentence of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (ii, 7), supplies a basis and a shape. This is called the kenotic doctrine, and according to it, they imagine that the divinity was taken away from the Word in Christ. It is a wicked invention, equally to be condemned with the Docetism opposed to it. It reduces the whole mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption to empty the bloodless imaginations. 'With the entire and perfect nature of man'--thus grandly St. Leo the Great--'He Who was true God was born, complete in his own nature, complete in ours' (Ep. xxviii, 3. PL. Liv, 763. Cf. Serm. xxiii, 2. PL. lvi, 201).--Pope Pius XII, Sempiternus Rex Christus, Paragraph 29, September 8, 1951 (for more on this see Light in Darkness 

CIA however will respond "I do not deny Christ was God." Yet CIA's view is still condemned in this because the Popes here state that Jesus "complete in his own nature"  and ours, CIA's view is that Christ temporarily gave up or "deposited" his Divine attributes.  Christ is the Word incarnate, not part of the Word.

CIA will argue he is not making Jesus any less divine--but CIA is since God is omniscient and Jesus is God He must be omniscient according to His divinity. A)Jesus is God B)God is omniscient  C) ergo Jesus is omniscient. To say Jesus is not omniscient would mean that Jesus is only semi divine as if He were a god of the pagans similar to a demigod perhaps.  CIA simply tries to twist the fathers as to make Jesus' limited knowledge seem plausible, for example he explains that the Council of Rome is too vague and makes no reference to the incarnation so therefore his belief is not condemned at all by it.  Unfortunately, he's just trying to jump through hoops--the council simply says that the Son of God is OMNISCIENT--the time does not matter. CIA acknowledges that Christ being omniscient is the “classical view.” But he claims his “kenotic” view is not heretical, and may be right, as if the Church was wrong those 1900 years waiting for a theologian like Balthasar to put it on the right path.  CIA claims not to be a modernist and that Lamentabili Sane does not condemn those who say Christ was not omniscient...On this point many scholars, apologists, a priest, and theologians have said IT DOES make CIA a modernist to claim Christ was not omniscient after the incarnation and that it was condemned by Pope St Pius X, if not apostate.

Clearly CIA claims to know something that was not even known by the Apostles themselves, which in fact is condemned by the words of the Apostles in the Gospel.

To say Christ in His divinity on earth was NOT all knowing is to make Jesus’ divinity LESS than that of the Fathers.  Christ in saying He did not know the day was saying in His human nature he was ignorant since God does not allow such knowledge to men as Acts 1:7 makes clear, Christ solely in His Deity was aware of the hour.

Some defending CIA tried to state that Christ in His human nature would not be capable of comprehending omniscience.  I, however, also showed 1 Corinthians 13 which says others wise that we will see face to face and partial understanding will end.  Furthermore, the Catechism 474 says otherwise concerning Christ.  Furthermore, Vatican I states:

If anyone says that a human being cannot be divinely elevated to a knowledge and perfection which exceeds the natural, but of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all truth and goodness by continual development: let him be anathema.—Vatican I, Canon 3 on Revelation

Though this was probably in vain since Jur. states he rejects papal infallibility and believes only in the councilar infallibility of his choosing, though he recently claims he accepts them, but does not understand them which is tolerable.

CIA’s alleged prooftext to show Jesus as God is not omniscient is futile since St Mark in chapter 13 & St Matthew 24 Christ Himself refers to Himself as the “Son of Man” and not the ”Son of God” (His divine nature)

To be continued...

CIAlovesyou: Polygenesis is not condemned and can be believed by Catholics

Answer: It was condemned and popes have said we have no right to believe in it. (CIA admits it is hard to reconcile with Original sin, but insists it is possible)

The prayer of Tobiah and his wife says:

“You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended.”—Tobit 8:6

Papal Statements:

“For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of the man [cf. Gen. 2:7, 22],”—Pope Pelagius, Humani Generis to Childebert I, April, 557, Denz 228

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”—Pope Pius XII, Humanae Generis Paragraph 37 August 12, 1950

Furthermore even the Catechism teaches monogenesis.

CIAlovesyou: [makes the claim that priests deserve no special respect because they are priests, they should be respected simply because they are people]

Answer: Scripture says to specifically honor the priest, and furthermore it says some priests are worthy of MORE honor. After all priest are called "Father," "Reverend" "Excellency" "my lord (monsignor) etc.. 

Scripture:

"Honor thy father and thy mother.."--Exodus 20:12 *Is this honor earned?

"Honor God and respect the priest..."—Sirach 7:31

"Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honor: especially they who labor in the word and doctrine"--1 Timothy 5:17

Church Fathers:

“You saw there the deacon, you saw the priest, you saw the chief priest [i.e. the bishop]. Consider not the bodily forms, but the grace of the Mysteries. You spoke in the presence of the angels, as it is written: “For the priest's lips keep knowledge, and they seek the law at his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord Almighty.”[Malachi 2:7] There is no place for deception nor for denial. He is an angel who proclaims the kingdom of Christ and eternal life. He is to be esteemed by you not according to his appearance, but according to his office. Consider what he delivered, reflect upon the rule of life he gave you, recognize his position.”—St Ambrose, On the Mysteries, Chapter 2, AD 390

"And even if the Priest be wicked, God seeing that you respect him, though unworthy of honor, through reverence to Him, will Himself reward you."--St John Chrysostom Homily 2 on Second Timothy on verse 12

"The same power of the word, again, also makes the priest venerable and honorable, separated, by the new blessing bestowed upon him, from his community with the mass of men."—St Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ

CIAlovesyou: [more on "retribution theology" that bad things [not] have bad consequences]

Answer: Recently he's admitted that it is in the "Psalms and Wisdom literature" while previously he just tried to ignore its presence in the bible, but unfortunately for CIA it’s in the Torah and the New Testament also. He also tried to say it only says it because it’s written from man's perspective.  Another unfortunate thing is that there are instance in scripture where God HIMSELF speaks punishing people constantly for refusing to stop sins.

God gave Moab 4 chances (Amos 2), King David's son (Kings), St Paul smites the High Priest (Acts) etc

""But if you do not heed me and do not keep all these commandments, if you reject my precepts and spurn my decrees, refusing to obey all my commandments and breaking my covenant, then I, in turn, will give you your deserts. I will punish you with terrible woes--with wasting and fever to dim the eyes and sap the life. You will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will consume the crop. I will turn against you, till you are beaten down before your enemies and lorded over by your foes. You will take to flight though no one pursues you. "If even after this you do not obey me, I will increase the chastisement for your sins sevenfold, to break your haughty confidence. I will make the sky above you as hard as iron, and your soil as hard as bronze, so that your strength will be spent in vain; your land will bear no crops, and its trees no fruit."If then you become defiant in your unwillingness to obey me, I will multiply my blows another sevenfold, as your sins deserve. I will unleash the wild beasts against you, to rob you of your children and wipe out your livestock, till your population dwindles away and your roads become deserted."If, with all this, you still refuse to be chastened by me and continue to defy me, I, too, will defy you and will SMITE you for your sins seven times harder than before. I will make the sword, the avenger of my covenant, sweep over you. Though you then huddle together in your walled cities, I will send in pestilence among you, till you are forced to surrender to the enemy."—Leviticus 26:14-25

“I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him. And it will be, that whoever does not hearken to My words that he speaks in My name, I will exact [it] of him [‘vengeance’ or ‘require it’ in some].”—Deuteronomy 18:18-9

“And Joshua said to the people, ‘You will not be able to serve the Lord, for He is a holy God: He is a jealous God: He will not forgive your transgressions or your sins. When you forsake the Lord and serve strange gods, then He will turn and do you evil, and destroy you, after He has done you good.’”—Joshua 24:20

But now,' the LORD declares, 'away with this! for I will honor those who honor me, but those who spurn me shall be accursed.—1 Samuel 2:30

Church Fathers:

“..if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger. You will say, then, to me, “Is God angry? “ Yes; He is angry with those who act wickedly, but He is good, and kind, and merciful, to those who love and fear Him; for He is a chastener of the godly, and father of the righteous; but he is a judge and punisher of the impious.”—St Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book I:Chapter 3 c.AD 170

[A person in a catholic room "I.L.P."]: Satan is not a literal person.

Answer: Scripture, tradition, and the current Catechism state

And he was in the desert forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan; and he was with beasts, and the angels ministered to him.—Mark 1:13

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.—Matthew 25:41

In this petition, evil is not an abstraction, but refers to a person, Satan, the Evil One, the angel who opposes God. The devil (dia-bolos) is the one who "throws himself across" God's plan and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ.--CCC 2851

“The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing. Man, however, sinned at the prompting of the devil….All of them [humans] will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.”—Confession of Faith of the Ecumenical Council of Lateran IV

“One who doesn't believe in the devil doesn't believe in the Gospel”—Pope John Paul II

In the following interview with Father José Antonio Fortea, priest of the Diocese of Alcala de Henares in Madrid, an experienced exorcist comments on the reality of the devil in modern life. Father Fortea recently wrote a book entitled "Summa Daemoniaca."

Q: What is Satan's greatest triumph?

Father Fortea: To make us believe that he doesn't exist. Indeed, after the 60s, many theologians said he was a symbol, and this has been a great success because, of course, all the ministry of exorcism disappeared from Europe almost totally. Only in Rome did it remain in a continuous, and even daily, manner.--Zenit.com

http://www.zenit.org/article-21719?l=english

Bel.[a female follower of CIAlovesyou]: The Conscience is God.

Answer: No, that was a statement made by ancient pagan philosophers,

"Everyman's conscience is his god."— Athenodorus, Stoic philosopher in Tarsus

the Catechism states that the conscience can be wrong, which according to that logic would make God wrong,

“Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.” —CCC §1786

“Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.”—CCC §1801

and it says a person can have a bad or good conscience.

“A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."” –CCC §1794

The Holy Spirit may help to try to form a good conscience,

“In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”—CCC §1785

but the conscience is not God. God cannot make erroneous judgment, and cannot be ignorant, this is only true of man.

Bel: Ignorance saves.

Answer: Grace saves. I’ve addressed this before; if ignorance is not invincible then the person is guilty. Here the popes state that Christians will be damned due to ignorance.

“'We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of [vincible] ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect'"—Pope St Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (April 15, 1905) quoting Pope Benedict XIV

[some people]: Animals can go to heaven and be saved etc

Answer: This is not a serious like some other posts, but generally it is understood that human beings are among the only creatures given an immortal soul, while animals are given animal souls that is mortal souls. Recently HH Pope Benedict XVI said, when speaking of baptism:

"While in the other creatures, who are not called to eternal life, death means only the end of existence on earth; in us, sin creates a precipice that we run the risk of falling from forever, unless the Father who is in heaven takes us by his hand."—January 13, 2007

The Catechism States:

The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:—CCC §364

...it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.—CCC §365

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.—CCC §366

Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul, the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake." From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.—CCC §1703

"God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image..."—CCC §2417 *This shows animals are NOT made in God's image

Council states:

"creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body."—Denz. 428 (513) Ecumenical Council of Lateran IV

CIAlovesyou: Many epistles attributed to Paul are not by Paul, Hebrew is written by anyone BUT Paul, not even his community. [Then asserts late dates for many New Testament writings].

Answer: Many Church Fathers said all 14 epistles were by St Paul, including Hebrews, which St Jerome and St John Chrysostom say St Paul wrote. There were some that did doubt Hebrews was not by St Paul, even if they did they accepted the other 13 as being St Paul’s. However, CIA holds only a few of the epistles were really St Paul’s.

“Many of the believing Jews in Palestine had been deprived of all their goods, and scattered over the world, as he [St Paul] mentions in the Epistle to the Hebrews”—St John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians 2:10

“He wrote nine epistles to seven churches: To the Romans one, To the Corinthians two, To the Galatians one, To the Ephesians one, To the Philippians one, To the Colossians one, To the Thessalonians two; and besides these to his disciples, To Timothy two, To Titus one, To Philemon one. [13 total so far] The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered his, on account of its difference from the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either according to Tertullian to be the work of Barnabas, or according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist or Clement afterwards bishop of the church at Rome, who, they say, arranged and adorned the ideas of Paul in his own language, though to be sure, since Paul was writing to Hebrews and was in disrepute among them he may have omitted his name from the salutation on this account. He being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Hebrew [ie Aramaic] were more eloquently turned into Greek and this is the reason why it seems to differ from other epistles of Paul….Gaius, bishop of Rome, in the time of Zephyrinus, that is, in the reign of Antoninus, the son of Severus, delivered a very notable disputation Against Proculus, the follower of Montanus, convicting him of temerity in his defence of the new prophecy, and in the same volume also enumerating only thirteen epistles of Paul, says that the fourteenth, which is now called, To the Hebrews, is not by him, and is not considered among the Romans to the present day as being by the apostle Paul.”—St Jerome On Illustrious Men Chapters 15 & 59

“The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle—that to the Hebrews—is not generally counted in with the others).”—St Jerome, Letter 53

“Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place.”—Eusebius, Church History Book III Chapter 2

“Thus Ignatius has done in the epistles which we have mentioned, and Clement in his epistle which is accepted by all, and which he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth. In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent production…. For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle.”—Eusebius, Church History Book III Chapter 38

“He [Clement of Alexandria] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.”—Eusebius, Church History Book VI Chapter 13

“In addition he [Origen] makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: "That the verbal style of the epistle entitled 'To the Hebrews,' is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself 'rude in speech' [2 Corinthians 11:6] that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, anyone who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.”—Eusebius Church History Chapter 26 on Origen

“As Luke also may be recognized by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews.”—Fragments of St Clement of Alexandria Chapter 1 last line

“And he says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul's, and was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke, having carefully translated it, gave it to the Greeks, and hence the same coloring in the expression is discoverable in this Epistle and the Acts; and that the name" Paul an Apostle" was very properly not prefixed, for, he says, that writing to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced against him and suspected, he with great wisdom did not repel them in the beginning by putting down his name….And now, as the blessed Presbyter used to say, since the Lord, as the Apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as having been sent to the Gentiles, did not subscribe himself apostle of the Hebrews, out of modesty and reverence for the Lord, and because, being the herald and apostle of the Gentiles, his writing to the Hebrews was something over and above [his assigned function.]”—Eusebius on Clement of Alexandria, Ecclesiastical History, VI. 14.

[Eusebius aware of the arguments for and against Hebrew’ source states]: “such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul's Epistles.”—Eusebius Church History Book II, Chapter 17 on Philo

Conclusion: CIA goes too far and puts too much faith in his version of the “historical critical method” the Early Church Fathers recognized some of the same things as people see in books like Hebrews etc, but many of them rather than say it’s NOT PAUL, said it was a translation from Aramaic etc..

Unrelated to CIA, some scholars assert that since Hebrews has some word play in the Greek that ergo it was indeed originally written in Greek, however translations can have word play, as the NAB notes when they have a rhyme on the word destiny from the Hebrew in English also, furthermore translators can find words to try to rhyme or keep one.

[A Few People in a Catholic Room]: God inspired scripture but did not dictate it.

Answer: Popes have said that scripture is dictated by God and contains no errors.

“For the sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Spirit, it contains things of the deepest importance, which, in many instances, are most difficult and obscure” (Prov. Deus, I, B, 2, b). He also says: “For all the books in their entirety...with all their parts, have been written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit”—Pope Leo XIII

“Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, as declared by the sacred Council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us”—Vatican I, Session III, Chapter II, Section 5

“In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”—Vatican II, Dei Verbum Chapter III

“Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit.”—St Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians, Chapter 45

[In a Catholic Room]: People should not be forbidden from coming to Mass because of clothing

Answer: This is not an extremely important issue but the Church Fathers have forbade people from dressing certain ways, and was down ever since the Old Testament.

"Avoid men, also, when you see them loaded with chains and wearing their hair long like women, contrary to the apostle's precept, [1 Corinthians 11:14] not to speak of beards like those of goats, black cloaks, and bare feet braving the cold. All these things are tokens of the devil."--St Jerome Letter 22:28

"If any woman, under pretence of asceticism, shall change her apparel and, instead of a woman's accustomed clothing, shall put on that of a man, let her be anathema."--Gangra Canon 13

"In short, I find no dress cursed by God, except a woman's dress on a man: for "cursed," says He, "is every man who clothes himself in woman's attire.[Deut 22:5]""--Tertullian on Idolatry Ch. 16

"By Padre Pio's explicit wish, women must enter the confessional wearing skirts AT LEAST 8 INCHES BELOW THE KNEE. It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them to confession."--On Padre Pio 

Cardinal Pla y Daniel, Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, stated in 1959: "A special danger to morals is represented by public bathing at beaches... Mixed bathing between men and women, which is nearly always a proximate occasion of sin and a scandal, must be avoided." 

"O Christian mothers, if only you knew the future distress, peril and ill-restrained shame that you prepare for your sons and daughters by
imprudently accustoming them to live barely clothed, and permitting them to lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves, and of the harm done to the little ones entrusted to you by Heaven to be reared in a Christian dignity and culture." --http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm

Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922) and his two successors, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, have promoted modesty in dress. These are a few words of Pope Benedict XV: "One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindess of so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by a desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault aginst Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Holy Altar, where one receives the Heavenly Author of Purity."

Our Lady at Fatima in 1917, when She told the youngest seer, Jacinta: "Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend My Son very much. More people go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason."

First, the wearing of men's dress by women affects the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; second, it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; and third, it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children's eyes . . . This changing of the feminine psychology does fundamental, and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society."--Cardinal Siri

On January 12, 1930, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, by mandate of Pope Pius XI, issued emphatic instructions on modesty of dress to all Bishops, directing them to insist on these prescriptions of September 24, 1928:

Then the world will become unrecognizable. People's appearances will change, and it will be impossible to distinguish men from women due to their shamelessness in dress and style of hair. These people will be cruel and will be like wild animals because of the temptations of the Antichrist. There will be no respect for parents and elders, love will disappear, and Christian pastors, bishops, and priests will become vain men, completely failing to distinguish the right-hand way from the left. At that time the morals and traditions of Christians and of the Church will change. People will abandon modesty, and dissipation will reign.--St Nilus

In short, the Church has and does have rules for dressing, particularly at Mass, there is nothing wrong with doing it. Men should wear male clothes and women womens clothes.  The only exception for this rule that St Thomas Aquinas said is for some grave reason, for example it is said St Joan of Arc wore male clothing out of fear of being raped by guards.  

Pope Pius XII stated that women should not dress inappropriately because it may cause others to sin, and it is her responsiblity to change.  It is rediculous to suggest that it is the man's fault solely for looking at the woman dressed extremely revealing, it her fault for dressing that way and causing temptation, and it is the mans for fault for looking at her. 

"Now many girls do not see anything wrong with following certain shameless styles (fashions) like so many sheep. They would surely blush if they could only guess the impressions they make and the feelings they evoke (arouse) in those who see them." (July 17, 1954.)--Pope Pius XII

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_06011921_sacra-propediem_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19831101_sexual-education_en.html

[Catholic in Room]: Angels and Man can still fall after entering into heaven, even this day.

Answer: Those now in Heaven cannot fall, neither angel nor men. Those in heaven are the just made perfect (Hebrews 12:23). Furthermore, the Catechism on the fall of angels quote St John Damascene as saying:

It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."— CCC §393 (quoting De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877)

Furthermore, some Church Fathers speak of purgatory as being a place where man’s propensity to sin.

CIAlovesyou: [favorite theologian is von Balthasar]

Answer: Some of Balthasars beliefs are almost if not apostasy:

Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy: An Exchange by Alyssa Lyra Pitstick-exposes Balthasar’s belief that Christ literally became sin and suffered the pains of hell (sheol) (ignore Fr Edward Oakes futile attempt to partially defend Balthasar (he knows some of the things he said were heretical firstthings website has a list of scholars that calls Fr Oakes the wrong one and the basher))

See Catechism 602-603

Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake."⁴⁰² Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.⁴⁰³ By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."⁴⁰⁴

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.⁴⁰⁵ But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"⁴⁰⁶ Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".⁴⁰⁷

The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar by Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap.-exposing his denial of Christ’s omniscience, and exposes the error of the possiblilty of universal salvation (that all men will be saved)

See the Catechism 473-474 to see how this is wrong

Von Balthasar and Salvation by James T. O'Connor- quotes and refutes some von Balthasar’s errors (e.g. universal salvation)

[Catholics]: [Original sin can be forgiven in purgatory]

Answer: No, the Church specific stated on many occasions that original sin and mortal sin CANNOT be forgiven after death.

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.—Council of Florence Session 6, AD 1439

Even the recently theological commission on limbo spoke on this matter saying:

The affirmation that “the punishment for original sin is the loss of the beatific vision”, formulated by Innocent III,[65] pertains to the faith: original sin is of itself an impediment to the beatific vision. Grace is necessary in order to be purified of original sin and to be raised to communion with God so as to be able to enter into eternal life and enjoy the vision of God.—Hope of Salvation for Infants..

SpellSix (a liberal catholic who claims to have graduated from a theology program and has a habit of not researching things before hand and spewing out works by liberal theologians, he runs a nasty blasphemous/ foulmouthed room on paltalk called “catholic talk”): Marriage was not considered a sacrament in the Church for the first 1000 years.

Answer: There is some truth to this statement; one Nestorian church to this day rejects the sacrament of Marriage, however early Church Fathers and EVEN the bible refer to the sacrament of marriage:

St Paul refers to the sacrament of marriage in Ephesians:

"For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.—Ephesians 5:31-33 (NAB from the Greek)

The Vulgate reads:

sacramentum hoc magnum est ego autem dico in Christo et in ecclesia—Ephesians 5:32 Latin Vulgate

This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.—Ephesians 5:33 (Douai Rheims)

Mystery is a word sometimes used for the sacraments, to this day the Eastern rites refer to the sacraments as “mysteries” and even according to Hebrew Catholics the Hebrew equivalent to sacrament is the Hebrew word sod which means mystery.

St Ambrose, bishop of Milan and Doctor of the Church, in the early Church around AD 390 referred to the Sacrament of Marriage in Ephesians 5:32. Also, St Augustine refers in a few instances as marriage being a sacrament:

"It is certainly not fecundity only, the fruit of which consists of offspring, nor chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain sacramental bond in marriage which is recommended to believers in wedlock. Accordingly it is en-joined by the apostle: 'Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church.' Of this bond the substance undoubtedly is this, that the man and the woman who are joined together in matrimony should remain inseparable as long as they live...”—St Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1, 10 [11] (A.D. 420), in NPNF1, V:268

“..And hence, since the marriage tie was from the beginning so constituted as apart from the joining of the sexes to symbolize the mystic union of Christ and His Church, it is undoubted that that woman has no part in matrimony, in whose case it is shown that the mystery of marriage has not taken place."—Pope St Leo the Great, To Rusticus, Epistle 167:4 (A.D. 459)

And elsewhere shows it’s a sacrament in the same sense as baptism and Holy Communion.

[to Siricus]”we do not say that marriage is not SANCTIFIED by God, since the Word of God says: “The two shall become one flesh.”[Matthew 19:5] and one Spirit..”—St Ambrose, Letter No. 42, ML16, 1124 (ca. AD 390)

“If, then, marriage of this kind (faithful and unfaithful) is approved by God, why will it not also be a successful marriage, in spite of difficulties and anxieties and obstacles and defilements, since it already enjoys the patronage of divine grace, at least in part?”—Tertullian, To his Wife (Ad uxorem) Book 2:7 (ca. AD 200)

To those who try to argue that marriage in the early church was strictly a civil affair:

“It is becoming, therefore, to men and women who marry, that they marry with the counsel of the bishop, that the marriage may be in our Lord, and not in lust. Let everything, therefore, be [done] for the honor of God.”—St. Ignatius of Antioch, To Polycarp, 5 (A.D. 110), in ANF, I:100

“Accordingly, among us, secret connections as well—connections, that is, not first professed in presence of the church—run risk of being judged akin to adultery and fornication.”—Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter 4 (ca. AD 200)

In letter 19 St Ambrose explicitly refers to the wedding ceremony with the "priestly veilings and blessing." 

SpellSix: The Catholic Church officially promoted slavery until 1890! (then continued to post many quotes, which he probably found on some websites, his claim was later found to be by a very liberal theologian around 1960, furthermore it was obvious his citations were from a secular source due to its use of the common era (C.E) dating use and that he did not really read much of them carefully! He used this argument to try to justify why the Church might reverse its position on contraception [which I already demonstrated as being Tradition and infallible])

Answer: The word slavery can refer to many things; the New Testament tolerates a form of slavery. In the middle ages the pope allowed the “enslavement” of men, but this enslavement is what we may refer to as a sort of imprisonment, or “involuntary servitude” by which the US 13^th Amendment refers to both slavery and prison, therefore it can be said we do have slavery in the USA. The men imprisoned for slavery were done so because their actions were considered criminals because they helped the Muslims fight in the crusades. In the Bible taking slaves, or servants, were done because of people who owed debts, or prisoners of war. Furthermore, the Pope in the 15^th century said that the Africans were NOT to be enslaved, he condemned it. Likewise was the Native American’s unjust enslavement. Scripture would consider this sinful since it forbids kidnapping also known as “stealing a man’s freedom.” (Exodus 21:16)

Lateran IV:

“We decree that those who sell them galleys or ships, and those who act as pilots in pirate Saracen ships, or give them any advice or help by way of machines or anything else, to the detriment of the holy Land, are to be punished with deprivation of their possessions and are to become the slaves of those who capture them.”

This is among the texts he charged promoted slavery, but does it truly? No these people are enslaved because they would aide enemy forces, treason, the is PUNISHMENT for their CRIMES.

The following show popes that CONDEMNED slavery:

"These people (of the Canary Islands)are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."--Pope Eugene IV, Sicut Dudum January 13, AD 1435

"Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property..should the contrary happen, it [justification] shall be null and have no effect."--Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei May 29, AD 1537

Not to mention local councils have condemned slavery, and some of the early Popes were themselves former SLAVES.

In addition, IN SUPREMO APOSTOLATUS by P. Gregory XVI in 1839 CONDEMNS slavery and was read to a council of Bishop in Baltimore in the same year.

WELLLL..... all theses look like they are  PRE 1890, spellsix strikesout again.  Recently, one of my friends who frequented Spellsix's room Catholic Talk, informed me about spellsix love for the confederacy, in fact his website has picture and links that are pro confedrate, even oddly has links about black men who fought for the Confederate army in the Civil War, and Jews also.  

For an expose of similar trash spellsix reads and claims see this article  by Rev. Scanlon.

[Catholic quoting media reports]: Luther will be vindicated of heresy!

Answer: This myth and media lie spread by the wicked British media has already been denied by the Vatican see this Catholic media page:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Rumors that the Vatican is set to rehabilitate Martin Luther, the 16th-century leader of the Protestant Reformation, are groundless, said the Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi…

The story "does not have any foundation, insofar as no rehabilitation of Luther is foreseen," Father Lombardi told the Italian news agency ANSA March 8.

So the British media shows its incompetence and hints of anti-Catholic bias again.

[person in Catholic room]: The Catholic Church changed its belief on justification and now made ‘faith alone’ dogma due to the Lutheran Agreement!

Answer: False, the agreement did no such thing—try reading it, furthermore, it has NO binding on Catholics, since the Pope never approved of it and only one Cardinal signed.

[Claim attributed to spellsix]: The Vatican now has a bank, so the church has changed its position on usury, where it was previously condemned it is now acceptable.

Answer: Nothing changed, just another false liberal claim out of the liberal pseudo- ‘Catholic Talk’ room. Read the recent Compendium of Catechism of the Catholic Church:

508. What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?

2408-2413
2453-2455

Above all, the seventh commandment forbids theft, which is the taking or using of another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. This can be done also by paying unjust wages; by speculation on the value of goods in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; or by the forgery of checks or invoices. Also forbidden is tax evasion or business fraud; willfully damaging private or public property ; usury; corruption; the private abuse of common goods; work deliberately done poorly; and waste.

And in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

341. Although the quest for equitable profit is acceptable in economic and financial activity, recourse to usury is to be morally condemned:…. More recently, the Magisterium used strong and clear words against this practice, which is still tragically widespread, describing usury as “a scourge that is also a reality in our time and that has a stranglehold on many peoples' lives”.[716]

[716] John Paul II, Catechesis at General Audience (4 February 2004), 3: L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 11 February 2004, p. 11.

[FYI]: Just to demonstrate CIA’s refusal to use a good argument and deal with issues head on, other than resorting to cussing, ad hominems, calling the opposition “fundamentalists from Alabamie,” (ignoring that some of his doctrines like his kenotic view is Protestant) once in a dispute were I said we should not tolerate idols especially if they are placed in the Church. As one of my supporting verses I posted Deuteronomy 12:3 “break their idols in pieces” and CIA’s rebuttal was a red herring where he said “well Deuteronomy ALSO says: “If two men have words together, and one begin to fight against the other, and the other's wife willing to deliver her husband out of the hand of the stronger, shall put forth her hand, and take him by the secrets, Thou shalt cut off her hand” [Deuteronomy 25:11-12]”

Furthermore odd about CIA is his description of himself as a "moderate" Catholic, though in the past he has defended Sancti and said Sancti was a "bit liberal" implying he, CIA, is not liberal, and CIA describes his own parish as being a little "liberal" too but CIA avoids calling himself liberal! He seems to think if people are more liberal than he, it disqualifies him as being liberal.  Recently, in the month of June he snapped at another person saying they despised other peoples "catholicism."  CIA oddly thinks there is a such thing as different Catholicisms..... LORD have mercy on him.

[Claim by those who push for female ordination to Holy Orders]: Episcopa Theodora mean Bishop Theodora!

Answer: That translation can be correct, but it show an ignorance of Catholic culture and history in which women close to clerics sometimes were attriuted with the title "presybtera" or in this case "episcopa." Often the feminization of the office was due to being the wife of a priest, since in some rites, and times priests were permitted to marry prior to Holy Orders.  In the case of 'Episcopa Theodora' she was the mother of Pope Paschal I (reigned 817-824).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following are errors I have made:

Me: According to EWTN (i.e. the Friar Brother Mark) and some versions of Baltimore Catechism, some Catholic websites, holy water can remit venial sins, which now I know it does not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Following are by Non Catholics:

Problem: Genesis 4:26 says those days started blaspheme--while people interpret Enosh as being righteous

Answer: It is generally agreed Enosh was righteous, but the Catholic bible does seem to mark Genesis 4:26 as blaspheme noting Wisdom 14:22

And this became a snare for mankind, that men enslaved to either grief or tyranny conferred the incommunicable Name [ie YHWH] on stocks and stones.

this corresponds to Genesis 4:26:

And to Seth also to him a son was born, and he named him Enosh; then it became common to call by the name of the LORD [ie YHWH].

Jewish commentary reads for Genesis 4:26:

"then it became common" Heb. הוּחַל, is an expression of חוּלִין profaneness: to name people and idols with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, to make them idols and to call them deities. — [from Gen. Rabbah 23:7; Baraitha of 49 Methods, quoted in Yalkut Shimoni]

Wisdom's account of how idolatry came to be is in harmony with Genesis, but goes into more detail.

Enosh was a holy man  as it is written:

"Glorious, too, were SHEM and SETH and ENOS..."--Sirach 49:16

Problem: The Angel Michael is Jesus!! (7DA/Jehovah Witness)

Answer: The common verse to negate that is St Michael's confrontation with Satan in the epistle of St Jude:

Yet the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him but said, "May the Lord rebuke you!"--Jude 1:9

Notice he said the LORD rebuke you he did not call himself the LORD.  Jesus is God and He rebuked Satan and people in the New Testament. At this point Adventists will try to refer you to Zechariah 3:1-2, it says the Lord said the Lord rebukes you, the name Michael is absent.  Notice Jude 1:9 says the Angel was not the person to pass judgement.

These verses make Jesus being an actual angel impossible:

When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, as far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.  For to which of the angels did God ever say: "You are my son; this day I have begotten you"? Or again: "I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me"? And again, when he leads the first-born into the world, he says: "Let all the angels of God worship him." Of the angels he says: "He makes his angels winds and his ministers a fiery flame"; but of the Son: "Your throne, O God, stands forever and ever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.--Hebrews 1:3-8

Notice this says the Son is SUPERIOR to the angels, then asks what angel did God ever declare to His begotten Son?  And states that angels of God will worship the Son! Clearly Hebrews here is telling us that Jesus is not an angel, and is superior to them.  God the Father in the last verse speaks differently of the Angels and the Son, the Son is the only told "Your throne O God..." Even the Father acknowledges the Son as God, this is more than simply judges, since the Son sits on an Eternal Throne and has charge over the Kingdom as it is called his "righteous spector" and "Your Kingdom."

This verse brought to the thanks of LouRugg:

For if the word announced through angels proved firm, and every transgression and disobedience received its just recompense, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? Announced originally through the Lord, it was confirmed for us by those who had heard.   God added his testimony by signs, wonders, various acts of power, and distribution of the gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his will.  For it was not to angels that he subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking.  Instead, someone has testified somewhere: "What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him?  You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor,  subjecting all things under his feet." In "subjecting" all things (to him), he left nothing not "subject to him." Yet at present we do not see "all things subject to him," but we do see Jesus "crowned with glory and honor" because he suffered death, he who "for a little while" was made "lower than the angels," that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.--Hebrews 2:2-9

Problem: It is wrong to pray to Jesus--only pray to the Father!! (a Protestant claims this)

Answer: Sadly some Protestants do not pray to the whole trinity, but solely to the Father, not the Son or the Holy Spirit, even some who believe they are divine, nonetheless we seen in Acts St Stephen praying to Jesus as he was being martyred.

They went on stoning Stephen as he called [on the Lord] and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!"--Acts 7:59

Here is used the Greek word epikaloumenon, which means to call by name or to invoke, and here clearly the one invoked is the Lord JESUS, so yes this is a prayer to Jesus. Unfortunately you were not there to tell St Stephen praying to Lord Jesus is heresy!

Furthermore St John 14:14 seems to say we CAN pray to Jesus:

And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.

Protestants Rebuttal: No you must have it mininterpreted because King James Bible says we cannot pray to Jesus:

And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give [it] you.--John 16:23

Furthermore My KJV says for John 14:13:

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Notice it does not say ask ME--that is an addition to the Word!!

My response: First of all I do not care for the KJV--its outdated and not perfect--and furthermore the "textus receptus" is not a perfect text. Regardless, the Alexandrian text and the Majority Text seems to have the "me" also for John 14:13, either way just reading John 14:13-14 seems clear enough we can pray to Jesus. The Greek reads for your beloved textus receptus of John 14:14:

ean ti aithshte en tw onomati mou egw poihsw

The word translated ask is aitesete, which means “to ask, beg, call for, crave, desire, require.”

While the KJV rendering of John 16:23 just shows have awful the translation really is, this is the Greek Text Receptus:

kai en ekeinh th hmera eme ouk erwthsete ouden amhn amhn legw umin oti osa an aithshte ton patera en tw onomati mou dwsei umin

 The words in red are the words in contention. The problem is the King James version translates these two separate words as “ask.” The first word in read is erwthsete (erotesete), which means “to ask, to question, to inquire” in fact many bibles translates this word “ask a question,” having Jesus say “in those day you will not ask me a question.” The second word is aithshte (aiteste)

Problem: Wisdom 11:17 says God created the universe from existing matter, which is Alexandrian pagan philosophy, clearly not ex nihlo! Wisdom is not scripture!!

Answer: Common error, people simply need to read Genesis 1:2 and compare it with Wisdom 11:17

“For not without means was Your Almighty hand, that had fashioned the universe from formless matter...”—Wisdom 11:17 NAB

or "which created the world out of formless matter,"--NETS

or as Origen reads it:

"For thy almighty hand, that made the world out of shapeless matter,..'--Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230), in ANF, IV:270

Other translations use the word "world" instead of universe, as most translations do, which means that specifically the earth is without form.

The Greek reads: 

"οὐ γὰρ ἠπόρει ἡ παντοδύναμός σου χεὶρ καὶ κτίσασα τὸν κόσμον [world/universe] ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης ἐπιπέμψαι αὐτοῖς πλῆθος ἄρκων ἢ θρασεῖς λέοντας"

The Aramaic is as follows in the Peshitta Text is:

ܠܐ ܗܘܬ ܓܝܪ ܚܣܝܪܐ ܠܘܬܟ ܚܝܠܬܢܘܬܐ܂ ܗܕܐ ܕܒܪܝܬ ܥܠܡܐ ܡܢ ܗܘܠܐ ܕܠܐ ܝܕܝܥܐ܂ ܡܨܐ ܗܘܝܬ ܓܝܪ ܕܬܫܕܪ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܕܐ̈ܒܝܢ ܣܓ̈ܝܐܝܢ

“the earth was a formless wasteland…”—Genesis 1:2

The LXX of Genesis is:

ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος.

ἀόρατος is translated unseen or unsightly or invisible

ἀκατασκεύαστος can mean unready or unfurnished or unmade or unconstructed

 According to the bible God created formless matter then used it to fashion the universe, this attack on the Book of Wisdom is based on simple bible ignorance.

 Problem: Martin Luther was not wrong in removing the apocrypha from the bible—Cardinal Cajetan did the same saying they were not canonical!! St Jerome likewise rejected them as apocrypha!

Answer: This is based on a misunderstanding of Cardinal Cajetan and his use of the word canonical, which MANY Protestants site foolish state and ignorantly plagiarism one person. Here is what he said:

“Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.”

He said they belong in the bible, they are just not very useful for confirming matters of faith.

See CatholicMonarchist’s explanation on Cardinal Cajetan

This part is what Protestants REFUSE to learn and understand. St Jerome did call them Scripture, he just said they are not used for doctrine.

See the following site on examples of when St Jerome calls the books scripture (they also address many Protestant arguments by the Church Fathers) and St Jerome many times quotes the books Protestants call apocrypha. The examples are as follows:

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2]—St Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age [Daniel 13:55-59 aka Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles)—St Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH, 'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS."—St Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16)—St Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation."—St Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."[Wisdom 2:23] And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory." Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"—St Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8

etc

Here is another example of St Jerome calling the alleged “apocrypha” scripture:

Holy scripture says: "a tale out of season is as music in mourning." [Sirach 22:6]—St Jerome Letter 118 Section 1, Paragraph 2 To Julian

Problem: There are not levels of Heaven or Hell, there is not much thing as a levels of sin either!! They are filthy Papist unscriptural inventions!!

Answer: The bible says otherwise:

“Not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals, another kind of flesh for birds, and another for fish. There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another. The brightness of the sun is one kind, the brightness of the moon another, and the brightness of the stars another. For star differs from star in brightness. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible.”—1 Corinthians 15:39-42

“In my Father's house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?”—John 14:2

“That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.”—Luke 12:47-8

“Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”—Matthew 5:19

They devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. They will receive a very severe condemnation [most bibles here read ‘greater damnation’]."—Luke 20:47

If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.—1 John 5:16

Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin."—John 19:11

Even the Protestant commentary Matthew Henry speaks of LEVELS of sin and double damnation, see John 19 commentary.

Problem: Judith 14:10 has a Moabite converting to Judaism, the bible says they were not allowed to convert! So therefore this book does not belong in the bible!

Answer: Judith 14:10 (6) reads:

Now Achior [the Ammonite], seeing all that the God of Israel had done, believed firmly in him. He had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised, and he has been united with the house of Israel to the present day.

If they were not to accept converts then you should reject the book of Ruth as it is written:

Then said Boaz: 'What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi--hast thou also bought of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance?'—Ruth 4:5

and Judges since it’s about a Moabite princess (Ruth) who converted to Judaism! Deuteronomy 23:4 says:

An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even the tenth generation shall never enter the assembly of the Lord.

Jewish commentary of Rashi (11^th Century AD) is:

An Ammonite [or Moabite] shall not enter [the assembly of the Lord] [i.e.,] he shall not marry an Israelite woman. — [Yev. 77b]

Some Jews say the Moabites and Ammonites can convert but they would be under Noahide Law. If the Bible forbade accepting converts from the Moabites and Ammonites then Jesus could not be the Messiah since He is the descendant of King David who was the grandson of Ruth the Moabite princess. If Deut. 23:4 was only a restriction on intermarriage, specifically a male Moabite or Ammonite marrying a Jewish woman, then Judith does not state any contradiction to this commandment since Achior is never mentioned as having a wife or marriage. Modern Jews says Moabites and Ammonites men could convert, but not intermarry. Rabbinical tradition according to the Zohar states that the rabbis later allowed all converts.

Recently I was flipping through a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls and it had an interesting ancient commentarty on Deuteronomy 23, stating that the prohibition made against these people refered to intermarrying, that people should respect the Sanctuary and not defiling it by not marrying into those groups, it seemed to make to prohibition in regards to men or women, however these are fragments of Scrolls.

Also, the book of Nehemiah seems to understand it likewise as intermarrying into those said groups, see Chapter 13.

Problem: Oneness “Christian”/ Jew: God is ONE—NOT Three as Deuteronomy says “Hear O Israel the Lord your God is ONE”

Answer: The Shema uses the word echad for one which does not mean absolutely one, many Jews over Jewish history have pointed this out, Kabalists especially, of whom rabbis critical of have said if one accepted Kabala they would have to accept the Trinity as orthodox belief. Many Jews have understood the word echad to be a sort of unity. Notice I am in no way condoning Kabala I am just using it as an example of Jews who know Hebrew understanding the word echad not to mean absolute oneness.

One example is here see page 140 another is:

The daily meditation is the profession of unity in the verse, "Hear, O Yisrael (Sh'ma Yisrael), Hashem our Elohim; Hashem is One." And they are all one. Therefore He is called One. HE ASKS: There are three names here, so how are they one? We proclaim One, NAMELY "HEAR O YISRAEL, HASHEM OUR ELOHIM; HASHEM IS ONE," yet how can they be one?

This is made known through the vision of the Holy Spirit. They become part of the mystery of the mirror of the closed eye, to make known that the three COLUMNS ALLUDED TO IN "HASHEM OUR ELOHIM, HASHEM" are one, and this is the secret of the audible sound. Sound is one, and has three aspects - fire, air and water - which are all one in the secret of the sound. Also here, "Hashem, our Elohim; Hashem" are one. They are three aspects but are one.—Zohar 9:15

There are examples in scripture where the word echad refers to people collectively, and other instances were echad meant only one object, however ambiguous the word in Deuteronomy is Oneness types presuppose only the former to be true.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one ( אֶחָֽד echad).—Deuteronomy 6:4

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one (אֶחָֽד ,echad) flesh.—Genesis 2:24

“And bring them close, one to the other into one stick, and they shall be one (לַאֲחָדִים , lechadim)in your hand.”

“The entire congregation together/as-one (כְּאֶחָד k-echad) was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty.”—Ezra 2:64

The Message of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), is that we’re not pagans who believe in a multitude of deity, but we have one God YHWH, but this does not restrict it to being solely ONENESS in persons as demonstrated elsewhere.

Oneness Christians (eg FB on 4-25-08) still have to jump through hoop if not ignore verses like John 14:16 where Jesus declares the Father will send ANOTHER advocate, rather they assume it means nothing and try to say the Holy Spirit is Jesus, although it says another which evades the issue. And verses like John 14:23 need to be ignored which states God is a “we,”:

"Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and We will come (elegsouetha) to him and make our dwelling with him.”

Problem: Christians says Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah, it does not it is Israel personified!

Answer: The interpretation of the man of Isaiah 53 being Israel was not made common until the 11^th century when Rashi popularized it, previously saying it was the King Messiah was a common interpretation.

To be continued..

Problem [a Jew]: The New Testament does not accurately quote the Shema, Jesus adds to it, it says both "mind" and "heart"!

Answer:  The reason why the Gospel uses both heart and mind is because Greek philosophy was different from Hebrew, in order to make sense, heart and mind were used, since the heart in Greek understanding is more an emotional place, whereas in Hebrew the heart is the mind and a persons consciousness, the seat of intelligence, only rarely refering to emotion, whereas kidneys refered to emortion.  Jesus probably quoted the Shema verbatim, but however, the Gospel's writers probably put in 'mind' in order to make sense to the non Jewish, Greek audience, this is not really an addition, its just something done so the meaning of the Shema makes sense to people less familiar with Judaism and Hebrew philosophy.

Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.--Deuteronomy 6:5

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'--Mark 12:30 (Matthew 22:37 & Luke 10:27 are the same)

A response by a Pharisees as to what the Shema here means is that: "...'to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength...'"

notice where "soul" and "mind" are is placed "understanding"