what about the thief on the cross/ no purgatory?

some answers found on a facebook site :

1.I would guess that his implicit desire for baptism was all that was necessary for his slate to be wiped clean. Purgatory is only a consideration when we commit sins after our baptism.

2.Also, "faith alone" types try to use the good thief as an example of how a person only needs faith apart from works to be saved. However, clearly the good thief did both demonstrate faith and perform good works - he rebuked a sinner, educated the ignorant, publicly defended Christ, publicly admitted his guilt and implicitly demonstrated true contrition.

To perform all these works I would guess he had a baptism of desire (or blood) at that moment and was open to grace. His suffering on the cross would atone for any sins and I would guess that such a painful death and sincere contrition would mean he went straight to heaven

3.Short answer, we don't know. Perhaps his suffering combined with his faith sufficed, perhaps Christ granted him a special privilege of grace, perhaps all purgation takes mere moments in our earthly time? We don't know. The point of the story is his faith in Christ, even as a sinner, and Christ's complete grace

4.time is only really a term used in accomodation to us when we think of the places of eternity (which are timeless) like heaven, hell and purgatory. So "tonight" would be Jesus' way of saying "soon," not literally at nightfall.

This makes sense to me, because after all, we know that "...he descended into hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven..." so Jesus isn't even in heaven, speaking in our earthly conception of time, for a whole three days.

also on a comment here  http://www.creedcodecult.com/the-need-for-perfect-law-keeping-part-1/comment-page-1/#comments

I would say, “yes”. God is greater than His Sacraments. However, it would not be normative. There is not one example of such a thing in Scripture. Let me use the Good Thief for an example.

Protestants claim that it is an example of salvation by faith alone. But is it?

— 1 —
He suffered in the flesh. Scripture says:

1 Peter 4:1

1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Crucifixion is considered one of the most painful ways to die that man has ever invented. And, as you can see, suffering in the flesh does away with sin. Christ must have known that the Good Thief had expiated his sins by the suffering that he endured on that cross.

— 2 —
He suffered with Jesus. Scripture says:

Romans 8:17King James Version (KJV)

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Who can deny that St. Dismas suffered with Christ? There he was suffering on the cross right next to Him. The only one any closer was Mary, His mother, who was spiritually suffering on the Cross with Jesus.

— 3 —

He admonished the sinner.

Do you remember that he reproved and rebuked the other criminal in defense of Jesus Christ? Scripture again says:

1 Thessalonians 5:14 [Full Chapter]
Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.

This is a spiritual good work of mercy in accordance with the Teaching of the Church:

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead. Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God:
He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none and he who has food must do likewise. But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you. If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?

He gave good witness.

He openly confessed his faith in Jesus Christ, asking Him for salvation.

Matthew 10:32King James Version (KJV)

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

And I would have posted many other things that he did, but this thing is being temperamental. Suffice to say, that from the Cross, the Good Thief accomplished many good works.

Hanging upon that cross beside Jesus, it is as though the Good Thief was standing before Jesus Christ at the Judgement. Jesus Christ judged the Good Thief according to his works which he had done in the body and knowing that he believed, He counted it to him as righteousness. Just as he does for all who, with the proper disposition of humility and faith, approach the Judgement Seat of Jesus Christ at the Sacraments.

contraception/ links/ etc

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/contraception/

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


Concerning the top link, Bryan made a comment at 185

November 24th, 2013 10:57 am :
Paul Levy, a pastor in the “International Presbyterian Church,” writes,

Sex within marriage is God’s answer to [sexual] immorality, and so Christians need to work really hard at having good sex lives.

That reminds me of Kant’s notion that we have a duty to pursue happiness, so as to avoid the temptations to violate our duty under unhappy conditions. Contrast the Reformed notion of sex within marriage as the solution to sexual immortality, with the Catholic position. According to the Catholic position, the virtue of chastity, both within marriage and outside of marriage, strengthened by discipline, prayer and the sacraments, is God’s answer to sexual immorality. The Reformed position (as described by Levy) makes single people intrinsically unequipped to avoid falling into sexual immorality. Problems with pornography? Well, he isn’t married, and thus doesn’t have access to the essential antidote to sexual immorality. Hook-up lifestyle? Again, he’s not married, and thus doesn’t have God’s solution to sexual immorality. Date-rape? He just needs to get married. This position reduces the sexual act within marriage to a necessary means for resisting sexual temptation. But it also entails that the lack thereof (or the lack of some variation/permutation of sexual expression between married persons) is the convenient excuse when one fails to resist sexual temptation, both when unmarried, and when married. There is a sense in which what Levy says doesn’t accurately represent what Reformed leaders (Levy included) would say to single people, because they would urge unmarried persons to obey the divine law, and avoid fornication, through “Bible study, accountability groups, prayer, and attentiveness to solid preaching.” (See “Habitual Sin and the Grace of the Sacraments.”) But at the same time, what Levy says isn’t merely a slip of the Reformed tongue. The notion that sex-within-marriage is the solution to sexual immorality is a widely held position among Reformed persons. It treats gratifying and appeasing the sexual appetite as the solution, whereas the Catholic doctrine teaches that training and mastering the sexual appetite is the solution.

{I needed a bit more info so I asked him:

Could you explain the relationship of what you have stated with I Cor 7. This passage popped into my mind as I read your comment. It sounds like it is one factor in resisting temptation [not the only one, for sure]…..but I am not sure I am understanding things correctly. Here is the passage:

“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

HE answered in comment 187:


In the Catholic understanding, the quieting of concupiscence is a secondary effect of marriage, and a secondary effect of the marital act within marriage. It is not the purpose of marriage, nor the purpose of the marital act. Rather it is one of the ways in which couples help each other, though necessarily only subordinate to higher ends, as Pope Pius XI teaches:

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. (Casti Connubii, 59)

The Holy Spirit / including a long quote from Dr. Ludwig Ott

just wanted to pass some stuff on about the Holy Spirit from Ott's book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.  Just note that he puts commas between chapter reference and verse so I Cor. 12,13 means chapter 12 verse 13. ON page 294-5 of my book he writes under

11. The Holy Ghost and the Church

1. The Soul of the Church

     The Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church. (Sent. communis.)

 

In the Encyclical "Divinum illud" (1897), Leo XIII declared: 'Let the one proposition suffice: Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Ghost her soul.  In the Encyclical "Mystici Corporis" (D2288) Pius XII confirmed this doctrine.  In its content it asserts that like the soul in the body, the Holy Ghost is the principle of being and life in the Church.  It is the Holy Ghost who welds together the members of the Church among themselves and with Christ the Head, as the Holy Ghost is entirely in the head and entirely in the members of the Mystical Body.  It is He who by His assistance upholds the hierarchy in the exercise of the teaching office, of the pastoral office and of the sacerdotal office.  It is He who with His grace excites and fosters every salutary activity in the members of the Mystical Body.  All life and growth of the Mystical Body proceeds from the Divine life-principle indwelling in it.

 

This teaching is manifested in the numerous assertions of Holy Scripture on the inner , hidden operation of the Holy Ghost in the Church:  He remains with the disciples of Jesus for all time, in His place (John 14,16).  He lives in them as in a temple (I Cor. 3,16; 6,19).  He binds them all together into one body (I Cor.12,13); He teaches them all and reminds them of all that Jesus said to them (John 14,26; I John 2,27); He gives testimony of Jesus (John 15,26); He leads them to all truth (John 16,13); He speaks in them when they are brought before the Court (Mt. 10,20); He works in them when they confess Jesus as the Lord (I Cor. 12,3)0; He helps to preserve the deposit of faith entrusted to them (2 Tim 1,14); He bestows the extraordinary gifts of grace, and allocates to each as He will (I Cor. 12,11); He molds the Christian to a dwelling of God (Eph 2,22); He effects the forgiveness of sins (John 20,22 et seq), the rebirth (john 3,5), the spiritual renewal (Tit. 3,5); He bestows the spirit of adoption of sons (Rom 8,15); He pours out love into the hearts of the faithful (Rom. 5,5); He brings forth all the Christian virtues (Gal.5,22); He inducts the superiors of the Church (Acts 20,280; He directs them in their official activity (Acts 15,280; He takes pity on our weakness and pleads with us before the Father (Rom. 8,26); supported by Him we cry to God: 'Abba Father' (Rom.8,15; Gao. 4,6).

 

The Fathers attest the intimate connection of the Holy Ghost with the Church.  St. Irenaeus says: "Where the Church is, there is also the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace' (Adv. haer. III 24,I)  St. Augustine compares the working of the Holy Ghost in the Church to the working of the soul in the body:  'What the soul is for the body of man that the Holy Ghost is for the body of Christ, that, is, the Church.  The Holy Ghost operates in the whole Church that which the soul operates in the members of the one body.'    As the soul quickens every member of the body and bestows a definite function on each, so the Holy Ghost, by His grace, quickens every member of the Church, and allocates to each a definite activity in the service of the whole.  Through one He works miracles, through others He proclaims the truth; in one He preserves virginity, in another marital chastity; in one He effects this, in another that.  As the soul does not follow the member that is cut off from the body, so also the Holy Ghost does not dwell in the member who separates itself from the body of the Church (Sermo 267, 4,4). Scholasticism adopted the thought of St. Augustine, for example, St. Thomas in his Commentary on the Apostles 'Creed (a.9). In another metaphor St. Thomas calls the Holy Ghost the Heart of the Church (cor Ecclesiae), based on the Aristotelian thought that the heart is the central organ, out of which all life-powers stream to the body.  In analogous manner the Holy Ghost is the universal principle, from which all supernatural life-powers, that is , all graces, overflow to the Church, the Head (Christ as to His humanity) and the members.  As the heart with its universal efficacy is invisible to the eye, so also the Holy Ghost and His universal quickening and uniting efficacy in the Church is invisible.  Thus the Holy Ghost is very appropriately compared to the heart, while Christ, as to His sensory human nature is very appropriately compared to the head (S. th. III 8, I and 3).  Prescinding from picturesque language, St. Thomas says of the relationship of the Holy Ghost to the Church:  The Holy Ghost unites, quickens, teaches, sanctifies the Church, indwells in her, communicates the riches of the one to the others.  CF. S. th. 2 II 1,9 ad 5:  III 8, I ad3; III 68,9 ad 2; In I Cor. c. 12 lect. 2."

Why the Church faces East/ why the altar faces east

honoring those in church leadership

I wrote this in a comment concerning why people kiss the ring of a Pope or a Bishop:

An example of affection and respecting and demonstrating this in a physical way is seen in Acts 20: 37 where the elders were weeping aloud and they fell on Paul’s neck and repeatedly kissed him.
It is not against Scripture to show physical demonstrations of love/respect for someone in authority. The Scriptures also teach in I Tim 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching”

Cultures may differ in how they show this honor . This text shows it is appropriate to show honor to those God has placed over the church as stewards. So we are commanded to give honor to the elders who rule well. These can include physical demonstrations (also monetary demonstrations may be implied in 5:18).

around comment 305 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/holy-church-finding-jesus-as-a-reverted-catholic-a-testimonial-response-to-chris-castaldo/comment-page-7/#comment-62531

James White's sister Patty Bonds

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1829614/posts  Part of her testimony converting to Catholicism




http://www.askacatholic.com/_webPostings/Answers/attachments/Conversion_of_PattyPatrickBonds.pdf
her full testimony -- it is called Out of Darkness

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/s2.htm  This link gives the Journey  Home audio and catholic answers audio

http://www.catholic-convert.com/blog/2009/02/18/patty-bonds-her-father-her-mother-and-her-brother-james-white/

http://abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/ one of her blogs

her story of abuse and how she received healing: http://abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/p/out-of-darkness-rough-draft.html

infallible statements explained/ also Protestant's need

First from comment 409 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/keith-mathisons-reply/#comment-181686

Thanks for your helpful comment. I agree that if Protestantism embraced some form of infallibility in the Church, then this would give us a common ground, and allow the ecumenical dialogue to focus on the locus, nature, scope, etc. of ecclesial infallibility, rather than, as you said, infallibility being a “discussion-ending bogeyman.” However, regarding infallibility there remains a difficulty here for Protestantism. The difficulty can be explained by considering both horns of the following dilemma: for Protestantism, either the Church has some sort of infallibility, or she doesn’t. Consider the last horn first. If the Church has no infallibility, then every doctrine, every line of every creed, and even the canon, is still up for grabs, not settled, and possibly false. (See the quotation from John Frame incomment #137 of the Tu Quoque thread.) Regarding the first horn, Protestantism not having a non ad hoc visible-church ecclesiology (see “Why Protestantism has no visible catholic Church“) entails that any claim to ecclesial infallibility is ultimately ad hoc, as I’ve explained both in my reply toChristianity Today’s Mark Galli, and in my response to Carl Trueman’s second tu quoque criticism of Brad Gregory’s Unintended Reformation (see comment #89 in the “Brantly Millegan reviews Brad Gregory” thread). The only two options, if one wants to remain Protestant, are either to embrace the last horn and all its consequences, or not to think about the dilemma.


http://web.archive.org/web/20110911193031/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp  This one especially concerns some statements a Pope made against Luther showing they are not considered infallible and showing some tests for a statement being infallible

also from the canons:

According to the "Code of Canon Law" (can. 338-341) ecumenical councils are
assemblies -- summoned and presided over by the Pope -- of bishops and some
others endowed with jurisdiction; decisions of these councils do not oblige un-
less they are confirmed and promulgated by the Pope. This assembly at Jeru-
salem probably took place in the year 49 or 50. [from the Navarre Bible commentary]

Then here  http://www.ewtn.com/library/doctrine/TRIGINFL.HTM

Here is the quote from the link:

A DISCUSSION OF INFALLIBILITYFather John Trigilio

Any dogma is an infallible doctrine, divinely & formally revealed by God as a necessary truth for salvation.



Extraordinary Magisterium is an ex cathedra pronouncement of the Roman Pontiff (Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX) or a de fide statement of an Ecumenical Council (Justification, by the Council of Trent).



Ordinary Magisterium is the perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him around the world. To capriciously say that only extraordinary Magisterium dogmas are infallible is false and heretical. Lumen Gentium n.25, Humani Generis n.21, both solemnly teach on the supreme teaching authority of the Ordinary Magisterium.



Some Catholics wrongly believe that only "ex cathedra" Papal Statements are infallible. This would limit infallible dogma to two, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Obviously, only 2 infallible dogmas in 2,000 years sounds very sparse. Some theologians incorrectly proliferate a notion that only the Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. Even Raymond Brown has abandoned this notion. Ergo, propositions like "the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the B.V.M. is not infallible," are ridiculous. If in doubt, the best resource is Denziger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Next, is Ludwig Ott's monumental work, The Fundamentals of Dogma. There, one can find the theological distinctions made between divinely revealed truths (De Fide) and those which are only theologically certain.



DE FIDE is the highest level of theological/doctrinal truth. They are INFALLIBLE statements by their very nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc.



Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God which can be known through reason alone.



Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:

1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.

2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.

3. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church's prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.

4. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.



According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a dual magisteria, i.e., (the pope & bishops plus) the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, (adding) the body of believers. While it is true that as a whole, the body of believers is infallible in that SENSUS FIDEIis that the Church as the Mystical Body cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals, the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) resides solely with the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him.


EWTN: Originally given in 1995 on Catholic Resource Net's bulletin board as an answer to a question, the above reflects the state of the matter as generally discussed by theologians historically, such as in the works cited (Denzinger and Ott).



It should be noted that the Latin sententia (generally translated into English as opinions) does not refer to a subjective judgment of individuals, each of which is equally valid in conscience, but to a theological judgment by recognized theologians and based on the Faith (Scripture and Tradition), including the definitive sententiae of the Magisterium, and supported by reason from the Faith as at least probable. An "opinion" can never be probable which occurs in a vacuum unsupported by evidence from the Sacred Tradition and the theological tradition.

While these categories still represent, therefore, valid distinctions, a more contemporary and a magisterial assessment can be found in Pope John Paul II's Ad tuendam fidem and Professio Fidei, and in the explanation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its "Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei." (See also my Summary.) This formula makes it clear that definitive theological judgments of the ordinary magisterium, are every bit as binding in Faith as are exercises of the extraordinary magisterium. Both are protected by the Church's charism of infallibility, exercised by those who hold supreme pastoral office in the Church (the Pope, or the College of Bishops in union with the Pope), so that the Church remains indefectibility in her faith and her sacraments — something absolutely necessary for her salvific mission, and guaranteed by Christ (cf. Mt. 28: 18-21).



These authoritative texts came about precisely as a result of the kinds of arguments cited by Fr.Trigilio which restrict the obligations of faith to the extraordinary magisterium, and which also largely ignore matters obliged by religious submission of intellect and will (LG 25). The propaganda in favor of the licitness of contraception and the validity of women's ordination, especially the latter since the sacramental integrity of the Church depends on valid orders, are the context leading to the Magisterium's clarifications — of both the weight of certain teachings taught semper et ubique(always and everywhere), as well as the weight of teachings declared definitive, i.e. defined, by the ordinary magisterium.



One final thought, contraception is an assault on the life of the human being, and not just preventively, as the low-dose estrogen pills of recent years also fall under the definitive condemnation of abortion in Evangelium vitae. The push for the ordination of women is an assault on the life of the Church and souls, since it attacks the validity of the sacramental mission and the possibility of salvation. It is no coincidence that this assault on the material and spiritual lives of human beings are occurring together, and often by the same human powers and principalities. Without doubt, they are other powers and principalities behind them.

Colin B. Donovan, STL


Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com



HOME-EWTNews-FAITH-TELEVISION-RADIO-LIBRARY-GALLERY-CATALOGUE-GENERAL
ESPAÑOL

Then from a comment here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/mathisons-reply-to-cross-and-judisch-a-largely-philosophical-critique/#comment-177774  found in comment 523

Unlike what your (2) and (3) imply, “sacred tradition” is by no means limited to magisterial statements, whether written or oral. You have also misdescribed (some) magisterial “documents” as “infallible.” No document is infallible; only persons can be infallible. Doctrines taught infallibly by the Church are called “irreformable.” But not everything contained in documents that contain irreformable teaching is itself irreformable.

Those corrections are important. For one thing, most “interpretations” of magisterial documents by representatives of the Magisterium are not irreformable and are not presented as such; only interpretations set forth under certain conditions, regarding faith and morals, are irreformable. You seem unaware of what has been explicitly taught about those conditions, let alone of what is a matter of debate about them among Catholic theologians. Given as much, the fact that some interpretations of “the sources” (Scripture, Tradition, and irreformable magisterial interpretations thereof) by magisterial representatives have been wrong is not an insoluble problem for the CIP.

Good explanation here: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/infallibility

tongues and the Catholic Church

Interesting article including a lengthy quote by Protestant Piper http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2013/06/john-macarthur-on-john-piper-and-wayne.html

an article by a reformed seminarian graduate:http://www.calvinistcorner.com/gifts.htm http://www.calvinistcorner.com/gifts.htm

also the sermon by Piper: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/signs-and-wonders-then-and-now http://vimeo.com/canonwired/driscoll-wilson-spiritual-gifts
Doug Wilson Interviews Mark Driscoll | Part II - Spiritual Gifts & Cessationism from Canon Wired on Vimeo. also here protestants http://vimeo.com/37169587
EMA 2010: discussion about prophecy from The Proclamation Trust on Vimeo.

I Cor 7 about virgins

Found this here http://trinitypastor.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/1cor-7/    

a QUOTE:

IN THE COURSE OF HIS treatment of “virgins” (1 Cor. 7:25–38—the word refers to the sexually inexperienced, whether male of female), Paul writes, “Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are” (1 Cor. 7:26). Thus it is good for the celibate to remain celibate, for the married not to seek a divorce, and so forth. This does not mean, Paul adds, that if a virgin marries, she is sinning. But he does insist that “the time is short” (1 Cor. 7:29). What does this mean?

(1) Some have argued that in common with everyone else in the early church, Paul believed that Jesus was going to return very soon, certainly within their lifetime. With so limited a horizon, Paul says that on the whole it is better for those who are celibate to remain unmarried. This reading of the passage means, of course, that Paul and the rest of the early church were just plain wrong: Jesus did not come back that quickly. But there are so many passages in the New Testament that envisage the possibility of long delay that we cannot go along with the notion that early Christians suffered under this particular delusion.

(2) Some have argued that “the present crisis” (1 Cor. 7:26) refers to some specially troubling period of persecution. If the authorities are out to get Christians, especially their leaders, it might be an advantage to be celibate: you are more mobile, can hide more easily, and the authorities cannot exert pressure on you by leaning on your family. But this interpretation has two insuperable problems. (a) It may fit the celibates, but it doesn’t fit all the other people to whom Paul makes application: e.g., those who mourn should live as if they did not mourn, those who are happy as if they were not, those who buy something as if it were not theirs to keep (1 Cor. 7:29–30). (b) Above all, there is no good evidence that the Corinthians were being threatened with persecution. The entire tone of this letter suggests they were finding life a bit of a lark.

(3) The word rendered “crisis” simply means “necessity” or “compulsion.” What Paul is referring to is neither the return of Christ nor persecution, but the present “necessity,” the present “compulsion,” of living with the End in view. Unlike pagans and secularists, we cannot make our chief joy turn on marriage, prosperity, or any other temporal thing. They all fall under the formula “as if not”: live “as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31, emphasis added). There are responsible ways for Christians to enjoy these things, or mourn, or be happy—but never as if these things are ultimate.

 

Concerning some of Protestant history

Newman:

1. So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that ‘when they rose in the morning’ her true seed ‘were all dead corpses’—Nay dead and buried—and without grave-stone.http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html.

homosexuality and the priesthood

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben16/Instructions.htm

evolution and the catholic

quote from comment    640 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/03/jason-stellman-tells-his-conversion-story/#comment-61225

.........how about the example of whether theistic evolution is compatible with Catholic teaching. See Comment #605 for the citations that lead some conservative Catholics to hold the view that theistic evolution is incompatible with the Catholic faith.
Some Catholics who call themselves “traditionalists” do indeed believe that “theistic evolution is incompatible with the Catholic faith.” They are mistaken. As evidence for that claim, I offer two citations from papal documents.
The first is from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis (1950):

…the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter–for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question (§36; emphasis added).

The second is from Pope John Paul II’s address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996:

Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of “evolutionism” as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. [See the footnote marked with an asterisk--ML.] In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Although both popes certainly upheld the two binding dogmas you cite in #605, they do allow that the human body is the product of “evolution” in the sense of genetic mutation and natural selection. In so doing, they contradict what the non-ecumenical and thus non-binding Council of Cologne had asserted.
That is a very good example of how the CIP works, and of how the Church has learned from her mistake in the case of heliocentrism. No defined dogma is denied, but a widespread and weighty theological opinion has been rejected in light of the progress of science.

priest marry?

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/benedetto-xvi-benedict-xvi-benedicto-xvi-27843/

Pope Francis statements

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-letter-to-the-founder-of-la-repubblica-italian-newspaper see also this comment found here:
http://jeremiahgibbs.com/2013/09/12/is-pope-francis-changing-the-teaching-of-the-catholic-church-a-theologians-commentary-on-his-open-letter-to-eugenio-scalfari/

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit

see this by Pope John Paul II about other faiths: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFUNICI.HTM

from comment 121 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit/#comment-61207  :

Pope Francis knows that following one’s conscience leads to responding positively to the supernatural grace already at work in the heart of every man by the Holy Spirit, and this positive response leads to repentance, and to faith. He is not teaching two ways to heaven. Rather, he is pointing the atheist to the first step in the journey toward faith, namely, an examination of and adherence to conscience. Jay’s mistake here is a basic logical mistake, i.e. the non sequitur. The importance of following one’s conscience in coming to repentance and faith does not mean or entail that one is saved by conscience alone.

Catholics/ birth control

http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

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