the reproach of Christ

Is all marital foreplay moral?

Posted on 18 October 2010 by Ron Conte

Is all marital foreplay moral?

No. Some acts of foreplay are moral, other acts of foreplay are immoral. Unnatural sexual acts, even between a husband and wife, are never justified, even if these acts are used as a type of foreplay.

Foreplay is a means to an end; acts of foreplay prepare for the act of natural marital relations. Since the end does not justify the means, every act used as foreplay must be good under all three fonts of morality, as those fonts spring up from each particular act. One act cannot be justified by the fonts of a different act. If an act is intrinsically evil and always immoral when done apart from natural marital relations, then the same act remains intrinsically evil when done with natural marital relations, even when used as a means to prepare for the end of natural marital relations. The end of natural marital relations open to life does not cause the means used to prepare for that act to change from evil to good. Nor is it correct to say that acts of foreplay have no morality of their own, but somehow derive their morality from the end. The idea that the means takes its morality from the end is merely a different way of saying that the end justifies the means.

Any sexual act that is intrinsically evil apart from natural marital relations, remains intrinsically evil when done before, during, or after marital relations. The end of natural marital relations open to life does not justify the means to that end. Nor can the good fonts of one act change the fonts of another act. An act with an evil moral object cannot be made moral by being combined in some way with another act.

If a husband and wife commit an unnatural sexual act (e.g. an act of oral, anal, or manipulative sex, with or without climax) as a means to the end of natural marital relations open to life, the means is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, even though the end is good and moral. The end does not cause the means to become good. The end does not change the morality of the means. The end does not exempt the means from the moral law.

Every unnatural sexual act is intrinsically evil, even within marriage, because this type of sexual act does not have both the unitive and procreative meanings joined in the same act. In order to be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital, unitive, and procreative.

Whoever says otherwise commits a grave sin by leading others into grave sin and by harming the holy Sacrament of Marriage.

More on marital chastity in my book: The Catholic Marriage Bed

Posted in theology of the body | Comments Off

Catholic teaching on homosexuality 1

Posted on 12 October 2010 by Ron Conte

The one holy Roman Catholic Church teaches the following:

1. Homosexual acts (sexual acts between persons of the same gender) are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

2. The homosexual orientation (“an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex,” CCC 2357) is a grave and inherent moral disorder, since the orientation directs the person toward acts of grave depravity. This orientation is contrary to the plan of God for humanity. God never wills a person to be sexually attracted to members of the same gender.

3. Neither a true natural marriage, nor a true Sacrament of Marriage, can exist between persons of the same gender. Therefore, so-called ‘gay marriage’ (same-sex marriage) is not in any sense a marriage before the eyes of God or His Church.

4. Laws establishing a legal form for gay marriage, or for its near-eqivalent in any type of civil union, are unjust laws that contradict the eternal moral law of God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2357:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture [Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10], which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” [CDF, Persona Humana, n. 8] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Whoever knowingly chooses to reject the definitive teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium against homosexuality, commits the sin of heresy and is automatically excommunicated from the Church.

Posted in heresies, theology of the body | Comments Off

Natural Family Planning

Posted on 10 October 2010 by Ron Conte

Here is my website on various methods of NFP.
http://www.natural-family-planning.info/

The sympto-thermal method is perhaps the most effective, but also difficult to learn. The Standard Days Method is relatively effective, at about 95%, but it is the easiest to learn. The SDM is a modern update of the old calendar (or rhythm) method. SDM can be learned merely be reading about the method online, although also taking a class would be beneficial.

There is a website comparing the Standard Days Method to other natural methods:
http://fertilewindow.blogspot.com/2010/07/examples-and-comparison-of-fertility.html

Posted in theology of the body | 1 Comment

What determines the morality of a sexual act?

Posted on 8 October 2010 by Ron Conte

A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty.

Sexual acts are not exempt from the moral law. To be moral, each and every knowingly chosen sexual act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be good, the moral object must be good, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences.

In order to have a good moral object, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. Each and every moral sexual act always has these three meanings: marital, unitive, procreative. The deprivation of any one or more of these meanings from the moral object causes the sexual act to be intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

The natural sexual act is genital-to-genital intercourse between a man and a woman. This act is unitive and procreative. Natural sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is called natural marital relations. Only natural marital relations is martial and unitive and procreative.

The use of contraception deprives the act of natural intercourse of the procreative meaning, causing the sexual act to be non-procreative. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because it deprives sexual relations of its procreative meaning, which is required by God for sexual acts to be moral. Therefore, natural marital relations must always be open to life (not contracepted).

A non-marital sexual act is any type of sexual act outside of marriage. Acts of adultery, pre-marital sex, and masturbation are non-marital. All non-marital sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because these acts lack the marital meaning, which is required by God for sexual acts to be moral.

An unnatural sexual act is any type of sexual act that is not unitive and procreative. Examples of unnatural sexual acts include oral sexual acts, anal sexual acts, and manipulative sexual acts (i.e. masturbation of self or of another). All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because these acts lack the unitive and procreative meanings, which are required by God for sexual acts to be moral. These acts are not procreative because they are not the type of act that is inherently directed at procreation. These acts are not truly unitive, even if there is a certain mere physical union of body parts, because this is not the type of sexual union intended by God for human persons. Unnatural sexual acts are not justified by being done within marriage because the moral law requires each and every sexual act to be not only marital, but also unitive and procreative.

To be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. All non-marital sexual acts, all non-unitive sexual acts, and all non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. All such acts have an evil moral object, and so they are not justified by intention, or by circumstances, or by other acts.

Posted in theology of the body | Comments Off

secularized Catholics

Posted on 7 October 2010 by Ron Conte

A secularized Catholic is someone who claims to be a Catholic Christian, who might even attend Mass on a regular basis, but who believes the teachings of secular society over the teachings of the Church. The true test of faith is found when the Church has a teaching that is irreconcilable with the majority opinion in society.

[Exodus]
{23:2} You shall not follow the crowd in doing evil. Neither shall you go astray in judgment, by agreeing with the majority opinion, apart from the truth.

Secular Catholics often attribute certain ideas to Jesus, when in fact those ideas are from sinful secular society. For example, a secular Catholic will claim that Jesus was inclusive. Not so.

[Matthew]
{10:32} Therefore, everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father, who is in heaven.
{10:33} But whoever will have denied me before men, I also will deny before my Father, who is in heaven.
{10:34} Do not think that I came to send peace upon the earth. I came, not to send peace, but the sword.
{10:35} For I came to divide a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
{10:36} And the enemies of a man will be those of his own household.
{10:37} Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me.
{10:38} And whoever does not take up his cross, and follow me is not worthy of me.
{10:39} Whoever finds his life, will lose it. And whoever will have lost his life because of me, shall find it.

Secular Catholics do not believe that abortion is always wrong; they use contraception and have sexual relations outside of marriage; they think that the Church’s teaching against gay marriage is antiquated or intolerant; they do not get their ideas from the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, nor from Sacred Scripture, nor from the Magisterium. They reject any teaching of the Magisterium that is not in accord with their own understanding, and that understanding is based on secular society.

Are you a secular Catholic? Compare your beliefs to those of the Church and of secular society. When there is a conflict between Church teachings and the majority opinion of the culture in which you live, which idea do you believe?

Posted in heresies | Comments Off

the filioque clause (continued)

Posted on 30 September 2010 by Ron Conte

Biblical Basis

The Son proceeds from the Father. The Father does not proceed. Therefore, the Son does not send the Father to the world to be incarnate. Rather, the Father sends the Son into the world to be incarnate. It is fitting that the Father send the Son because the Father also ‘sends’ the Son in the sense of procession.

The Spirit is sent by the Father and by the Son. This is fitting because the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. If the Spirit proceeded only from the Father, then only the Father could send the Spirit.

[John]
{14:16} And I will ask the Father, and he will give another Advocate to you, so that he may abide with you for eternity:

{14:26} But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will suggest to you everything whatsoever that I have said to you.

{15:26} But when the Advocate has arrived, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will offer testimony about me.

[Luke]
{24:49} And I am sending the Promise of my Father upon you. But you must stay in the city, until such time as you are clothed with power from on high.”

The above verses portray the Spirit as being sent by the Father, at the request, or in the name, of the Son. Even the verse that says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, adds that the Spirit is sent by the Son and offers testimony about the Son, thereby implying procession also from the Son. But a Person of the Trinity could not be sent and offer testimony about the Son unless he proceeds also from the Son. Just as it would not be fitting for the Son or the Spirit to send the Father, so also it would not be fitting for the Spirit to be sent by the Son, to offer testimony about the Son, to teach and remind about the Son’s teachings, unless the Spirit also proceeded from the Son.

As it is with sending, so it is also with teaching.

[John]
{5:19} Then Jesus responded and said to them: “Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son is not able to do anything of himself, but only what he has seen the Father doing. For whatever he does, even this does the Son do, similarly.

{16:13} But when the Spirit of truth has arrived, he will teach the whole truth to you. For he will not be speaking from himself. Instead, whatever he will hear, he will speak. And he will announce to you the things that are to come.
{16:14} He shall glorify me. For he will receive from what is mine, and he will announce it to you.
{16:15} All things whatsoever that the Father has are mine. For this reason, I said that he will receive from what is mine and that he will announce it to you.

The Son only teaches what he learns from the Father, for the Son proceeds only from the Father. But the Spirit of truth teaches from the Father and from the Son, therefore he proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Otherwise, the Spirit could not receive from what is Jesus’. For each Person, as God, is infinite and perfect, in need of the reception of nothing. And so this reception from Jesus can only refer to procession.

Two Types of Procession

Although many sources use a different word to describe the procession of the Spirit as compared to the procession of the Son, the only real distinction between these two processions is that the Spirit proceeds from Two Persons (but in one act, i.e. as from one principle), and the Son proceeds only from One Person. The mere use of a different word to describe the procession of the Son and the procession of the Spirit does not, by itself, result in any real distinction. The Son has everything that he is from the Father — they are identical except that the Son depends upon the Father, by virtue of procession, for all that he is. If the Spirit has everything that he is from the Father also, then the Son and the Spirit would be identical. There would be literally nothing different between them, because each is perfectly infinite and infinitely perfect. Only if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, a double procession but as from one principle, is there a real basis for the distinction of the Third Person from the Second Person.

The Father does not proceed, therefore He is the first Person. The Son proceeds only from the Father, therefore He is the second Person. The Spirit proceeds primarily from the First Person and secondarily from the Second Person, but in one Act, therefore He is the third Person. If the Spirit proceeded only from the Father, then He would not be Third, but also Second (which is absurd). There is a distinction, within the double procession of the Spirit, between the role of the Father and the role of the Son in that one Act. This distinction is based on the fact that the Father does not proceed, but the Son does proceed. So the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son.

Heresy and Schism

The universal Church is of Rome. The Greek Churches are heretical and schismatic, as evidenced by their departure from the worldwide body of Bishops, their rejection of numerous successive Ecumenical Councils, and their rejection of the authority of numerous successive Popes. Peter was appointed directly by Christ to lead the Apostles, and Peter was the Bishop of Rome. The rejection of papal authority is an objective mortal sin. Several Eastern Churches have remained faithful to Rome, believing and teaching all that the Ecumenical Councils and the Popes and the body of Bishops also teach. They are witnesses against the heretical and schismatic Churches of the East, who reject the authority of Rome.

Posted in heresies, Scripture, theology | Comments Off

the filioque clause

Posted on 29 September 2010 by Ron Conte

God is One. There cannot be many Gods for the following reason. Suppose a theological belief that there are several Gods. The first God is not only perfect, but infinitely perfect, lacking in absolutely nothing, and existing unbounded by time and place. So what would a second God be like? He could not be the same as the first, but in a different place, or a different time, for any God by His Nature must be unlimited by time and place. A second God cannot be distinguished from the first God by being more perfect, or less perfect. A second God cannot be distinguished from the first God by having different qualities, since any God must be infinitely perfect in all that is Good; He must be Goodness Itself. There is nothing left for the Nature of the second God. So not only can there not be many Gods, there cannot be more than one God.

To explain this again by an analogy: suppose that there are several very wealthy men on earth, and to simplify, let’s say that wealth is measured only by ownership of land. There could be many very wealthy men, each owning vast expanses of land. But suppose we instead postulate several wealthy men, each of which is perfect and complete in all wealth. The first wealthy man will own the entire earth (since we are measuring wealth in this example by ownership of land). But there will be no more land left for a second man to be perfect and complete in wealth. So there can be only one.

Similarly, God is perfect and complete and infinite in His Nature; He is infinite Goodness. So there is nothing left for a second God to be.

Thus, the Three Persons of the One God do not each have His own perfect infinite Nature; the Nature of God is One. And the Nature is not shared in the sense of each Person possessing only part — each possesses the entire Whole of the Nature, without any detriment or loss or compromise to the possession of the other Persons of the same Nature.

But this poses a problem. What distinguishes the three Persons? There cannot be more than one infinitely perfect God, so the Nature is One. And God is ‘truly and absolutely simple’ (as both Augustine and Aquinas taught). So the one Nature is not divided into three parts. The Three Persons are distinct, yet each is perfect God, having the one and same Divine Nature.

The only basis for distinction between the Persons is procession.

The Father does not proceed.

The Son proceeds only from the Father.

The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

This distinction allows there to be Three Persons who are truly distinct from one another.

But if the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, just as the Son does, then there would be no distinction at all between Son and Spirit. For each is infinitely perfect God.

Posted in heresies, theology | Comments Off

Cafeteria Protestants

Posted on 25 September 2010 by Ron Conte

The term ‘cafeteria Catholics’ refers to persons who call themselves Catholic but who pick and choose which teachings of the Catholic Faith they will believe, and which they will reject. The problem among Catholics is currently very extensive. Most Catholics do not believe all that the Catholic Church definitively teaches. They combine some beliefs from Catholicism with some beliefs from modern secular society. This situation is analogous to a problem often mentioned in the Old Testament, in which many Israelites combined the beliefs and practices of Judaism with the beliefs and practices of the surrounding pagan societies. God repeatedly rebukes the Israelites for this serious error. And God will strongly rebuke Catholics for the same error, during the tribulation.

But the same problem becomes even worse with cafeteria Protestants. They lack the guidance of the Magisterium, teaching from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. They say that their faith is based on Scripture alone, but many Protestants have become thoroughly secularized, so that they adhere first and foremost to whatever secular society teaches. Then they either ignore what the Bible teaches on the same subject, or they re-interpret what the Bible says, so that the Bible is forced to agree, by absurd explanations and unlikely interpretations, with whatever secular society teaches.

Cafeteria Protestants often do not look for guidance in matter of faith and morals to any particular Protestant denomination. They pick and choose which congregation they will attend, regardless of denomination. Often the choice is based on the personality of the Protestant minister who is the pastor of a particular congregation. They choose a pastor who tells them what they want to hear, and who does not preach ‘out of season’, i.e. contrary to the opinions that prevail in his congregation.

Worse still, many Protestant pastors have no real theological training, and are not associated with any Protestant denomination. They simply proclaim themselves to be a minister or a Reverend, and they start a congregation based on their own understanding and misunderstanding of Christianity. The result is that there are many free-standing congregations, where the beliefs and practices of the group are based on the decisions of one pastor.

Is the Sacrament of Baptism valid in Protestant denominations? Generally, the Catholic Church holds that most Protestant denominations have a valid Sacrament of Baptism. When a baptized Protestant converts to Catholicism, he is not re-baptized. But this determination that the baptism of a Protestant denomination is valid is based on the ability to know what a particular Protestant denomination believes and practices concerning Baptism. When a person is baptized in a free-standing congregation, whose beliefs and practices are freely determined by an individual man who makes himself to be a pastor, no general statement can be made about whether or not that Baptism is valid. One would have to know the wording and form used, and the beliefs on the Trinity and on the Sacrament of Baptism. And since such free-standing congregations might not last, or might change pastors, a Baptism in the distant past in such a place is of doubtful validity.

Posted in heresies, Sacraments, Scripture | Comments Off

The Nova Vulgata New Testament

Posted on 23 September 2010 by Ron Conte

The Nova Vulgata NT has serious problems:

1. The erosion of the Canon of Scripture. The Nova Vulgata NT drops hundreds of words from the NT that are found in the Latin Scriptural tradition, and also found in the Greek Majority Text and Textus Receptus.

2. The abandonment of the Latin Scriptural tradition. The Latin basis for the NV NT is the Stuttgart text of the German Bible Society, thoroughly edited to conform to the United Bible Societies Greek text. The Clementine Vulgate is completely ignored.

3. The abandonment of Catholic scholarship, and the adoption of Protestant scholarship in its place. The Stuttgart Latin and the UBS Greek are works produced by teams of mainly Protestant scholars — material heretics who give no consideration to Catholic teaching when translating and editing Scripture.

4. The abandonment of the Greek Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, and all other scholarship on the Greek text of the NT, other than the UBS critical text. The UBS critical text tends to omit many words and phrases, and even whole verses, on the basis of largely unstated scholarly considerations and conclusions. The MT and TR texts witness to many Greek manuscripts that are ignored by the UBS text. The Nova Vulgata NT does not generally represent the latest Biblical scholarship, but rather ignores all scholarship other than that of the Stuttgart and UBS Protestant texts.

5. Some points in the NT text were altered by the NV editors, not based on any scholarship, but rather on political correctness. For example, the NV rephrases ‘sons of the groom’ (filii sponsi) to ‘guests of the wedding’ (convivae nuptiarum), contrary to the Greek and Latin texts (Mt 9:15). In another example, silence is changed to tranquil in 1 Tim 2:11-12.

6. There are hundreds of typographical errors in the online version of the Nova Vulgata in both Testaments.

7. Some editorial decisions seem to show either a lack of understanding of Latin, or a lack of concern for whether the text will read well, or even be grammatically correct, in Latin. In this example, the three lines are from the Clementine, Stuttgart, and NV texts:

[Matthew]
{14:14} Et exiens vidit turbam multam, et misertus est eis, et curavit languidos eorum.
{14:14} et exiens vidit turbam multam et misertus est eius et curavit languidos eorum
{14:14} Et exiens vidit turbam multam et misertus est eorum et curavit languidos eorum.

The use of ‘eius’ in the Stuttgart is most probably a typographical error. But the editors of the NV seem not to have realized that it is a typographical error, and so they ‘corrected’ the singular genitive ‘eius’ to the plural ‘eorum,’ (the pronoun should be plural, but should not be genitive) despite using ‘eis’ not ‘eorum’ in v. 9:36. The use of ‘eorum’ instead of ‘eis’ is a very noticeable error in the Latin.

Posted in Scripture | Comments Off

Science and Ethics 1

Posted on 22 September 2010 by Ron Conte

Science offers truth to the world, to a certain extent and within certain limits, but science does offer truth. Many persons have little or no confidence in the teaching of the Church on moral truth, and yet they have great confidence in the teachings of science on scientific truth. Even if those scientific truths are not proven, but are accepted theory, they generally accept those ideas as truth.

The Church is guided by God in teaching moral truth. The truths of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture on faith and morals are Divine Revelation. And the teachings of the Magisterium from Tradition and Scripture (and from the natural law) are guided by the Holy Spirit. The teachings of science are not Divine Revelation, nor are scientists guided by God in any extraordinary manner, as is the Magisterium.

Many of the truths taught by science are not obvious truths. For example, quantum mechanics, relativity theory, evolution, and various teachings in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. are not obvious truths. Sometimes the teachings of science on any subject is surprising, even to the researchers proposing a theory or a result. Scientific truth requires study and investigation, and the result is not simplistic or obvious. And it is not unusual for a scientific result to be contrary to the common understanding or expectation of the general population, or even of most other scientists.

And the same is true of morality. Many people hold to a personal ethical system that is very simplistic. Nothing is said to be immoral unless it is obviously immoral, unless it seems immoral at first consideration. Nothing is said to be immoral if most people are in agreement. But why should moral truth be any different from scientific truth in this regard? Many of the truths taught by the Church on morality are not obvious truths. Moral truths are accessible to reason, but this does not imply that they are obvious at first glance. And the reason of fallen human persons living in a sinful secular world is particularly subject to error. So the moral truths of Divine Revelation, taught by the Magisterium, are often surprising, even to the faithful members of the Church. Moral truth is often not the obvious or the expected or the majority opinion.

Posted in science | Comments Off

Who may receive holy Communion?

Posted on 18 September 2010 by Ron Conte

Only believing and practicing Catholic Christians, who are not conscious of grave sin may receive holy Communion.

“Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 81, 83).” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, letter to Cardinal McCarrick, 2004).

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. (Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church, 1983).

Persons who generally may not receive holy Communion:

1. non-Christians
2. non-Catholic Christians
3. Catholics in a state of formal heresy
4. Catholics is a state of formal schism
5. apostate Catholics
6. Catholics who have committed one or more actual mortal sins, and who have not yet repented and been forgiven in Confession
7. excommunicated or interdicted Catholics
8. Catholics who have not fasted for at least an hour prior to Communion (not prior to the start of Mass), although some exception can be allowed for certain circumstances (e.g. illness, chronic medical problems, priests celebrating more than one Mass in a day, persons who must care for the sick, injured, young, elderly, etc.)

Examples of persons who often receive holy Communion in knowing violation of the belief and practice of the Catholic Church:

1. persons who are sexually active outside of marriage (e.g. premarital sex, masturbation) and are unrepentant.

2. persons who are using any method of contraception which deprives the sexual act of its procreative meaning (e.g. condoms, birth control pills, withdrawal method) and are unrepentant.

3. persons who procured a direct abortion, or have participated in helping someone else obtain a direct abortion (e.g. paying for an abortion, helping someone to obtain abortion services) and are unrepentant; persons who have used abortifacient contraception while sexually active and are unrepentant.

4. persons who formally cooperate with the grave sin of direct abortion (e.g. by supporting so-called abortion rights, by voting for a candidate “precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion” [http://www.priestsforlife.org], or by expressing approval for another person’s decision to obtain a direct abortion) and are unrepentant.

5. persons who obstinately doubt or obstinately deny any required belief of the Catholic faith, and are unrepentant from this sin (formal heresy).

For example: any Catholic who knowingly rejects the definitive teaching of the Church:

(a) that contraception, direct abortion, euthanasia, premarital sex, homosexual sex, masturbation, and unnatural sexual acts even within marriage, are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral;
(b) that two persons of the same gender can never have a true natural marriage, nor a valid Sacrament of Marriage;
(c) that Christ did not give His Church the authority to ordain women to the priesthood;
(d) that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are entirely inerrant;
(e) that the Magisterium teaches infallibly through solemn definitions of the Pope, solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, and the Universal Magisterium;
(f) or any other definitive teaching on an important matter of faith, morals, or salvation;

should not receive holy Communion.
Reception of holy Communion by such persons is itself a sin.

[1 Corinthians]
{11:27} And so, whoever eats this bread, or drinks from the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be liable of the body and blood of the Lord.
{11:28} But let a man examine himself, and, in this way, let him eat from that bread, and drink from that cup.
{11:29} For whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks a sentence against himself, not discerning it to be the body of the Lord.
{11:30} As a result, many are weak and sick among you, and many have fallen asleep.
{11:31} But if we ourselves were discerning, then certainly we would not be judged.

Posted in heresies, Mass | Comments Off

Protestantism is material heresy

Posted on 17 September 2010 by Ron Conte

All adult Protestant Christians are in a state of material heresy. These Christians adhere to various Protestant heresies condemned by the Council of Trent or condemned by the Church in other ways, at other times. They obstinately doubt, or obstinately reject, important teachings on faith or morals or salvation that are required beliefs of the Catholic Christian Faith.

And yet many Protestant preachers and theologians have contributed true and useful insights into the Christian faith. For the heretic always rejects something substantial of the true Faith, but he also always retains something substantial of the true Faith. Care and caution must be exercised when learning from anyone who adheres to or teaches material heresy. For a heresy on one matter can substantially affect a teaching on another matter. All the truths of the Faith are interrelated.

Posted in heresies | Comments Off

Meta