markomalley

It seems that there is plenty of blood to be shared. This link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catho...tyrs_of_England shows a list of 40 people who were martyred because they would not commit schism as demanded by the English government and embrace a heretical movement during the Reformation.

Note: I didn't start any of that chatter. And yes I knew he had a profile. I checked that profile and saw that it had been a while since he logged onto the site and even longer since he posted anything. So it wasn't like excathedra returned to the Church and then did an interview on "The Journey Home" -- I could easily PM her and get a response back whether it was or was not OK to post it. Had I left a PM for this person, it might be weeks before he got it if he ever got it. (no excathedra, I realize that h3ll will freeze over before you come back to the Church...I am just using your screen name as an illustration of what I would do if it were a regular poster here who appeared on that show)

Or I may be accurately assessing the power of my search skills on Google!

Fair enough. It is for a technical reason...I am sort of creating a "air gap" that would make it far more difficult for an automated robot to make the connections. For example, you could get the person's name and google it. You will not ever see this thread pop up on a google (of the guy's name). On the ETWN web site, you could google the guy's name and twi (or 'the way international') and there will be no hits. He is identified on that web site with a different past religious affiliation. Therefore, I have created no direct linkage that could be discerned by an automated robot that is used in any search engine to my knowledge. (Why? Because the guy's name isn't mentioned in this thread at all) Yes I know that a human could easily do so. But not a robot. Why haven't I just asked the guy's permission? #1, I don't know him. #2, He voluntarily appeared on an interview on cable tv, so I can safely assume that he doesn't mind his viewpoint being aired. Then why don't I post his name since it is public: because I do not know that this Catholic deacon wants the association between him, the Catholic Church, and gsc to be advertised (he didn't mention greasespot during his interview). You know, it's funny. This site has a habit of not revealing real names. We all are in the habit of spelling out peoples' names: "j*e bl*w" "j*hn d**", "s*m**l a*ams" and so on. I try to follow those guidelines and the thread changes from: "this is what happened to an ex-WC person" to "Why didn't markomalley just post his name?" If you're sure it's OK, think about this: there have been 27 responses to the original post and over 400 views (as of 11:48 EDT). There have been several who have criticized me for not posting his name, yet nobody else has either.

And you'll note that I haven't even posted his first name here. Others have, but not me.

Apparently you don't REALLY understand Marxism then, Garth. Marx, in his criticism of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, said the following: The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed man's self-consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has already lost himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man -- state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. You will, I hope, take note of the last sentence, where he alludes to the fact that the criticism (and by implication the rejection) of religion is central to the struggle of the masses. He sought to replace God with the proletariat and replace heaven with the socialist state. Having said that, there are occasionally communist-type religious groups. Liberation Theology, preached primarily in Latin America during the second half of the 20th Century, thought to use religious symbolism to advance marxist goals. It has repeatedly been condemned by the Vatican as a perversion of Christianity. The Catholic Worker movement, started in the first half of the 20th Century, embraced the economics of communism (calling it a voluntary poverty). Dorothy Day was, for years, an avowed communist. But she came to reject the philosophy of Marxism due to the necessity of rejection of Christ inherent in the philosophy. As she put it: The three fundamentals of Communist belief are: 1. There is no other world than this; our last end is death and the grave, not God. 2. The ideal state is a Communist state in which there is no individual ownership but communal ownership. 3. Since there is no other way of achieving this except by violent means, then we must use those violent means. It is a cause worth dying for. Now maybe you've studied Marxism more carefully than I have and are a subject matter expert on the topic. You certainly are more of a subject matter expert on Atheism than I am. But from what I read, Marxism is, in fact, inherently and necessarily atheist.

The thread is not about Catholicism. The thread is about the story of an ex-TWI person's life after leaving TWI. My reason for putting it in "open" vice "my story" was twofold: #1: it wasn't "my" story...it was somebody else's story #2: more people would see it here. The reason I didn't put the person's name in here was as google-protection

That is EXACTLY right.

Belle, Foxe's Book of Martyrs is a well-known account of protestants who died during the 'reformation.' I think with a context of 'Church Fathers', though, we'd be talking over a thousand years before then. Every week at Mass, we remember the following martyrs:John the Baptist, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, and Anastasia. Of course, Paul and Stephen were martyred. As to Popes who were martyred, There is, of course, Peter (+65). After Peter, there were Linus (+79), Anacletus (+88), Clement (+98), Sixtus (+128), Telesphorus (+137), Hyginus (+140), Pius (+154), Anicetus (+167), Soter (+177), Callixtus (+222), Urban (+230), Pontian (+235), Fabian (+250), Lucius (+254), Sixtus II (+258), Felix (+274), and Marcellinus (+304). And there are some others who are traditionally listed, but you get the idea: being Pope was a very hazardous job at one point. Out of those whose writings are commonly held to be "Church Fathers" writings, the following are identified as martyrs: Clement of Rome, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Ignatius of Antioch, (possibly) Irenaeus, Justin, Pamphilus, Peter of Alexandria, Polycarp, and Victorinus. FWIW

I understand that. But I'm not going to list ANYBODY's name with other more personal stuff unless I have their express permission. That's just respect for a person's privacy. (See, the EWTN website listing for the interview identifies him as an ex-something else, rather than as an ex-twi)

Waiter/Waitress in a full service restaurant: 15-20%, depending upon the service. I never leave NOTHING (unless gratuity is included). If I get bad service, I will leave a penny and a dime. (I leave both so they know it's not an accident). Fast food: nothing. ever. Starbucks/other coffee shop: if I see that they've done something special for me, a little (maybe a buck, no more) Pizza/ Chinese delivery: a couple of bucks (round up to the next 5 usually -- a couple of bucks beyond if rounding would be too little) Barber: the place I go, haircuts are $14. Because I'm retired military, I can get a military discount, or $9. So I'll give the $14, but $5 will be tip. If I am someplace else w/o a military discount, I'll tip a couple of bucks. Dry Cleaner/ Alterations: if they do something out of the ordinary, I'll give the person who did that something a tip (if I can make sure it doesn't wind up in the tip jar -- I NEVER put tips in the tip jar) Bartender: I'll generally tip a couple of bucks with the first beer. And then a couple more with the last beer, depending how many beers are in between :beer: Car Wash (I don't get the car washed all the time at the real car wash, just a couple of times a year) -- if the person who details the car does a really good job, I'll slip him/her a five. But only if I can make sure the supervisor doesn't see it. The car wash uses illegals to do the detailing (on a piece rate basis)...a couple of them go to my church...and tips normally go into a locked tip container. About half of it is skimmed off the top for the boss...the rest is equally divided among the detailers. So if I can tip the person who does the detailing, I'll tip. But I won't tip the boss (who gets the money for the car wash anyway).

Garth, I said the following: The only places in the modern world where heresy is a crime is in some (not all) Muslim countries (just try importing a Bible or Rosary into Saudi Arabia if you doubt me) and in (officially atheist) communist countries. In fact, just a few days ago, a Catholic bishop 'disappeared' in China...apparently for the evil crime of speaking heresy against the state religion. You'll note that I did not link atheism to communism (in principle). However, the fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union, the countries in the Soviet Bloc, China, and the satellites of China, were and (for those that are still communist) are officially atheist. There are many, many people who were imprisoned and, in fact, put to death for their religious beliefs. Their religious beliefs threatened the material dialectic proposed by marxism. Does that mean (or did I imply that) all atheists are marxists/maoists? No. Does that mean (or did I imply that) all marxists/ maoists are atheists? Honestly, I am not sure how a person could be a good marxist/ maoist without being an atheist. Not saying it can't happen. But not sure how it could. Again, this is not saying that there aren't good pious atheists who are not, in fact, very conservative. (I think of our friend, LG, of happy memory). But I believe that a rejection of a higher power is absolutely part of being a good marxist. As to the specifics of the case, I have a good friend who is a Chinese priest. He is back home visiting his parents and will, in all likelihood hear about this. He'll be back in a couple of weeks. If you'd like, I'll try to remember to ask him about this and see if he has any first-hand information. No promises, but I'll try to remember.

There is some interesting information on the subject on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_city Apparently crime and punishment for the Vatican are handled by Italy. The 558 citizens of the Vatican are distributed as follows: * The Pope; * 58 cardinals; * 293 members of the clergy who serve as diplomatic envoys abroad; * 62 lesser-ranking clergy members who work in the Vatican; * 101 officers, NCOs, and men of the Papal Swiss Guard; and * 43 lay persons. So I don't think they have to worry about heresy, too much, with that crowd! LOL

The Catholic TV network, EWTN, has this program on Mondays called "The Journey Home." It's purpose is to allow Catholic converts to tell their stories of conversion. Mostly former Protestant ministers. This past Monday, a ex Way Corps person who is now a Catholic Deacon appeared on the program. Archived video is available (likely only until next Monday, 5/7) at the following link: http://play.rbn.com/?url=ewtn/g2ewtn/g2dem...&proto=rtsp Archived audio is available (likely perpetually) at the following link: http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolv...=jh_04302007.rm The program is approximately 1 hour long. I've not been given permission to post the person's name, so I won't do so. However, I am sure that many of you will recognize the individual. (A hat tip to somebody...again no permission to give this person's name...who let me know privately about the person's appearance on the program) Enjoy!

I agree that it is appropriate to excommunicate heretics after multiple patient attempts to get them back on the correct path. I absolutely agree with that. As to whether or not heresy is a capital crime, that is an issue for the civil authorities and is outside the scope of Acuinas' answer. In his days, it was. (Thus accounting for the rest of his answer) Nowadays it isn't. It's as simple as that. As to the wisdom of heresy being a civil crime (with or without the death penalty) in these days, I'd have to ask heresy against what? Against the Catholic Church? Yeah, right. If that was the case, fully 3/4 of the people in this country (and half the Catholics) would need to be imprisoned or killed. The only places in the modern world where heresy is a crime is in some (not all) Muslim countries (just try importing a Bible or Rosary into Saudi Arabia if you doubt me) and in (officially atheist) communist countries. In fact, just a few days ago, a Catholic bishop 'disappeared' in China...apparently for the evil crime of speaking heresy against the state religion. The world in Thomas' time was a different world than the world is now. Do I think that heresy should be a crime in the USA? No. The US is not a Catholic country. Never has been. Never will be. Do I think that heresy should be a crime in a hypothetical Catholic country (NOT the USA)? One with a stated national goal of maintaining a thoroughly "Catholic" identity? (Again, NOT the USA) I would think that, in such a circumstance, it would be appropriate, if maintaining a Catholic identity is a stated national goal in such a hypothetical country, to have heresy as a civil crime. Do I think the death penalty would be appropriate? I think that exiling a person from such a country...removing the heretical influence...would be far more appropriate. However, the context of this was repairing the Donatist schism. The pain to which he was referring was the utilization of civil law to bring the Donatists back to the faith. The civil law was established by the Emperor Theodosius I (in Augustine's days). There was very little difference between Church and State in those days.Even looking at it as a general principle, though, without the historical context, it is clear that what is being said is that it is right to have laws in place to enforce desired principles. It is better to teach the right behaviors and attitudes...and hopefully somebody behaves that way, but if they won't learn in that fashion, then fear of legal punishment may cause them to behave in the right way and may make them more receptive to more positive techniques of education. (In saying the following I assume you're not a criminal) You don't kill people. The reason you don't kill people is that you've been taught all your life that murder is wrong. But if you don't go by that teaching, the threat of jail or (you live down south, so...) the death penalty might deter you from doing what you'd want to do. If you do it anyway, a lengthy prison sentence might help change the way you think about things. You don't steal. Why? Because it's just wrong. But if you wanted to do so, the security cameras and the threat of going to jail might deter you from doing so. And a stint in jail might really convince you to not do it again and might change your mind on the rightness of your actions. ------------ In these days, Church and State are not closely aligned...anywhere. If that was the case, in a hypothetical country where maintaining a Catholic identity was a national goal (clearly not the USA), then I would think that it would not be an inappropriate thing to have laws in place to help attain (or maintain) that national goal. Of course, Garth, especially with you, YMMV.

For what it's worth, I think Abigail and Kathy have the message being sent by this video down cold. Glad you all enjoyed it, though, one way or the other.

And Garth, for the record, after reading the entire reference (love how you folks give partial citations), I also support Augustine in his statements. 100%

Garth, In fact I do support what Thomas Aquinas said. 100%

When quoting from the Summa, it is generally accepted practice to quote the entire reference. The Summa is a multi-volume work. Fortunately, we have Google which can help us narrow it down. For example, your reference is a (misquote) from the Secunda Secundæ Partis (II.2) Question 11 (Part 3): Whether Heretics should be tolerated. In order to fully understand an answer given in the Summa, one must look at the full context: Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated? Objection 1. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:24-25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command. Objection 2. Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:19): "There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you." Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated. Objection 3. Further, the Master commanded his servants (Matthew 13:30) to suffer the cockle "to grow until the harvest," i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10-11): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted." I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame." Reply to Objection 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already "subverted," as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above. Reply to Objection 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and "makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully," as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them. Reply to Objection 3. According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), "to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted." A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:5) that his "spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord." Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general. First of all, you will note that the actual Summa uses the term "heretic," not "unbeliever." A heretic is one who practices heresy. Heresy is the "obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." Heretic as used in Tts 3:10 is the Greek word "hairetikos" (schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine) You will note a number of Biblical references above. Tts 3:10 As for a man who is factious (hairetikos; kjv: heretick), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, Tts 3:11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. 1Cr 11:19 for there must be factions (hairesis; kjv: heresies) among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. &tc. You can look the remainder of them up for yourself (not that you would, but they tell me that this is the polite thing to say) One other thing to keep in mind was that it was, in all European countries at the time, a civil crime to be a heretic. And you will note in the argument presented above, that the Church attempts multiple (at least twice) times to correct a person and then, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. What did Paul advocate doing in Titus? What is the proper end listed in 1 Cor 5:5? (Why?) It seems to me that if you'd study the entire and quote it, you would achieve a slightly different result. Oh, and by the way, Thomas Aquinas is not a Church Father. He is a Doctor of the Church. There is a difference. (and as to your earlier comment, the quote in 1 Cor 11 that I cited in my earlier post was talking exactly about the Eucharist)

Mods: I put this here rather than in "silly" because there is an important societal message that is brought out here. All: Please watch the video carefully.

Cynic, I took that quiz a long time ago when the link was posted up on Free Republic. (BTW, you might enjoy the religion forum there) I frankly found many of the questions clumsily worded. As to the point of your second quote, I often ponder the implications of the hypostatic union. How that fusion of the divine and the flesh must have created a constant internal conflict within the Lord, particularly as He approached His Passion. We see that revealed particularly during His agony in the garden of Gethsemane.

Perhaps you could point out in the Bible where he was wrong...where scripture contradicts him. Rather than just doing the typical TWI act of mocking what they don't understand. In regards to this passage: They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. I suggest you look at this section of scripture: 1Cr 11:27-29 (RSV) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. And I could do the same for the majority of his other statements...but I just don't have that much time nowadays. I suggest that you consider actually learning something about others' beliefs before mocking them. This board has people from a whole host of belief systems...from Catholic and Eastern Orthodox to Marcionites to Latter Day Saints to Pagans of various flavors. I think I can speak for the majority here when I say that we mostly don't mind having our belief systems questioned, we don't even mind having our belief systems challenged (well...some people who still subscribe to the twi mindset might disagree on that point), but mocking them is generally considered to be inappropriate. Mocking generally gets more and more folks to hit the "ignore" button. Just a friendly hint. Roy, I can't tell you how disappointed I am in your response. You have found a forum here where you aren't mocked. Yet you support mockery? By the way, Roy, what is your opinion of Matthias? (Not Matthew, but Matthias)

Whatever you do, do not move to the DC metro area, anywhere in MD, or anywhere in Northern Virginia. The costs will eat you alive. The humidity will melt you. And there is so much crime that only bizarre murders make the news (ordinary every day domestics that end in murder, drug deals gone bad, and gang activity are all below the radar screen). My suggestion (and I make this in all seriousness), move to Australia.

Evan, This statement has been used and abused by so many in the "Word-Faith" movement as to make me cringe. It makes me think of Star Wars...use the FORCE, Luke! We are not talking about a magical process, one where you can invoke some spiritual force at your command. And that, IMHO, is exactly what TWI taught. We are talking about utter conformance to God. I seem to remember Phillipians 2:5 being repeated often. Was it one of the TWI retemories? But we didn't look at it in context. Phl 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, Phl 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, Phl 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Phl 2:8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Yeah, we are to have the mind of Christ. But what is that mind? He emptied Himself when He tok on the form of a servant. He became ultimately humble. He became absolutely obedient to the will of the Father. Do we do this? Do we take on the form of a servant? To we humble ourselves? Do we become ultimately obedient unto the Will of God? Even when it's not convenient or pleasant to do so? Are we willing to walk in Christ's footsteps? Even to follow him down the road of suffering to Calvary? Just like many of the first century believers or believers in places a little less comfortable than the USA? Or do we try to use God. Do we try to blackmail God toward the end of serving our own stomachs? That statement you made (and I know this was not the context in which you made it), is used by word-faith preachers to encourage the latter. And is quite disgusting...when it is mae in the context used by TWI. Last word: I know that this is not the context in which you made this statement, Evan, so don't take the above as an attack upon you. You just used a catch phrase that is often, often used to teach people that Holy Spirit is no more than some magical spiritual power that can be harnassed if you know the right incantation.

Per discovery.com: March 5, 2007 — The world's oldest known copy of the Gospel of Saint Luke, containing the earliest known Lord's Prayer, and one of the oldest copies of the Gospel of Saint John have been acquired by the Vatican, according to reports from Rome. A nonsectarian New York nonprofit, Pave the Way, helped facilitate the acquisition. Now stored in the Vatican's Library, the documents are for the first time available for scholarly review. In the future, excerpts may be put on display for the general public. Collectively known as the Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV, the documents date to 175-225 A.D. and consist of 51 leaves from a manuscript that originally consisted of 72 leaves folded in the middle to form a single quire, according to Father Richard Donahoe, rector of the Cathedral of St. Paul in Birmingham, Alabama, who also helped with the acquisition. "The papyrus authenticates that which has been passed down over the millennia," Fr. Donahoe told Discovery News. He believes it is even possible the texts may have been copied from the original gospels. Many of the earliest Biblical texts are in the possession of private collectors. In this case, the materials were found, along with other papyri, in 1952 at Pabau, Egypt, near the ancient Dishna headquarters of the Pachomian order of monks. The papyrus was mysteriously smuggled to Switzerland, where collector Martin Bodmer purchased it. To fund the construction of a library, the Martin Bodmer Foundation contacted the auction house Christie's about a sale. Gary Krupp, founder of Pave the Way, Donahoe and others learned of the sale and, with the Vatican's help, sought a buyer who could purchase the papyrus for the Vatican. (remainder snipped) Image of the Bodmer Papyrus XV Analysis of some of the text: