From: NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET (Tom Brewer)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Confused Catholicism
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:40:52 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Date:         Thu, 01 Oct 92 14:38:19 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM>
Subject:      Re: Confused Catholicism ... NOT!
To:           Brad "Hit 'em hard" Kaiser <bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com>

On Thu, 1 Oct 92 11:47:40 CDT you said:

>
>
>Tom,
>
>You write (in response to Tom Rolfe):
>
>>> EHHH? Please don't confuse me anymore. You say this is straight out of the
>>> Baltimore Catechism.
>
>Ever consider cutting a newbie a break?
>
>Nahhh, forget I said that.  You don't tackle like a sissy just because
>the other guys put a freshman in at running back.  You hit him as hard
>as you can; if he can't take it, he should give up his scholarship and
>go back to pumping gas; he's a nancy-boy, or even a homo.
>
>If he's injured and put out for the season, so much the better, right?
>
>>> You say this is straight out of the
>>> Baltimore Catechism. Jesse tried to use that weeks ago and we were told it's
>>> not that authoritative. Now you use it.
>
>It's not authoritative; no secondary source ever is.  Jesse said that
>it was infallible, which it clearly isn't.  You can quote them if you
>wish.  I encouraged you to use Hardon, which isn't authoritative
>either, strictly speaking.  Only the Latin originals of documents of
>Ecumenical Councils & ex cathedra Papal pronouncements are truly
>authoritative, along with & subject to Scripture, properly interpreted.
>
>>> Last week I cited the Catechism by
>>> Saint John Nuemann and was told to basically grow up and use something for
>>> adults.
>
>Well, I figured you could handle it, since you can certainly dish it
>out.  Of course, I understand that you think breaks only go one way,
>like I said: hit the other guys with all you have, that's why we play
>the game.
>
>>> When I use the more modern book like
>>> Christ Among Us, I'm told I have a Protestant interpretation of the
>>> book.
>
>Who said that?  I've never even heard of the book, wasn't me.
>
>>> If
>>> I refer back to Dr. Ott's book, I can be told it is pre Vatican II.
>
>I don't have a problem with Ott.
>
>>> So then I
>>> can try and use Hardin's book, which is post Vatican II and agrees with Dr.
>>> Ott's book, and I'm told a priest must interpret it or teach it.
>
>I really want to know who told you that!
>
>>> Saint John Nuemann's catechism is the one that says specifically that only
>>> the Pope et. al. can forgive sins. I'm not making this up. Nuemann is making
>>> it up.
>
>More accurately, it's a gloss he's using to explain something to 8
>year olds.
>
>>> Please define "perfect contrition."
>
>Perfect contrition, in Catholic teaching, is sorrow for sin because of
>the offense that those sins give to God, out of love for Him.
>
>Imperfect contrition is sorrow for sin out of fear of hell, fear of
>some adverse consequences in this life (e.g., AIDS), or for some other
>reason.
>
>>> You have obviously added your human works
>>> to aid the work of Christ in the forgiveness of sins.
>
>Obviously not.
>
>>> This is pure heresy.
>
>Would have been, if that's what he had said.
>
>In Christ's Peace,*
>
>Brad Kaiser
>(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)
>
>	  Those who trust in Him shall understand truth,
>	  and the faithful shall abide with Him in love;
>	  Because grace and mercy are with His holy ones,
>	  and His care is with His elect.
>		    -- Wis 3:9 [NAB]
>
>*although it's difficult, sometimes.
>

Do I need to say anymore?

Tom Brewer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU