The Truth About Homosexuality, Part I

The Truth About Homosexuality, Part II

True Pastoral Care for Homosexuals

In the Beginning: God’s Precious Gift of Marriage

RH bill part II

Santiago cites ‘primacy of conscience’ in defense of RH Bill

Catholic Church opposition to contraceptives 'outdated'

Lots of error in the article:http://ph.news.yahoo.com/catholic-church-opposition-contraceptives-outdated-040002667.html#mwpphu-container

Sen Santiago in black fonts:

Sancta_Rosa in blue:

"With Vatican II, the seeds of a democratic revolution were sown. In the past, Catholics simply obeyed the bishops. But now, many Catholics are no longer willing to give blind obedience to the Church,"

Vatican II, like all other Councils, was the workd of the Pope and the body of Bishops and the Holy Spirit. Not a democratic revolution. Also, blind obedience to the Church has never been required by God of the faithful. We are to use faith and reason to understand that to which we adhere. What many modern-day Catholics are not willing to give is the assent of faith to Church teachings, and so they sin.

"The senator said Humanae Vitae, the encyclical on which the Church bases its opposition to contraception, was based on the minority report. The majority report recognized that "in some cases, intercourse can be required as a manifestation of self-giving love" and not just for procreation."

The teaching against contraception was the definitive teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium long before Humane Vitae. The teachings of the Church are not democratic, so it is irrelevant what the majority or minority believed. See this

Zenit article on HV: http://www.zenit.org/article-7791?l=english

"The teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception is one of the important reasons why the absolute authority of the Church has grown weaker over the years," Santiago added.

That may be true, to some extent. When there is a conflict between inordinate use of sexuality and religion, many choose sex.

Santiago, who has a master's degree from the Maryhill School of Theology, said Humanae Vitae contradicts Vatican II, "which allowed for a wider basis for evaluating the morality of (sex)."

Not at all true. Vatican II also condemned birth control: "Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law." The footnote cites Casti Connubii and Address to Midwives.

Santiago said contraception falls under liberation theology, which sees the Catholic Church as "an earthly community of human beings who have a mission that includes the struggle on behalf of justice, peace, and human rights."

Contraception falls under moral theology. The type of liberation theology cited has been often condemned by the Church, including condemnations by Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF. The description of the Church quoted above is heresy, because it omits from the Church, Christ as Her head, Her members in Purgatory and Heaven, Her mission of salvation and teaching (on faith AND morals).

"I humbly submit that the struggle for an RH bill to protect the health and quality of life of the mother and child in the context of unspeakable poverty is part of liberation theology," she said.

Yes, it is a part of a theology that the Magisterium has condemned for its many errors.

Santiago added that Vatican II taught the "primacy of conscience." Conscience is inviolable, and the individual Catholic has a right to follow her own conscience, even when it is erroneous,” she said.

Conscience is subordinate to the teachings of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, through His Church. The human person is obligated to inform his conscience, so that errors are discovered and removed. No one has an objective right to believe what is erroneous, not to act based on error.

Vatican II: "they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church's teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel."

Genealogy

The Children of Joachim and Anna

Ss. Joachim and Anna had two daughter (no sons) — the Blessed Virgin Mary and her older sister, called Mary of Heli. The second name of a person in that time and culture was often the first name of the father. So Maria Heli is the daughter (not the wife) of Heli.

Maria of Heli married Cleophas (the nephew of Joseph), and her daughter is Mary Cleophas — the daughter, not the wife, of Cleophas. Mary Cleophas married Alphaeus, and their sons included the three Apostles: Jude Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and James the younger (the less).

Alphaeus had a son by his first wife; that son is Matthew (Levi) the Apostle and Gospel writer.

James the greater was called ‘greater’ because he was older than James the younger. James the greater and his brother John the Gospel writer were distant cousins of Jude, Simon, and James the less. The grandmother of James and John was the sister of the great-grandmother (Anna) of Jude, Simon, and James the less.

This explanation of genealogies was revealed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich by God in private revelation. But it is also in accord with Sacred Scripture.

Table below:

The image is large so I have to push it down for easy viewing.

[John]
{19:25} And standing beside the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Standing beside the Cross of Jesus, there were four women:
1. Mary, the mother of Jesus, whose parents were Anna and Joachim (called Heli in Luke 3:24)
2. Maria, the older sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the sister was called Maria of Heli, according to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
3. Mary of Cleophas, the daughter of Maria of Heli and Cleophas (the nephew of St. Joseph)
4. Mary Magdalene (a wealthy, formerly sinful, woman from Magdala; the sister of Martha and Lazarus)

5. Salome, also called Mary Salome, is mentioned in Sacred Scripture (Mk 15:40 and 16:1). She also was among the holy women who followed Jesus.

According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich:

“Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph” (Mk 15:40) is the same as Mary Cleophas. She married Alphaeus, and three of their sons were Apostles: Jude Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and James the Less. Matthew (Levi) the Apostle was the son of Alphaeus by his first wife.

Mary Salome married Zebedee, and two of their sons were Apostles: James the Greater and John the Gospel writer.

All the aforementioned Apostles (6 of them) were related distantly. Eluid was a Levite who married Ismeria. Their daughter Sobe was the mother of Mary Salome. Their daughter Anna (wife of Joachim) was the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Maria of Heli, the grandmother of Mary Cleophas, and the great-grandmother to Jude, Simon, and James the Less. Matthew would be related to Anna only by the later marriage of his father to Mary Cleophas, so Matthew was the half-brother to Jude, Simon, and James the Less.

In addition, Acts of the Apostles mentions another Mary:

{12:12} And as he was considering this, he arrived at the house of Mary, the mother of John, who was surnamed Mark, where many were gathered and were praying.

This John Mark was the Gospel writer Mark, who fled with Peter to Rome during one of the first persecutions of Christians in the Holy Land.

Matthew versus Luke

As for the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, Matthew tell us the genealogy of Joseph, who was the legal father of Jesus under religious law, especially since he was betrothed to Mary prior to the Incarnation of Christ.

“According to Jewish custom, marriage took place in two stages: first, the legal, or true marriage was celebrated, and then, only after a certain period of time, the husband brought the wife into his own house. Thus, before he lived with Mary, Joseph was already her ‘husband.’ ” (Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Custos)

In other words, the betrothal was the beginning of the marriage in the Jewish religion.

The promise that the Messiah would be descended from Abraham and David was fulfilled under the law through Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (though not the father according to the body). The promise was fulfilled according to the body, by physical descent, through Mary. Matthew gives us Joseph’s genealogy; Luke gives us Mary’s genealogy.

{3:23} And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat,
{3:24} who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Jannai, who was of Joseph,

The text says “being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph” because Joseph’s name stands in the place of Mary. Jewish genealogies are through the father’s line, not generally through the mother’s line. As the rabbis say: “The father’s line is a line; the mother’s line is not a line.” The verse says “as it was supposed” to indicate that Joseph is not in this line, he merely represents Mary. So Mary was the daughter of Heli, another name for Joachim (according to Blessed Emmerich).

Also according to Emmerich:

“Joachim was poor and a relative of St. Joseph. Josephs grandfather Mathan had descended from David through Solomon. He had two sons, Joses and Jacob. The latter was Josephs father. When Mathan died, his widow married a second husband named Levi, descendant of David through Nathan. The fruit of this marriage was Mathat, the father of Heli, or Joachim.” (Life of Jesus Christ, Volume 1)

Joseph was the son of Jacob, who was the son of Mathan (a descendant of David through Solomon, as the Gospel of Matthew says). Mathan’s widow married Levi (a descendant of David through Nathan, as the Gospel of Luke says), and their son was Matthat, the father of Heli (i.e. Joachim). So the father of Joachim (Matthat) and the father of Joseph (Jacob) were half brothers. This makes Joseph and Joachim half first cousins.

The Children of Joachim and Anna

Ss. Joachim and Anna had two daughter (no sons) — the Blessed Virgin Mary and her older sister, called Mary of Heli. The second name of a person in that time and culture was often the first name of the father. So Maria Heli is the daughter (not the wife) of Heli.

Maria of Heli married Cleophas (the nephew of Joseph), and her daughter is Mary Cleophas — the daughter, not the wife, of Cleophas. Mary Cleophas married Alphaeus, and their sons included the three Apostles: Jude Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and James the younger (the less).

Alphaeus had a son by his first wife; that son is Matthew (Levi) the Apostle and Gospel writer.

James the greater was called ‘greater’ because he was older than James the younger. James the greater and his brother John the Gospel writer were distant cousins of Jude, Simon, and James the less. The grandmother of James and John was the sister of the great-grandmother (Anna) of Jude, Simon, and James the less.

This explanation of genealogies was revealed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich by God in private revelation. But it is also in accord with Sacred Scripture.

Last Names

Some of the women in the New Testament have an apparent last name; this is not the same as last names in our time. For example:

Mary Magdalene was from Magdala, so her last name is a place. We could also call her Mary of Magdala. Jesus of Nazareth: He grew up in Nazareth. Jesus Christ: He is the Christ, the Anointed savior of the world.

Maria Heli — Heli is the other first name used to refer to Joachim. So Maria Heli is not the wife of Heli, but the dauther.

Mary Cleophas — Cleophas was her father’s first name, not her husband’s first name.

Mary Salome — Salomo was her father’s first name, not her husband’s first name.

This type of last name shows the lineage of the woman, by referring to her father, not to her spouse as some have claimed.

Similar examples can be found of men:

James of Zebedee (Mt 10:3) — Zebedee is the name of his father.
James of Alphaeus (Mt 10:3) — Alphaeus is the name of his father.

Judas Iscariot (Mt 10:4) [is-cariot, meaning man of Carioth, a place]
Simon the Canaanite (Mt 10:4) — Canaan is an area, but Canaanite is an ethnicity.

On the other hand:
Simon Zelotes (the Zealous) — the name describeds his character, that he had a zeal for the Jewish law (this implies also that he was very literate).

http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/correcting-confusion-about-the-identities-of-persons-in-the-gospels/

RH Bill - Q and A

Posted by Claire:

Abortion is the greatest sin in this world and each of us need to take stand for life, you cannot say you love God, if you are disobeying His commandments, life is precious in Gods eyes.

A piece of advice : Do not allow the world to fool you, you should not listen to those who are refusing to take stand on life. We must protect life and believe that God is who decides who should live or die.

Armor yourself with purity, humility and love. Keep prayer always near...

Claire May Tolentino

{Esther 8:2} ...and she humbled her body with fasting, and all the aspects of her beauty, she covered with her torn hair.

SharlieM..: Why are you talking about abortion?

Charity aka Yidda (my sister) :

Many forms of contraception are abortifacient (able to cause an abortion). Perhaps more abortions occur from abortifacient contraception than from surgical abortions.

Contraception leads to abortion because both are based on a rejection of sound ethics in the area of sexuality and procreation.

Pope John Paul II: "It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".

"But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

"The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 13)

www.gmanews.tv/story/212992/catholic-bishops-our-stand-on-the-rh-bill-is-like-edsa-1

Joe wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:

Really? Then why did Pope John XXIII and later
expanded by Pope Paul VI created the Pontifical Commission on Birth
Control? A commission whose sole purpose is to study if the church can
change its stand on this issue without the Pope's Infallibility taking a hit.It
took the experts and clergy assigned in this commission two years from
1964 to 1966 of study and what was the majority's conclusion? In 1966,
majority of this commission basically concluded that "artificial birth
control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be
allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed".

The voting in this commission went 60 - 4 (laity)
for change, 9 - 6 (clergy) for change. The majority added that the
Pope's Infallibility will definitely take a hit but to change is the
right thing to do.

Pope Paul VI did not act on it immediately but when he did, he took the minority conclusion and the rest they say is history.

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/220667/nation/palace-to-bishops-dont-turn-rh-bill-issue-into-personal-war-vs-aquino#comment-204304669

Yidda :

The person quoted above is mistaken about the commission. See this article for accurate information: http://www.zenit.org/article-7791?l=english

The claim that they were concerned that 'papal infallibility would take a hit' is false and absurd. The commission was studying the new form of birth control that had recently been invented, oral contraceptives. There was no prior magisterial teaching, infallible or non-infallible, specifically on oral contraceptives because it was a new invention. So there could not have been a prior use of papal infallibility on the subject.

The basic ethical question was: Are oral contraceptives morally the same as other forms of artificial birth control that had long been condemned by the Church.

Grisez: "But virtually all the theologians and all but one of the cardinals and bishops also agreed that the pill was not morally different from other contraceptives, which had long been condemned."

"Q. why did Paul VI reject the conclusion about the morality of contraception reached by both a large majority of the theological experts and a majority -- nine of 16 -- of the cardinals and bishops?

"Grisez: Because Paul VI was not interested in the number of those who held an opinion but in the cases they made for their views. In this respect, too, he acted like a scholar rather than a politician. Having received the commission's final report, he studied it.

"After about four months, he announced on Oct. 29, 1966, that he found some aspects of the majority's case to be seriously flawed. He continued studying and concluded that the commission was right in holding that the pill is not morally different from other methods of contraception."

Church teaching is not determined by a majority vote. What if the Jews of Jesus' time had voted as to whether or not He was the Messiah? Most Jews did not convert to Christianity, so we can conclude that most would vote, 'No.'

Joe wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:

And below is the minority conclusion/report, co-authored by a Cardinal who would later on become Pope John Paul II:

"If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself,
then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on
the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti
Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XlI’s address to the midwives),
and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists
in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that
for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a
large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.


This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme
imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding,
under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be
sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same
acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by
the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at
least not approved."

Yidda:

The above quote reasons that the Holy Spirit could not possibly have abandoned the teaching authority of the Church, and therefore, the teaching of the Church against contraception must be a true teaching. Since this [at the time] new form of contraception is morally still a type of contraception, it too must be immoral. So the reasoning of this quote (attributed to Pope John Paul II when he was a Cardinal, but I cannot confirm this) is sound.

MoralCaffeine wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:

But the MAGISTERIUM (teaching authority) of the Roman Church is NEVER primary nor more powerful than the very CONSCIENCE OF MAN itself! My conscience tells me that my bishops are WRONG on the issue of the RH Bill. The right of the State to ensure the health of its citizens and give them education and legally recognized options to plan the growth of their individual families should never be deemed evil nor damnable by the Church. I admonish the bishops to listen to the COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCES OF ITS MEMBERS - the Body of Christ - who suffer the effects of poor education on this subject matter.

Yidda :

The Magisterium teaches either infallibly (no possibility of error) or non-infallibly (limited possibility of error). The Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium in teaching on faith and morals. The Magisterium teaches from infallible Tradition and infallible Scripture. So the teaching of the Magisterium is above the conscience, which is unable to teach infallibly or even non-infallibly.

The expression 'the collective consciences of the faithful' is merely a way to suggest that the faithful could vote, and by a majority overrule the Holy Spirit teaching through the Magisterium. But the majority of the faithful can go astray, they are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit as the Magisterium is.

Catholics are morally obligated to form their consciences according to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium. For the teaching of the Magisterium is the teaching of Christ. Should the listeners of Christ preaching, during His ministry here on earth, have been able to vote to see if a majority agreed with him?

MoralCaffeine wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:

Claire, the election of a pope is a fruit of a "majority opinion". When you use the Word of God to make a point, I suggest you contemplate on it first. I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC, AND I FULLY SUPPORT THE PASSAGE INTO LAW OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

Yidda :

When a Pope is elected, only Cardinals vote. Currently, all Cardinals are Bishops. Also they are not voting on what is moral and what is immoral. But if they were voting on questions of morality, they are Bishops, so they can exercise the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. This is not at all the same as having a majority of the laity determine what is or is not moral by a vote.

MoralCaffeine wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:

Claire, before the MAGISTERIUM, there is the HUMAN CONSCIENCE! And my conscience is already tired of seeing so many children born from parents who have not planned their future ahead of time. Authentic respect from human life begins with PROPER FAMILY PLANNING!

Yidda:

The Magisterium is above the human conscience, because the Magisterium has the guarantee from Jesus that His Spirit will guide the teaching of the Magisterium to avoid error.

Cardinal Ratzinger: "Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgment regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good." (CDF, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 38.)

The bad consequence that children are born in difficult situations cannot cause contraception to become moral, because contraception is intrinsically evil. It is a type of act that is wrong by the very nature of the act, independent of intention and circumstances.

Pope Pius XI: "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
[...]
"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." (Casti Connubii, n. 54-56.)

Pope John Paul II: "Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church 'is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.' And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral 'every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.' " (Familiaris Consortio, 32; inner quote is from Humanae Vitae, n. 12, 14.)

_____________

there how it goes the discussion in GMAnews etc... posted here for easy reading ~ ClaireMay

Unfinished Story

Anyone knows any creepy or scary - paranormal stories or unforgettable experience? I'm looking for things that make you wonder what was going through your experience or through the head of whoever experience it or that keeps you up all night with the lights really bright.

The Lady in black

Minsan nagpunta kami ni Ate sa Tagaytay, dahil sa mahalagang seminar na kailangan niyang daluhan, (siempre kasama na roon ang panood ng National Chess Team Intercities 2005) dahil sem – Christmas break naman , I accompany her.On our way to Tagaytay I enjoy the trip I have seen a lot of most famous scenic attractions and one of the world’s wonders the Summit Ridge Tagaytay, which I have the privilege of gazing at Taal Volcano and its beautiful lake as a next-door neighbors. When we were there we started looking for an Inn. I said to her " why did they not give a free accommodations for you? or the attendees? I told her. Don't worry she said there is a room for us free and that is the one we are looking for.

We started the walk. She begun asking for the address and name they referred to her but no one knew. We walk and climb on the hilly slopes of Tagaytay till we get tired. We are on the top of the hill when we stop, the sun is about to set then, feeling the cold oozing to my ears. Gazing down I saw a lady in black gown, I said " hey Yidda look there's a lady down there!" She said ok let's go asked her for help. We ran down the hill towards her and to my amazement she's gone. It was then I scream a little bit " eeeeh Ate nawala!nawala yung Ale!!!" ..."heh!!! she shouted back and said " anong nawala hayan yung bakas niya o!" Feeling a little relief knowing Yidda is a tough and brave Ate more so of her knowledge in martial arts, and so we follow the footstep as our guide. The red of the sun is what left in the sky till we find the lady. Although a little bit far we knew it was the "Ale" becaused of her black gown dress and the trail of footsteps in the ground. On a distance I could see her house made of bamboo and nipa. She has a broom on her hand like that of Harry Potter and busy sweeping the yard towards the watch fire. As we approach her my hearts pounds faster...

as we get near her...

I'm just a kid at that time. Pero sabi lang ng "Ale" Maputi iyan kc laba sa Tide Puti At Red ang eyes ko kc uso sore eyes d2 sa Tagaytay, ha ha ha

Iyon lang po ang ending.

Pampaalis po ng inis; watch my created video in Tagaytay Unknown here:

btw: I'm Esther on some Religion forums, wala lang - gusto ko lang maging happy lahat friends ko.

Esther in Tagaytay Unknown

MESSAGE #2883 from the Blessed Mother

May 8, 2006

My daughter,

Darkness cannot be removed unless my children pray and fast and amend their
ways. Families must pray together. They must be loving and forgiving. All must
imitate Christ in order to be light to the world. So many today walk in darkness and
they need to see God’s love shining through you.
Dear children, there is much darkness in the world. Evil has become widespread
and it reigns in many hearts. Without more love and prayer from your hearts, you
will see much more suffering and violence. Please join hands and pray the Rosary
every day. Pray together and do not neglect family prayer. Let go of all your
distractions and make more time for prayer. Prayer is so important. Prayer is your
protection.
Now, please listen to your mother or you will not be able to embrace all the
difficulties that lie ahead. Amen.
_______________
Catechism of Catholic Ethics:

"You will not be able to free your life from sin, unless you fill your life with virtue. If you merely learn a list of sins, and try to avoid those acts, you will not be able. For when you will seem to have rid yourself of one serious sin or another, you will soon find that the same sin returns, along with several other serious sins. You cannot remove darkness from a room, except by adding light. You cannot remove the darkness of sin from your soul, except by adding the light of virtue."

FATIMA SORIANO "MY OFFERING" SONGS OF LOVE -The CONCERT 2008

dont loose hope...Inspired with this girl,she is blind but happy and never complain in life.

Catholic Defenders of Faith

I recommend this forums

http://thebereans.bestforumlife.com/forum

for debates and discussions question and answer on Catholiscism Sayyida(Yidda)  is here too.

[Ephesians 5]

{5:3} But let not any kind of fornication, or impurity, or rapacity so much as be named among you, just as is worthy of the saints,
{5:4} nor any indecent, or foolish, or abusive talk, for this is without purpose; but instead, give thanks.
{5:5} For know and understand this: no one who is a fornicator, or impure, or rapacious (for these are a kind of service to idols) holds an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
{5:6} Let no one seduce you with empty words. For because of these things, the wrath of God was sent upon the sons of unbelief.
{5:7} Therefore, do not choose to become participants with them.
{5:8} For you were darkness, in times past, but now you are light, in the Lord. So then, walk as sons of the light.
{5:9} For the fruit of the light is in all goodness and justice and truth,
{5:10} affirming what is well-pleasing to God.
{5:11} And so, have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead, refute them.
{5:12} For the things that are done by them in secret are shameful, even to mention.

Esther - Love Story by Taylor Shift

  Anyone can catch your eye, but it takes someone special to catch your heart. 

Council of Orange

Upon the request of miss Sayyida I decided to publish this dialogue on soteriology which is from
http://thebereans.bestforumlife.com/t301p30-theology-of-salvation

of which I am a member (not a clone of course), for easy reading.

Ang beauty ba naman na ito magiging pang clone lang hmp. --- Esther

Yidda : In Catholic teaching, free will, and human nature in general, is weakened and harmed by original sin, but not utterly corrupted. Catholic teaching is that human nature, after the fall, remains good and continues to be an image of God. Thus, even without grace, human nature, being good in itself even after the Fall of Adam and Eve, can do acts that are morally good, but not deserving of eternal reward, without grace.

semi mix calvinist doctrine: No he cannot do morally good without Gods grace.


CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could by no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe-guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

Example:

it is like king saul in the old testament when he saw a good sacrifice to God but God said that slay all those things in that city and no one will seen alive something like that. But you know what saul do? He do his own will.
He took the good sacrifice instead of obeying Gods instruction to him.

Yes they can choose good they can do good in their own will but not good in the presence of God. Good in there own will but not Good in God. that is why Canon 20 states that man can do no good without God.

Can I Ask if what is the standard of Morally Good in God sight and Man sight?

Yidda:

First:

The grace of God is absolutely essential to living a moral life. Some knowingly chosen acts can be moral, in the sense of morally permissible,without grace. Acts that are merely natural, such as eating a meal, exercising, going to sleep, etc. are moral because human nature is good.Even without grace, such acts are morally permissible. However, any act that is meritoriously good must be done in cooperation with grace. Every act that contributes to holiness, pleases God, contributes to salvation, and merits a reward in Heaven requires grace. Every act done in cooperation with grace contributes to holiness, pleases God, contributes to salvation, and merits a reward in Heaven. Other acts can be moral, but only acts that cooperate with grace are both moral and holy.

There are many wicked persons in the world. But when they take a meal, or sleep, or go for a walk, or do other natural acts are they sinning? No. The Church teaches the three fonts of morality. Regardless of whether or not a person is in a state of grace, regardless of whether or not a person is cooperating with grace, if all three fonts of morality are good, the act is moral. The CCC, the Compendium, the USCCB Catechism, and Veritatis Splendor all teach that it is these three fonts and nothing else that determines if an act is moral or immoral. These sources do not teach that all acts are immoral prior to Baptism, nor that all acts are immoral that are done without grace.

It is true that the human person can do some good acts, acts that are moral but not meritorious, without grace.But this point is not central to the debate about savlation. Acts that pertain to salvation, which are part of our participation in our own redemption, must be done with grace.

The central point is the role of the free will. The semi-Calvinist sees grace as irresistible and infallible, so that free will is not truly free even with grace. The Catholic position is that grace frees us, and grace humbly permits us to choose with true freedom. Even though our all-powerful God could give grace in such a manner that we could not choose evil, but only good, He doe not do so. For he wishes us to choose the love of God and neighbor with true freedom, so that it is true love.

Next, I will review the Canons of the Council of Orange in a series of posts. I note that the Council of Orange is not an Ecumenical Council, and so its Canons are not infallible

The Canons of the Council of Orange refute the view of Pelagius that free will can choose acts that pertain
to salvation without grace. The Catholic view is that free will can choose moral acts without grace, acts that are natural, because human nature is good, but that any moral acts which also pertain to salvation,or which deserve eternal reward, require grace.

The Canons of the Council of Orange
(529 AD)

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

~ The fall from grace changed the human person for the worse, impairing, not destroying, the freedom of the soul.

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

~ Original sin affects all of Adam descendents, except Mary and Jesus. The state of original is called 'the death of the soul' because the soulnlacks sanctifying grace at conception due to the sin of Adam and Eve.

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

~ Prevenient grace is needed prior to any meritorious act of the free will. So in this example, before we pray in cooperation with grace, God gives us prevenient grace by His act alone, operating not cooperating.

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

~ Again, this is an example of prevenient grace given prior to our cooperation with subsequent grace. Pelagius considered that the free will could pray and could desire that God cleanse us from sin prior to grace. The Council taught that grace is first; that is what prevenient grace means.

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness,it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is notyour own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:. For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure
believers.

~ Again, this is an example of prevenient grace.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

~ Again, this teaches that grace is prevenient, occurring prior to any meritorious or salutory (pertaining to salvation) good act by our free will. But none of these Canons about prevenient grace imply that our will is not truly free to choose whether or not to cooperate with subsequent grace. And it is that cooperation, or the lack thereor, which determines whether or not we are saved.

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men
gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

~ Notice that the Council qualifies its teaching that we cannot form any right opinion or make any right choice by adding "which relates to the salvation of eternal life".The Council does not teach that no right opinion or no right choice, such as one that is merely natural, that does not pertain to the supernatural life of grace or eternal life, can be done without grace. Therefore, the Scripture verses quoted are being interpreted by the Council as referring not to any and all natural good acts, but only to acts that are supernatural good acts, i.e. meritorious acts that pertain to salvation.

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord
himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

~ The Council taught the necessity of grace prior to any act pertaining to eternal salvation of the free will. This teaching does not imply that the free will is not truly free in deciding whether or not to cooperate with subsequent grace. Also, notice that the Council says that free will has been 'weakened' and 'affected', not destroyed. Again, the Council quotes Scripture to the effect that grace is needed for salvation, not so that grace is needed for any moral natural act.

~ There is still nothing in the Canons so far that would support the semi-Calvinist view that free will has no fundamental role in salvation. Prevenient grace frees the will so that the free will can choose whether or not to cooperate with subsequent grace. Both types of graces pertain to the true freedom of the will. Prevenient grace enables the free will to be truly free, and subsequent grace assists the free will when it freely chooses to do good. But if the free will chooses to do moral evil, it does so without grace.

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.

~ This Canon must be understood in the context of the previous Canons, which are about good acts pertaining to salvation, not about acts that are natural and moral, but not salutory. Recall that Calvin lived many centuries after the Council of Orange, so it is not surprising that the Council did not speak so as to refute his errors. The Council was refuting the errors of Pelagius.

CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works.

~ This Canon and the previous Canon are about subsequent grace. After teaching that prevenient grace is prior to acts of our free will, the Council now teaches that God assists [succors] us by subsequent grace when we use the freedom of will given by prevenient grace to choose good acts pertaining to salvation, i.e. meritorious acts. Again, this Canon must be understood in the light of the previous Canons, such that the type of good act being considered is acts pertaining to salvation. This is clear since the Canon specifies that these acts bring us to a
'successful end' by persevering in good acts, that is to say, so that we may be saved by our free participation in our salvation. This refutes the semi-Calvinist view that grace is irresistible, such that free will cannot choose to turn away from the succor [assistance] of God and thereby lose salvation.

CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have we given thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

~ Again, this Canon teaches that prevenient grace is first, prior to our free cooperation with subsequent grace.

CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.

~ Both our good nature and the supernatural graces we receives are a gift from God.

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

~ This Canon must be understood in the light of all the other Canons, such that 'destroyed' means 'weakened' and 'impaired' but not utterly taken away. Free will is unable to reach salvation on its own, but this is not due to the utter destruction of free will. Salvation is always of grace; it was of grace prior to the Fall, and it continues to be of grace. This does not imply that free will has no fundamental role in salvation.

CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, "Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:, and again, "My God in his steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).

~ Our sorrowful state is the absence of sanctifying grace in us from conception; we are freed by a prevenient act of grace at our Baptism.

CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him.The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

~ God gave Adam (and each of us) a good nature; his sin changed us all for the worse. Grace changes us for the better, freeing our will, but not compelling our will. Adam was free to sin, even though he was created with grace. We are free to sin even though prevenient grace has enabled us to perform meritorious and salutory acts.

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

~ This Canon is about justification, which occurs only with grace, and it is about acts that are meritorious (deserving honor), which occur only with grace. But free will is not denied its fundamental role by this teaching.

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

~ All the virtues are given to us by grace. Whatever appears to be of virtue, but is without grace, is not a true virtue. This teaching of St.Augustine is here also taught by the Council. The virtues all begin with prevenient grace, therefore, the Council says that they are not given initially by cooperation on the part of our free will; they are poured into us by prevenient grace.

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

~ Again, the Council distinguishes between prevenient grace, which frees the will but is prior to any cooperative act of the free will. Then the free will can choose a meritorious (deserving recompense) cooperation with subsequent grace.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safeguard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

~ Grace is necessary for salvation. But free will is also necessary, for grace always pertains to free will. Prevenient grace makes the will truly free. And subsequent grace cooperates with the free will, if it chooses meritorious acts.

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

~ Concerning grace: God does much good in us apart from our cooperation,by prevenient grace. We can do nothing good -- again this is in the context of acts pertaining to salvation -- without grace.

But this Canon does not say 'grace'. We can do nothing good without God in as much as God gives us our good nature, by which we do moral natural acts that do not require grace, and we can do nothing good as pertains to merit and salvation without supernatural grace. For salvation is supernatural.

CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolish them, but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

~ Grace is supernatural; it is beyond our nature. And yet our nature was created so that grace is needed for the true fulfillment of our purpose: to love God and neighbor with a selfless everlasting love.

CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

~ This is true because our good human nature is a gift of God. Notice that grace is not mentioned. So the good things of man are of God both in what is natural, and in what is supernatural (grace). This Canon does not assert that nothing is good without grace, but only that nothing is good without God, who grants both our good nature and supernatural grace.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

~ When we choose to do what displeases God, we sin and therefore we act alone. When we do the will of God AND our own will, such that we freely choose to cooperate with His grace, our act is of us and of God. We are prepared by prevenient grace, and we are accompanied by subsequent grace, when doing the will of God. This pertains again to meritorious acts, for God does not will that we merely do moral natural acts, but that we participate in our own salvation with grace.

Notice that the Council describes good act in cooperation with grace as a following of our own will AND a compliance with the will of God. The semi-Calvinist ignores these clear statements at Orange, and in other Church teachings, and in the writings of Saints, on the fundamental role of free will whenever grace acts, whether it is prevenient grace acting on free will as a passive object, or subsequent grace acting with free will as a cooperating partner.

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

~ The life of the vine is our supernatural life in Christ. This pertains to salvation, and is beyond the moral good acts that are merely natural, but not salutory.

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

~ God cannot love evil, nor anything that is totally corrupted. God loves us because our human nature is good, even when we lack sanctifying grace because of original sin. And He loves us prior to our love of Him. He gives us prevenient grace, allowing us to freely choose to love Him. But His love is first. Notice that grace and salvation pertain to love. But love must be chosen freely or it is not love at all. Therefore, the semi-Calvinist errors in effect make love not truly free and not truly love; they present a view of salvation which nullifies our free will, making any love on our part not truly like the love of God.

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the
ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.

~ The Council does not say that we can do nothing good apart from grace,but that we can do nothing good 'for God's sake' apart from grace. The Council also represents free will as 'impaired' and 'weakened' but not utterly destroyed by original sin.

We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God.

~ Faith is supernatural, and so it requires grace.

And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29).

~ In order to reach salvation, that is to say, in any acts that pertain to our salvation, we require grace first (prevenient grace) and we must then subsequently choose, with the true freedom granted by prevenient grace, to cooperate with subsequent grace.

And again, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:. And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.

~ Salvation is of grace, and of free will cooperating with grace.

semi mix calvinist:

Can I Ask if what is the standard of Morally Good in God sight and Man sight?

Yidda:

The three fonts of morality, in every case without exception, determine if an act by man is morally good (at least permissible and therefore not a sin).

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.

~ Here the Council of Orange specifically refutes the Calvinist view (long before Calvin was born) that free will is not truly freed by grace, that free will has no fundamental role in salvation, that acts of the free will in response to grace are not a truly free cooperation, as if grace were irresistible. Our all-powerful God could have made grace irresistible, but He did not do so. For He is not all-powerful Power, but all-powerful Love. Grace is of Love, therefore grace, like love, makes us truly free so that we may freely choose whether or not to respond to Love with love.

~ The idea, found in Calvinism and in semi-Calvinism, that some persons are foreordained to do only evil, or to do evil at least to such an extent that they cannot be saved, was specifically declared anathema by the Council. This anathema condemns both the idea that some persons are actively predestined to Hell by God, and the idea that some persons are passively omitted from predestination to Heaven, such that they can only end in Hell.

We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.

~ Faith and love are granted to us by the prevenient grace of God, and by His subsequent grace working with our free will. The semi-Calvinist acknowledges the work of grace, but pays only lip service to the work of free will. Such a view is contrary to the very nature of grace, which only pertains to free will. If the human will is never truly free, especially as concerns salvation, then prevenient grace would be entirely ineffective. For prevenient grace is an act of God enabling the human will to be truly free. By reducing free will to merely an inevitable response to grace, the semi-Calvinist is in effect denying the effectiveness of prevenient grace in making us free. Prevenient grace is irresistible in that it always truly frees the will, without any cooperation on our part. But God has humbly chosen not to make subsequent grace irresistible, so that our choice to cooperate or not would be truly free and so that, if we choose to cooperate, we will act with true love. For love is not love without true freedom.