tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.comments2012-05-25T07:29:52.140-05:00Paul Cathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13962510592521598520noreply@blogger.comBlogger1338125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-12462041522944124392012-05-25T07:29:52.140-05:002012-05-25T07:29:52.140-05:00Loved the photos.thanks.<br />http://sketchup4architect.com/plugins-para-sketchup.htmlparthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07559650513615068631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-85988204111154660792012-05-21T04:25:29.334-05:002012-05-21T04:25:29.334-05:00I truly appreciate this post. I have been looking everywhere for this! <br /><br /><br />http://www.navisworksfreedom.com/Piyushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06749252797129900734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-41690972844668817462012-04-27T04:24:32.435-05:002012-04-27T04:24:32.435-05:00Another time I can think of specifically when He upset people was His Bread of Life discourse in John 6. John 6:66 records that a great many of His disciples life because of the Eucharist.<br /><br />http://www.quantity-takeoff.com/Piyushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06749252797129900734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-74760282147227879582012-04-23T04:31:56.535-05:002012-04-23T04:31:56.535-05:00I truly appreciate this post. I have been looking everywhere for this! <br /><br />Outsource Survey Processing - http://www.dataentryhelp.com/outsource-survey-processing.htmManoj Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00749946427687952884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-22433131861179994452012-04-18T16:55:55.000-05:002012-04-18T16:55:55.000-05:00I think you did the Y U No guy wrong. The top line should be the subject, so it should read &quot;Sinner, Y U No love God Right?&quot;Baron Korfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07215856728880521796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-363240052364544702012-04-12T20:08:40.865-05:002012-04-12T20:08:40.865-05:00Of course He&#39;s a nice guy. He is after all, the Lover of mankind and love itself. But there were definitely times when He greatly upset people. People don&#39;t have someone crucified because they love him to death.<br />Another time I can think of specifically when He upset people was His Bread of Life discourse in John 6. John 6:66 records that a great many of His disciples life because of the Eucharist.Athanasius contra mundumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02809651586349621296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-88900758761361464322012-04-06T05:08:57.208-05:002012-04-06T05:08:57.208-05:00I have just found your blog through a link to a link to a link!! I love these &#39;Not Said By Jesus&#39; posts, I&#39;ll be passing them along. <br />JenniferJenniferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15696586681869284906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-14489220833904847392012-03-20T21:34:33.295-05:002012-03-20T21:34:33.295-05:00The real reason is that the waitress gets about $2.50/hr, plus the money on the table. Her wages are not and never were put into the bill. If she got $8-10 an hour from management, the bill would be 25-40% higher. Instead, she gets 15%, makes $10-15, and the bill stays where it is. It&#39;s a better situation all the way around.Arkanabar T'verrick Ilarsadinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00098504849466846551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-870350656839239772012-03-05T15:24:33.148-05:002012-03-05T15:24:33.148-05:00I don&#39;t agree too much with this. Is true that music influences the mind, and we have this all the time with reggaeton here in Latin America, but I listen to Heavy Metal, which references war, death, drugs, Satan and anti-chrisitan references. It&#39;s true that it talks about alot of good stuff too, but either way I listen to alot of the aggressive type of metal and rock and I don&#39;t do drugs, try not to see porn, don&#39;t drink, don&#39;t swear, try not to insult and get into fights. I think that what you should do is teach to your kids what is wrong in the music, but not forbid them to hear it. For example if I have a daughter, I wouldn&#39;t like her to listen to gangsta rap, but in the end I can&#39;t make her not to listen to it. What I can do is teach her that the stuff said in the songs is not what she should be doing and that she should have a critical mind regarding it.Alejandro Rodríguezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10907052210903281707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-58339341055994475182012-02-29T15:09:10.255-05:002012-02-29T15:09:10.255-05:00Download link for the PPT? I love it. Want to use it with my special-needs son, who is having problems with the concept of sin.Theodore Seeberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13315945417122366201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-47992871718043002902012-02-28T17:12:48.586-05:002012-02-28T17:12:48.586-05:00Sharing this widely.<br /><br />Can you start working on other CAtholic teachings as the apply to cartoon characters? ;)Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05423794317423373245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-11178502989019546112012-02-27T23:01:35.888-05:002012-02-27T23:01:35.888-05:00borrow away, just tell others where you got it.Paul Cathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13962510592521598520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-4181467786600079802012-02-27T15:50:00.445-05:002012-02-27T15:50:00.445-05:00LOVED THIS!!<br /><br />I am so borrowing this!!<br /><br />With you Permission of course, otherwise, I won&#39;t!<br /><br />Honest!<br /><br />ARGH! I Hate when I jump the gun!<br /><br />You know what, forget it, I won&#39;t share it with people anyway.<br /><br />Why can&#39;t I Ever have Ideas like this!!<br /><br />I bet you I could! I could come up with an even better Idea!<br /><br />But it would have to wait until I finish off this Devil&#39;s Food Cake!<br /><br />Then, then...Oh, I know! I can sell the PPT to my Priest!!! Yeah, that&#39;s it! Then he can use it on Sunday!<br /><br />So, umm, what do you say?<br /><br />;)From The Pewshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16171993946708916540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-67342126921272458212012-02-24T03:54:31.471-05:002012-02-24T03:54:31.471-05:00Thanks for taking this topic to discussion.<br /><a href="http://www.no1-office.com/about-us.html" rel="nofollow">mesin fotocopy</a> | <a href="http://www.vincentmaestro.com" rel="nofollow">rental sound</a> | <a href="http://www.propertykita.com/rumah.html" rel="nofollow">rumah dijual</a> | <a href="http://www.kindercube.com" rel="nofollow">perlengkapan bayi</a> | <a href="http://www.jakarta.intercontinental.com/" rel="nofollow">jakarta hotel</a> | <a href="http://www.rocknrollwithus.com" rel="nofollow">party organizer</a> | <a href="http://www.rumahparfum.com" rel="nofollow">parfum</a>butoijohhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09294284255175672767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-49766223791028245662012-01-24T19:27:35.333-05:002012-01-24T19:27:35.333-05:00You might have a parenthesis wrong.<br /><br />(10^10)^123 is the same as 10^1230 which would not fill the universe. It would be 1,230 characters. You might mean 10^(10^123). That would be a number that might fill the universe in 10 point type.Randyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16751516602395247675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-61353161935948048052012-01-16T07:56:10.999-05:002012-01-16T07:56:10.999-05:00Hi Paul, <br />I&#39;m not sure if you remember me, my name&#39;s Julie LaBelle and I was a junior counselor at Camp Kahdalea in 2006 when you were there as well. I somehow came across your blog and really enjoy reading it! <br />I wanted to thank you for the book review- it&#39;s especially helpful and interesting to me right now because I&#39;m taking The Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics at FSU right now! I&#39;ve really loved them, especially Philosophy of Science because what we encounter is that belief in science is much like belief in God-- we know a lot from experience, but there&#39;s still a lot we don&#39;t know. <br />I&#39;d love to pick up Fr. Spitzer&#39;s book, maybe after the semester&#39;s over! <br />Thanks again,<br />JulieJuliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11236125113935161341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-77762153149305649032011-12-30T15:35:01.477-05:002011-12-30T15:35:01.477-05:00Your right. Mine too. Must have been a typo.Paul Cathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13962510592521598520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-22701852730483843232011-12-30T15:20:39.169-05:002011-12-30T15:20:39.169-05:00My week has only 168 hours, but there is still enough time to pray ;-)SMVhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10480665789608822557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-35855886960923138792011-12-18T10:38:24.187-05:002011-12-18T10:38:24.187-05:00ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON CARDINAL RICHARD CUSHINGS LEGACY: FOLLOWERS INCLUDE USCCB, EWTN, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, SSPX, SEDEVACANTISTS MHFM <br />He assumed the baptism of desire was visible and so contradicted the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. He assumed that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance were known to us and so it contradicts Fr. Leonard Feeney’s traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.<br /><br /><br />Since the time of the Archbishop Cardinal Richard Cushing it is assumed there are two interpretations of the dogma. 1)the rigorist interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the popes and saints and 2) the non rigorist interpretation. The non rigorist interpretation says everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It is assumed here that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. So this is a ‘new ‘interpretation.<br /><br />We now know that there is only one interpretation of the dogma, the centuries old interpretation since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not known to us.<br /><br /><br />It is assumed that Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) is an exception to the dogma. This would be assuming that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto known to us in particular cases. We know that they are not visible and explicitly known to us but known only to God. So they are not exceptions to the dogma.<br /><br /> De facto everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation. De jure in principle those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known only to God. The baptism of water is explicit. The baptism of desire is implicit.<br /><br />The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed directly to the Archbishop of Boston. It was critical of the Archbshop. It mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma does not mention any exceptions. The dogma also indicates, like Fr. Leonard Feeney, that everyone needs to explicitly enter the Church for salvation.<br /><br />Today the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), Eternal Word Television Network, Catholic Answers, Society of St. Pius X, Pontifical seminaries and universities, sedevacantists, priests, nuns and lay Catholics are all unknowingly following the legacy of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits of Boston College. <br /><br />They assume the baptism of desire etc is visible and so is an exception to the dogma.Catholic Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-38380721681929800212011-11-30T17:01:36.526-05:002011-11-30T17:01:36.526-05:00This is just aweful...awefully funny...and awefully truthful.Dawnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11442454780347691992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-18559256563388086112011-11-28T09:33:35.660-05:002011-11-28T09:33:35.660-05:00continued<br />The Letter affirms ‘the dogma’ as did Fr. Leonard Feeney. The dogma does not mention any exceptions and neither does Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Letter seems to refer to the issue of the baptism of desire being implied as an exception to the dogma. It is only in reference to the error of the Archbishop and the Jesuits at Boston College.<br /><br /><br />The Letter like Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents uses the defacto- dejure analysis. The Archbishop and the Jesuits used the clumsy defacto- defacto analysis and contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction. How could they imply that everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation but some people do not de facto need to enter the Church ?!<br /><br /><br />To imply that the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has visible exceptions is heresy. It is a rejectiion of the dogma as it was interpreted for centuries. It is creating a new doctrine.<br /><br /><br />This error of the visible baptism of desire being a defacto exception to the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney is being maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in the Fr. Peter Phan Notification. They have used the mantra ‘except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire’. The error is also held on the websites by the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales (CCBEW) ,Catholic Answers, Catholics United for the Faith and so many other Catholics. They assume innocently that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. They wrongly imply that this was taught by Pope Pius XII.<br />-Lionel Andrades<br /><br />DID THE CARDINAL WHO ISSUED THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 ASSUME THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS VISIBLE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA ? <br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/did-cardinal-who-issued-letter-of-holy.html <br />http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/usccb-ccbew-catholic-answers-cuf-imply.htmlCatholic Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-344978724455804422011-11-28T09:32:57.331-05:002011-11-28T09:32:57.331-05:00continued<br />The Letter mentions &#39;the dogma&#39;, &#39;the infallible statement&#39; and affirms the baptism of desire. It does not imply that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma since the baptism of desire is always implicit .God accepts an implicit desire he can also save someone in implicit invincible ignorance. So implicit baptism of desire or invincible ignorance cannot be an exception to the dogma. The dogma refers to all people needing to defacto enter the Catholic Church for salvation.<br /><br /><br />There are those who are members of the Church as taught by the dogma and there are those who are united to the Church only by desire. They are defacto members who have Catholic Faith and have received the baptism of water. Those who have received the baptism of desire are de jure in principle united to the Church only by desire. These cases are known only to God.<br /><br /><br />The Letter of the Holy Office during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was addressed to the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing directly and not to Fr. Leonard Feeney.<br /><br /><br />It was because the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits, who implied wrongly, that these cases could be exceptions to the dogma and to Fr. Leonard Feeney. <br /><br /><br /><br /> It was the Archbishop who believed like the Jesuits at Boston College that every one with no exception does not have to enter the Church for salvation. The Archbishop believed that there could be non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. Implying, of course, that these cases are visible, explicit and known to us and so are an exception to the dogma. <br />continuedCatholic Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-72047676565606169052011-11-28T09:32:14.457-05:002011-11-28T09:32:14.457-05:00Monday, November 28, 2011<br />USCCB, CCBEW, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, CUF IMPLY POPE PIUS XII SUGGESTED IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS <br />This is false. The letter refers to the dogma and indicates that de facto everyone needs to enter the Church and it also mentions that de jure a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire. The Letter was critical of the Archbishop of Boston who indicated that those saved with the baptism of desire are defacto cases, known and visible. The Letter supports Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine.<br /><br /><br />For the baptism of desire to be an exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation it would have to be visible and known. Implicit unknown to us baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma which indicates every one must me a visible member of the Church. <br /><br />continuedCatholic Missionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06025127342963192930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-20916392254685373212011-11-26T11:34:04.759-05:002011-11-26T11:34:04.759-05:00I&#39;m posting on FB. Might consider adding sins of omission too...ThereseRitahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06334203937303147489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762459626474072232.post-7519898468799676602011-11-26T00:20:19.712-05:002011-11-26T00:20:19.712-05:00Wow, Paul, awesome post. I find it particularly interesting how upset some people are getting about changing some of the words when, in the years after Vatican II, a complete revision of not just the words but also the direction the priest faced, and a slew of other things were welcomed with open arms.<br /><br />Hopefully Benedict&#39;s hermeneutic of continuity will win out.Fides Quarens Intellectumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16437230533148523442noreply@blogger.com