jamesAMDG

Well as I guess as long as you're rolling your eyes at me while taking my comments to a place that clearly weasn't being dealt with in my post. Gee, thanks. Providentially, the Church deals with this very question when it deals with family planning. John Paul II has done a lot of great work on fleshing out this theology in his work on the Theology of the Body (which shouuld be mandatory reading for anyone who considers themselves Christian before getting involved in this sorts of threads) There are methods of preventing pregnancy which are not contraceptive but which still do not allow for pregnancy to occur. The most useful of these (according to my research and in speaking with people I know who do it) is what is commonly referred to as Natural Family Planning (NFP). This isn't the long dismissed rythm method, but rather the Billings Ovulation Method which tracks a woman's fertile periods within her cycle. By not engaging in the marital act during these times a couple can avoid pregnancy whicle not interfering with the integrity of the marital act itself. This method can also be used when a couple is TRYING to have a child because it allows them to be more precise during the fertile periods of a woman's cycle. However, it should be noted that NFP is not to be seen as a Catholic 'contraceptive' and its use should only be considered for "serious" reasons. However, those serious reasons are generally left to the consciecne of a couple and their confessor. As a side-note, your probable death from pregnancy would count as serious reason to use NFP Double side note, NFP when used properly is MORE effective than any articifical means fo contraception. pax ps. - I find it interesting that curlytop equates love with general niceness. Is it less loving to tell someone tha a sin is a sin? To give them knowlege which objectivly coudl help them to save their souls? That being said, calling someone a murder etc, is baasically useless because Saint Paul was a murderer too and he went on to become a great Saint. But, just because God forgives doesn't mean we don't have to acknowledge our sins (whatever they might be, I certainly have many vices, they just happen to be more private than abortion) God will not forgive unless asked, and you can't be forgiven until you acknowledge your sins and confess them.

There are several things which seem to not have been adequately noted during the discussion thus far. The first is when life actually begins (although it was noted that the judges on the U.S. Supreme Court apparently said it wasn't possible). Life begins when a huma has all the DNA it needs and beigns developping (ie: conception) A good analogy for viewing this is, a child and an adult are both human, but the child has not yet fully developpeed into an adult. However, the child has all the DNA to develop. Saying that before a certain age a child is not a child amounts to discrimination based on age. This means that ANYTHING which stops impedes the progress of life AFTER conception is ipso facto (yes, breaking out my lack lustre Latin!) abortive. Secondly, the idea that viability outside the womb is grounds for determining life is a faulty premise. It is faulty because if someone has already been born but becomes seriously ill (or enfeebled as in the case fo the ederly) our society does not completely abandon them of medical care. We don't pierce their skulls and suck their brains out with a vaccuum. Thus the premise of vialibity outside the womb is false because it is already not applied in an equal or equitable fashion to the rest fo the population. Thirdly, the anaolgy of war to abortion is faulty because in a war you kill to prevent being killed (and I don't want to get into the reasons for the war and so on) but simply it becomes a matter of kill or be killed. In this way, Saint Gianna Molla could ahve lictly chosen a medical procedure to protect herself that would have INADVERTANTLY killed the child but the primary intention was to save her own health. However, by the grace of God, she chose to give her life fo rthe life of her unborn child. A sacrifice not unlike the sacrifice which Christ made for us on the cross. He could have chosen not to redeem us, but he sacrificed himself for us. Fourthly, the question of the dangerousness of so-called "back alley abortions" has been raised. There are may women who commit "safe" and "legal" abortions thoughout the world, and there is a not negligible percentage who are in some way physcially harmed, and there are a fair number who actually do die. So, it is clear that these "safe" abortions aren't necessarily that safe. But, there are many things which we prevent people from doing in our society and that they do anyways at great personal risk. This argument cannot be used as justification to make an act legal or else every dangerous act woudl be made legal in an attempt to make it safer. It becomes a slippery slope that never ends. Without seeming callous, I would also like to add that the inherent danger of certain things can serve as deterrant to further reduce the number of abortions. Finally, I think it is important to consider what role sexual license plays in thie whole mess. Someone talked about a consistent ethic of life and included war, capital punishment and abortion. It must be noted that a ban on the use of contraceptives is also included in this consistent ethic. Not just because, as I noted in my second paragraph that life beigns at conception, but becaue the use of contraception devlaues the sexual act and lessens the bond created between patners by removing the natural consequences of the marital act. When this aspect is considered it becomes important to note that pregnancy is in fact the NATURAL result of an act which the mother (in all but a very cases) willingly engaged in. But back to the importance of valuing sex. Abortion and contrception allow men to devalue women because they don't ahve to stick around be responsible when the result of their carlesseness is flushed down a sewer or thrown into a dumpster. This devaluing of women (and consequently of the only situation in which the full expression of sexuality has its proper place, namely marriage) by men has accelrated since the inventio of cheap and readily available contraception and the availability of legalized abortion. One final thought, did anyone ever find it weird that you can be fined or even go to jail or being rough with a dog, but the governement will pay for you to murder your child. If the demographics don't destroy us, surely the good Lord will. jamesamdg more of my ramblings can be found at jamesamdg.blogpot.com

BrotherRog, Where do I begin? Should it be with your ignoring of what I wrote about the Roman Catholic Church being part of the Catholic Church which includes the Roman or Latin rite as well as the non-Latin rites, usually called Eastern Rites? Maybe your choice of sources, like Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"? sigh. Maybe the best place to start is where you started (and seeing as I have a class in 15 minutes, I'll save the historical stuff until later this afternoon. You are an imperliast. Ahhh, the lasrt refuge of the left when they can't respond to an argument. I presented two cases where I believe that American intervention (under George W. Bush) has halped people in foreign lands. Two cases of people living under tyranny who no longer do so. I think that the citizens of these countries are much better off, and apparently so do they. The celebrations in Kabul (and elsewhere aroud the country) after the fall of the Taliban and the incredibly large numbers of Iraqis who voted DESPITE the threats of violence againt them from Islamo-fascists. You declined to explain why this was not an accurate assement of the situation. You offered no other solution to the plight of these people. What would you have suggested? Should the Taliban have been left in power? if so, how can this be justified from a social justice point of view (I am speaking specifically about the lack of free political expression, lack of religious freedom, extreme abuses against women, etc.)? Should Saddam Hussein have been left in power? given his track record of using chemical weapons against minorities, religious repression, political totalitarianism, etc. What does your compassion call for? What would you have told the Iraqis in Saddam's torture chambers? Are these people better off having been released from a totalitarian police state? More on history later, but before you descend to insults (something that I think is below civilised, adult debate) I would appreciate if you answered these questions for me. God Bless, Pax Romana, Victory in the Mosr Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Imperially yours, jamesamdg jamesamdg.blogspot.com

BrotherRog, The false peace of George W. Bush? Would that be the false peace of the people in Afghanistan who had their first election after the US liberated them from the theocratic tyranny of the fascist Taliban? Or it would it refer to the millions of Iraqis who got to vote for the first time EVER following the liberation of Iraq from the fascist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein? This is not to imply that everything W has done is good, but the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan are both infintely better off under the American occupation then they weever where under their native tyrants and the evils of Islam. I don't know about you, but I'll take the Pax Americana over the Pax Islama (I have no idea what Islam is in Latin and don't really feel like researching it right now) I prefer to refer to myself as a Catholic because the fullness of the Christian Faith subsists within the Catholic Church. Something taught since the time of the Christ and the apostles and recently re-iterated in the documents fo the Second Vatican Council "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, this holy Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim on earth, is necessary for salvation" (Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 14). Besides, the word "Christian" has been so badly abused by Protestants, Orthodox, cultists and progressives that I prefer to use the proper title fo the Universal Church. Is that so? So when the Orthodox left the Catholic Church (properly understood, the Catholic Church is Roman and Eastern, as it includes all those who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, commonly known as the Pope) it was because they had existed before the Catholic Church huh? A few historical references would be nice if you plan to back this idea. No, the Roman Church isn't. But the Catholic Church is and it includes the Roman Church as I explained earlier. pax Romana jamesAMDG jamesamdg.blogspot.com p.s. - sorry about the lateness of this reply

BrotherRog, I'm quite aware of the the history behind the slogan "pax Romana" it was intended in the spirit of a joke. I'm a Catholic (latin/wetern/Roman rite (whichever you want to call it)) so as a Roman Catholic, I have the Pax Romana instead of the flase security of the Once-Saved-Always-Saved members of Protestantism. pax doesn't imply that anyone is "Lord" it simply means peace. The Roman peace was the general peace that pervaded the lands conquered by the Romans as the local and civil squabbles were suppressed. But it also included things like a heirarchical government and things like aquaducts. Peace and Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. jamesAMDG jamesamdg.blogspot.com

I think I can safely assume that I'm included in the "more conservative members" description. So I think I'll get the old keyboard going. As a Catholic I don't believe in the Rapture. Well, not in the sense that most non-Catholics and non-Orthodox do. What is commonly called the Rapture in the popular parlance is better described as "pre-tribulation" that is, that Christians will be snatched from Earth before the Second Coming and before the tribulations which the Earth will undergo immediately before the Second Coming. This view can be traced through John Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield (who wrote the footnotes for the Scofield Reference Bible). This pre-tribulation theology is false because it splits Christ's coming into essentially three. The Incarnation and Birth in Bethlehem, when he comes back to Rapture all true Christians and then the Second Coming when he definatively comes back to Earth. I can't really comment on the rest fo the silliness, after all, error breeds error and a position that starts wrong won't give rise to many good things. But I think that a person can be skeptical of what is called the "peace rocess" in the Middle East, skeptical fo global-warming measures etc. without being a pre-tribulation fundamentalist and a NIMBY on social issues who wants the worst for others and best for himself. pax Romana jAMDG Peace and Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

This post is intended to be a sort of informal survey. I'm curious from those that frequent this site and self-describe as "progressive Christians", what it is that makes them Catholics. I'm prepared to present the case for orthodox Catholicism, but I'd like to see what it is that makes you Catholics. As for me, I believe in the seven sacraments and that they are signs instituted by Christ that do in fact bestow the grace that they signal. I believe in all the dogmas as proclaimed by the Church. And well, we could go on, but I'm sure you all get the idea. Looking forward to hearing whats up, Victory and Triumph in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, jamesamdg jamesamdg.blogspot.com

I think there are two interesting thing about what you wrote, BeachofEden (although I suppose you can already guess I don't agree with them) It seems unnecessary at best, and belies a strange fixation at worst, to include point 4 in the list. I'm not sure why so many people who call themselves progressives or self0identify on the left are so concerned about this. I don't think anyone has said they don't deserve basic human rights. I think the questions is based on what humans are and in what way they can and should be used responsably. As far as I know, sexual orientation is NO BARRIER to marriage. Provided a man and a woman are of legal age and not married to anyone else they can be married. But even more interesting, is this That what is defined here as "moderate" is called Christian as opposed to the other reference points. Why is that those who are on the "right" or are "conservative" or "orthodox" are pharisees and you can you please explain to me how you know I don't believe in "social justice" I have never said that progressives are not sincere, or any other number of things., and yet you know what those who aren't like you hold in their hearts as a corporate group. Weird Pax Christi, In the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary jamesAMDG

I can't speak for any Evangelicals, but none that I know worship Billy Graham. In fact, some that I know don't really like Billy Graham, not that they've got a beef with him or anything, he's just not their "style". Although I don't really want to get into this much, it is one o fmy major beefs with Protestants (and Protestants splinters and so on) is that they don't believe in authority or heirarchy and make it up as they go along. It's and idea based in so-called "Enlightenment" ideals which exalt the person over objective Truth. But I'll save the rest of that rant for another day. As for Catholics worshipping the Pope... Do you have any idea what the word "worship" even means? www.merriamwebster.com defines it thusly The only part that even comes close might be the if you crammed the idea of extravagent respect into it, but even then, its an obvious stretch. No Catholic worships the Pope. We respect the Pope, and we admire him for his intelligence, obvious love of God and the authority that He weilds by virtue of his holding the Office of Saint Peter. But we do not worship him. Tell me, do progressives worship John Spong, or Marcus Borg? Despite my strenous disagreements over their theology (and my inability to udnerstand why anyone would folow such a milquetoast version of the Faith) I would never argue that these people are worshipped by those within the progressive movement. Come on now, let's not be ridiculous. Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us. jamesAMDG

I see the word Fundamentalist being thrown around alot here as well as Moderate and Progressive. I would like to add two important things to this discussion. Firstly, Fundamenlist and Fundamentalism are relatively new terms, dating from the early part fo the 1900s. Starting in 1909, two rich oil men, Milton and Lyman Stewart put up the money to print a 12 volume set on the fundamentals of the Christian Faith (but more accurately Protestant, as far as I can discern). This set of books was called The Fundamentals and its is from the adherence to these core values that a person could be legitamately described as a fundamentalist. According to these works the fundamentals are: (I) the inspiration and what the writers call infallibility of Scripture, (2) the deity of Christ (including his virgin birth), (3) the substitutionary atonement of his death, (4) his literal resurrection from the dead, and (5) his literal return at the Second Coming. However, it should also be noted that "The belief that is first and foremost the defining characteristic of Fundamentalists is their reliance on the Bible to the complete exclusion of any authority exercised by the Church. The second is their insistence on a faith in Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior. " (taken from )here Secondly, it seems to me that most of the discussion and debate about what beliefs and doctrines are necessary (as well as discussion of others who claim to hold the Faith of Christ) revolves around a particularly protestant idea of what it means to be a Christian. This being characterized by the idea of everyone having a "personal" theology and their particular interpretation (or syncretization) being valid. This leaves out most of the Christian world (particularly those outside of North America and Western Europe) were Catholicism (Roman and other rites in communion with the Pope) and the different Orthodox churches which both have a heirarchy and well-defined limits about what cannot and cannot be held in relation to Christ, the Scriptures, Sin, etc. Am the only one noticing this? Peace of Christ in His Sacred Heart, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. jAMDG

And lo, a Canadian was seen, and he had an opinion about US politics.... I'm not really here to write an apologetic for either the Democrats or the Republicans, but maybe I can offer a slightly outsider perspective. There was a question posed about voting for GWB on his moral issues (ie: abortion and redefinition of marriage) and how those moral issues were related to the current Iraq war and so on. It seems to me that a person can be for the limited use of capital punishment if it can be shown to be necessary in protecting society and the person can be shown to be truly guilty. I'm not saying that these standards are often met, but they can exist. This is a position which the Catholic Church has always taken and even under Pope John Paul II (in many ways a liberal Pope economically etc.) this has been continued. Secondly, in capital punishment, were it to meet the above requirements, you would have a person receving a punishment based on something THEY DID. That is to say, all acts have consequences (temporal or eternal) and we suffer these consequences according to our actions. Abortion on the other hand is the taking of a human life for something that SOMEONE ELSE DID. This is fundamentally injust. There are very few who would say that you can take the life of one person for the convenience of another, or that one person's life was less worthy of existence based on another's actions. Thus it is not an analogy which can be batted about as easily as I've seen it done. I don't really want to get into the marriage as DCJ did a good, concise job of explaining why the state cannot alter an institution which existed before it. But it should also be noted that there are no cultures (that I am aware of) that have ever recognized the right (or validity) of same-sex marriage. One little thing about war. War is always a terrible thing. It is always regrettable. It is sometimes necessary. As the Catechism notes (par 2309) An example of a just war (although not always fought in a just manner by either side) would be the Second World War. Allowing the Nazi regime to rage unchecked would have been a greater evil than to take up arms to oppose it. In that particular instance they war saved more lives than would have been lost had Naziism taken over the world. Is the Iraq war just? I'm not sure, I don't have access to all the information that legitamate government does and so it isn't really my place to speak, besides they are the ones entrusted with securing the common good so the final decision is theirs (whether we agree with it or not) As far as economic arguments. I think that a case could be made for either solution and there is nothing within the Gospel that would swing a person's vote, after all I think everyone envisions the same ends but the disagreement is about the means. Therefore it would be a legitamate topic for debate. However, while the Republicans are not perfect on life issues (fetal stem-cells being a particular ugly point) they are closer in line with the constant teachings of the Church and the history of Christian thought. And frankly, those are the issues that make it possible to argue about economics. A baby murdered in it's mother's womb cannot enter the argument about education funding, pollution control or the influence of market forces. It is the right to life which makes any debate on the other issues possible. Thus, if one party fails to secure the right to be born, the rest of their arguments become moot. Peace in the Sacred Heart of Christ, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary jamesAMDG

Before, I respond to any specific thoughts and things people have posted in response to what I wrote about Original Sin, I figure I'll try and answer a few fo the questions that people have asked (and amusingly discussed) about my intentions and a slightly longer biographical sketch. As noted earlier I am 23, Catholic (orthodox Catholic, whether you want to call me a fundamentalist or whatever, I'm down with the Holy Father, I believe that Scripture is inerrant, I believe in the seven Sacraments, I believe in all the elaborations and explanations contained in the Catechism, you get the idea). I am a university student and so I don't get all the time I would like for reading posts, writing posts and doing the research for my posts, I'll see what I can do to keep my work current. I am not here explicitly to convert anyone, although if I did I wouldn't complain. I'll leave the converting to God and keep offering my prayers and sacrifices for all of you (and also the rest of the world so don't feel too singled out). I think that I am being respectful in my posts so I would appreciate the same respect towards the criticism of more conservative or more orthodox viewpoints. Not all traditional Christians are idiots incapable of putting sentences together, neither are we incapable of human respect, nor do we eschew true ecumenical dialogue (which as far as I can tell, has always, until recently, always been understood as the work of reuniting all Christians within the Church and not just an excuse to flap our gums and say, "well isn't that nice?", as it were). The idea that "fundies" hate everyone who aren't them, refuse to take a well-thought out position or have bothered to know and learn what and why they believe is frankly offensive. Please have the deceny not to caricature more orthodox beliefs than yours if you still want those people to take you seriously. So, all that being said, why am I posting here? I'm posting because I honestly don't understand the "progressive" position. It doesn't make sense to me from a historical or theological standpoint. So, I'm trying to get involved in these discussions as a way of comparing and contrasting the Faith, as historically held by the Catholic Church, with the many faiths held here so as to discover how and why they are what they are. But, I do like to "stir the pot" a bit as I noted in my first post. So I won't shy away from saying that an assertion lacks evidence, or two positions seem contradictory, or by asking how and why such and such an idea can coexist in such and such a context. I think those are fair questions to ask, and anyone worth their salt in a Dialogue and Debate forum shouldn't feel threatened in reading them. Finally, BeachOfEden, saying that an older Swedish woman and you both came to negative conclusions about Saint Augustine from reading one blurb about him in a religious studies textbook, isn't exactly evidence, it's one anecdotal source. Please offer some quotes, or other ressources which purport to show this, otherwise your statement (from an academic point of view) doesn't pass the general assertion test. pax Christi jamesAMDG Ad majorem Dei gloriam

Before I start my post, I'll declare myself. I am 23 years old, I am a convert to the Catholic Church. Basically, I believe most of the stuff that the majority (from my experience) of the posters here disagree with. No offense is intended although I do admit that I like stirring a pot. So that's fair warning. I'll start by saying that you (BreahOfEden and the posters who agreed with you) offer no evidence about the above statements. Before saying that someone did something, especially someone as influential and well known as Saint Augustine, you should name some sources, and quote him if possible. It's all well and good to make some general sweeping assertions but it isn't very reasonable. Some other posters have said that the concept of Original Sin is foreign to Scripture (Christian or Jewish), I would offer the following passages as rebuttal. All Scriptural quotations taken from the Douay-Rheims Translation which can be found at www.scriptours.com. Genesis 3:16-19 16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. 17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work: with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. 18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. We see here God is punishing Adam and Eve for what they did and we also see some of the punishments (v 16-17). But that isn't all, in the second part fo verse 17 God tells Adam that "cursed is the earth in thy work", God tells us that EVERYTHING is now cursed (tainted) by this particular sin (the Original Sin or the Fall). This curse is fully explained in verse 19 when the Lord tells Adam that "for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return." This idea of death (something which all humans are destined to experience) being the result of Original Sin is something that Saint Paul devotes much space and time to writing about (but I'm getting ahead of myself). The second Scripture I would like for you to consider is from the Book of Psalms (50:7) 7 For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me. David tells us that even though he turned out to be chosen by God to be King of Isreal, even he was conceived in sin (ie: he was in sin from the first moment of his existence [conception]). The third passage is from Job (14:1,4) 1 Man born of a woman, living for a short time, is filled with many miseries. 4 Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed? is it not thou who only art? Job writes that "Man born of woman" (v 1) lives "a short time" (that Death thing we saw in Genesis). He also asks God who can make "him" (v 4) (man born of woman, see v 1) "clean". He also notes that "man born of woman" (v 1) is "conceived of unclean seed" (v 4), how can even the seed of a man be unclean without Original Sin? Moving along to Christian Scriptures, Romans 5:14-19 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died: much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation: but grace is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. 19 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. Why is that if Original Sin does not exist, "death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned" (v 14)? or that Saint Paul took such pains to explain that through one man (Adam) "many died" (v 15), that "judgement was by one unto condemnation (v 16)? or that "by one man's offense death reigned through one" (v 17)? "Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation" (v 18 )? or finally "For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners" (v 19). Saint Paul also writes in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 21 For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. 22 And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. Saint Paul tells us that through one man (Adam) came death (v 21), and all in "in Adam... die" (v 22) Please also consider Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, chapter 2, verses 1-3, 1 And you, when you were dead in your offences and sins, 2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: 3 In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: Paul tells us that without Christ we are dead in our "offenses and sins" (v 1), before Christ we "walked according to the course of this world" (v 2). The reason for this, though, is not only our personal sin, but as Paul tells in verse 3, we "were by nature children of wrath" [emphasis mine]. By describing "wrath" as our "nature" (v 3), Saint Paul shows us that in the very core of our beings, without Christ we are sinful (not through something we did, but because it is part of Man since the fall). As far as the term "Fall" not being used for original sin, the argument is spurious at best. There are plenty of ideas and words found in the Scriptures which are routinely rejected by posters here (and many authors they admire) because of personal taste (from what I can see), so it doesn't really follow that you can demand a particular word to be in Scripture for the teaching to be true. Secondly, as a term, it is short hand for the theology based on passages which I have cited above and their intersection with the philosophy of much more learned men than myself who were given responsibilities (and abilities) by God to teach and preserve certain things within the Church. This ended up being longer than I had hoped for, but there you have it. Feel free to explain to me why my exegis, quotes, or understandings are wrong. pax Christi jamesAMDG