It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:36 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 
 Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11 
Author Message

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Does anyone have any information on how 2John 10-11 should be properly understood and applied in our lives?

Quote:
10 If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. 11 For he that says unto him: God speed you, communicates with his wicked works.


I'm sure many of us Catholics have family members or other people we know closely that are not Catholic. How should 2John 10-11 be applied in those cases? Would we be violating a divine law if we let them inside our home? Is this dependent on any judgment on our own part of the particular danger the non-Catholic presents, or is the fact that they don't profess to be Catholic the only variable that matters? Are there any exceptions? Would we be violating a divine law, without exception, if we were to let a non-Catholic grand-parent, father, mother, sibling, uncle, aunt, son, or daughter into our home?

Any thoughts or Catholic sources are welcome.


Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Pax Christi !

Joe- a good place to start with biblical verses is with any good Catholic Commentary. Here is Haydocks regarding this letter and verese;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ver. 7. Many seducers are gone out into the world; antichrists, who confess not Christ to have come in the flesh. These were the disciples of Simon the magician, the Cerinthians, Ebionites, &c. See 1 John ii. 18. (Witham)

Ver. 8-9. We here see the reward for adhering to the Catholic faith, and the condemnation for revolting from the received truth. The apostles, and their lawful successors in the ministry, determine the true doctrine in points which innovators call into controversy, which being once done and declared to the faithful, they need no other mark to know a false teacher, but that he cometh with another doctrine than that which has been delivered.

Ver. 10. Nor say to him, Hail; or peace be to you, God speed you, all hail; or use any form of saluting him, as you would a friend, much less receive or entertain him in your house: this admonition is in general to forewarn persons of the dangers which may arise from a familiarity with heretics, and such as teach evil doctrine. But by this is not forbidden civility, kindness, and a sincere charity for all men, by which we ought to wish and pray for the eternal salvation of every one. I translate Ave by peace be to you, because this was the usual salutation among the Jews, and in those times, as we see in Luke xxiv. and John xx.


Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:26 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Joe: Let's not get scrupulous here. The overriding virtue all Catholics must practice is charity...which means love of God first, and all others for the love of God.

In addition, you cannot authoritatively decide that anyone of your acquaintances, and most especially, in your own family, are heretics in the sense I think you mean. Some may hold heretical ideas, but they may not know those ideas are heretical.

In any case, the original Douay-Rheims New Testament of 1582 has the following footnote in regard to this passage in St. John's second epistle:

"10. Receive him not Though in such times and places where the community or most of it be infected, necessity often forces the faithful to converse with such in worldly affairs, to salute them, to eat and speak with them, and the Church by decree of Council, for the more quietness of timorous consciences provides that they incur no excommunication or other censures for communicating in worldly affairs with any of this kind, except that those be by name excommunicated or declared to be heretics: yet even in worldly conversation and secular acts of our lives, we must avoid them as much as we can, because their familiarity in many ways is contagious and bothersome to good men, namely to the simple: but in matters of religion, in praying, reading their books, hearing their sermons, presence at their services, partaking of their Sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great damnable sin to deal with them."

Obviously, none of this has any application to one's own family: all of the above addresses only our interaction with those outside of both our own family and the religious community of which you are a part, i.e., the generality of the population in the United States, for instance.

In fact, by your constant charity, kindness and non-judgmental interactions with your family, and especially by your prayers for them, you can, over the long term, bring them to a better understanding of their spiritual situation. By simply cutting them off, or by chastising them unfairly, you will simply drive them away. To do otherwise seems to me to be suspiciously based in pride, or even laziness. We must be apostles.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Pax Christi !


Ken good post ! Charity is what we want to strive for, and the Haydock Commentary I posted also teaches this;


Quote:
Ver. 10. Nor say to him, Hail; or peace be to you, God speed you, all hail; or use any form of saluting him, as you would a friend, much less receive or entertain him in your house: this admonition is in general to forewarn persons of the dangers which may arise from a familiarity with heretics, and such as teach evil doctrine. But by this is not forbidden civility, kindness, and a sincere charity for all men, by which we ought to wish and pray for the eternal salvation of every one. I translate Ave by peace be to you, because this was the usual salutation among the Jews, and in those times, as we see in Luke xxiv. and John xx.


In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:58 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Thank you, Vince. Your posts aren't too bad either. (Hee hee!) ;-)

Excellent, in fact.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Ken and Vince,

Your responses are greatly appreciated. I generally agree with you on this. However, I know people who adamantly disagree and tell others that it’s a mortal sin to let anyone in their home that doesn’t profess to be Catholic. They take this passage to be a divine command that leaves no exception. They’d say this would apply even if the non-Catholic is a member of the immediate family. They’d say that it would be enough to know that the person didn’t profess to be Catholic for this passage to oblige us, under pain of mortal sin, to keep them out of our home.

Ken Gordon wrote:
...In addition, you cannot authoritatively decide that anyone of your acquaintances, and most especially, in your own family, are heretics in the sense I think you mean. Some may hold heretical ideas, but they may not know those ideas are heretical.


Do you think it makes a difference if the acquaintance or family member were a protestant and/or didn't profess to be Catholic at all?

Ken Gordon wrote:
In fact, by your constant charity, kindness and non-judgmental interactions with your family, and especially by your prayers for them, you can, over the long term, bring them to a better understanding of their spiritual situation. By simply cutting them off, or by chastising them unfairly, you will simply drive them away. To do otherwise seems to me to be suspiciously based in pride, or even laziness. We must be apostles.


I do agree with this. Some may say, however, that we are not trusting in God by digressing his laws to do what we think is charitable.


Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Joe Cupertino wrote:
However, I know people who adamantly disagree and tell others that it’s a mortal sin to let anyone in their home that doesn’t profess to be Catholic. They take this passage to be a divine command that leaves no exception. They’d say this would apply even if the non-Catholic is a member of the immediate family. They’d say that it would be enough to know that the person didn’t profess to be Catholic for this passage to oblige us, under pain of mortal sin, to keep them out of our home.

I'm sorry, but I absolutely and completely disagree with these folks. Their attitude is certainly not that of Our Lord, who ate with "sinners" including the scribes and pharisees. How can these folks expect to help to convert these "non-Catholics"? They sound like the Dimonds and their ilk.

Joe Cupertino wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
...In addition, you cannot authoritatively decide that anyone of your acquaintances, and most especially, in your own family, are heretics in the sense I think you mean. Some may hold heretical ideas, but they may not know those ideas are heretical.


Do you think it makes a difference if the acquaintance or family member were a protestant and/or didn't profess to be Catholic at all?

Protestants are different from those who "don't profess to be Catholic". Just because one doesn't openly profess Catholicism doesn't necessarily mean they aren't Catholic. They may simply be a very weak Catholic. Even so, both can be helped by Catholics towards a better understanding of their spiritual condition. Such actions as you mention above are seldom needed unless the one in question is particularly obnoxious. Even then, charity can make a big difference. The only thing one must guard against, IMHO, is corruption of someone in the gathering who is weak in their faith, like impressionable children. I must admit, however, to being particularly displeased with most protestants. I find atheists and non-believers to be easier to deal with in most cases.

I have the greatest of respect for people like Fr. Leslie Rumble who converted from protestantism and became a Catholic priest, eventually even becoming the Professor of Theology at a Catholic seminary. He discussed our Faith with protestants and non-believers of every stripe, yet never once lost his temper with them. In contrast, I have extreme difficulty keeping my temper with such folks. I find them almost impossibly irritating. To me, they are literally irrational, and most certainly not consistent.

Joe Cupertino wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
In fact, by your constant charity, kindness and non-judgmental interactions with your family, and especially by your prayers for them, you can, over the long term, bring them to a better understanding of their spiritual situation. By simply cutting them off, or by chastising them unfairly, you will simply drive them away. To do otherwise seems to me to be suspiciously based in pride, or even laziness. We must be apostles.


I do agree with this. Some may say, however, that we are not trusting in God by digressing his laws to do what we think is charitable.

I think you mean "transgressing": in any case, if you examine what the Law of God explicitly says in this sort of situation as defined and clarified for us by the Church to do as those scrupulous people suggest is transgressing God's primary law of Charity.

Our job in this life is to not only save our own souls (which, of course is our primary job) but also to save as many other souls as God puts in our way.

I have always believed that God never puts anyone in our way, that is, that God never allows us to meet anyone, without His including the opportunity for us to do something to better their spiritual condition. What He gives us, He expects us to share as much as we are able.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Ken Gordon wrote:
Joe Cupertino wrote:
However, I know people who adamantly disagree and tell others that it’s a mortal sin to let anyone in their home that doesn’t profess to be Catholic. They take this passage to be a divine command that leaves no exception. They’d say this would apply even if the non-Catholic is a member of the immediate family. They’d say that it would be enough to know that the person didn’t profess to be Catholic for this passage to oblige us, under pain of mortal sin, to keep them out of our home.

I'm sorry, but I absolutely and completely disagree with these folks. Their attitude is certainly not that of Our Lord, who ate with "sinners" including the scribes and pharisees. How can these folks expect to help to convert these "non-Catholics"? They sound like the Dimonds and their ilk.


I wouldn't be sorry for disagreeing with them. That their position on this is derived more from pride than from a desire to follow God's laws is usually manifested by their character and attitude in other circumstances. It's typically marked by anger.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Protestants are different from those who "don't profess to be Catholic". Just because one doesn't openly profess Catholicism doesn't necessarily mean they aren't Catholic. They may simply be a very weak Catholic. Even so, both can be helped by Catholics towards a better understanding of their spiritual condition. Such actions as you mention above are seldom needed unless the one in question is particularly obnoxious. Even then, charity can make a big difference. The only thing one must guard against, IMHO, is corruption of someone in the gathering who is weak in their faith, like impressionable children. I must admit, however, to being particularly displeased with most protestants. I find atheists and non-believers to be easier to deal with in most cases.


To be a little more precise, how should the passage be applied to a person that is a Protestant, has never been Catholic, and has no difficulty in saying that they are not Catholic? I'm trying to narrow the scope of the topic to make it easier to work through. Let's also say that the person is not obnoxious and rarely ever speaks of religion.

Ken Gordon wrote:
I have the greatest of respect for people like Fr. Leslie Rumble who converted from protestantism and became a Catholic priest, eventually even becoming the Professor of Theology at a Catholic seminary. He discussed our Faith with protestants and non-believers of every stripe, yet never once lost his temper with them. In contrast, I have extreme difficulty keeping my temper with such folks. I find them almost impossibly irritating. To me, they are literally irrational, and most certainly not consistent.


Yes, I also highly admire people who can argue without quarelling, especially orally and extemporaneously (<-this is to make up for my misuse of "digress" :P ). That blood-boiling sensation that arises in arguments or controversial discusssions seems so much a part of human nature that it seems that those who seemed to have overcome it must have put in a lot of time to gain such a great deal of self-control. I've personally noticed that even when I don't let myself become angry, the underlying frustrations can still make it hard to think and speak effectively.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Joe Cupertino wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
In fact, by your constant charity, kindness and non-judgmental interactions with your family, and especially by your prayers for them, you can, over the long term, bring them to a better understanding of their spiritual situation. By simply cutting them off, or by chastising them unfairly, you will simply drive them away. To do otherwise seems to me to be suspiciously based in pride, or even laziness. We must be apostles.


I do agree with this. Some may say, however, that we are not trusting in God by digressing his laws to do what we think is charitable.

I think you mean "transgressing": in any case, if you examine what the Law of God explicitly says in this sort of situation as defined and clarified for us by the Church to do as those scrupulous people suggest is transgressing God's primary law of Charity.


Yep, totally meant "transgressing" :oops: . Thanks! :D

I agree that these scrupulous people are the ones transgressing God's primary law of Charity, but it is Charity that drives me to want to make that clear to them.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Our job in this life is to not only save our own souls (which, of course is our primary job) but also to save as many other souls as God puts in our way.

I have always believed that God never puts anyone in our way, that is, that God never allows us to meet anyone, without His including the opportunity for us to do something to better their spiritual condition. What He gives us, He expects us to share as much as we are able.


That is an interesting veiw. It's a good reason to make sure we are focusing most of our efforts on the people closest to us first.

My thoughts, thus far, on the original passage in question is that St. John's command is in reference to a certain group of false teachers at the time that were actually leading a heresy or making concerted efforts to spread their heresy from town to town. It's a command against the seducers, not necessarily the seduced. This would make sense of why providing them with room and board is a communication in their wicked ways. It would be like providing room and board to someone who needs a place to stay in order to attack the town the following day. It's aiding and abetting them in their crime. I'll post more of my reasons for this when I can find more time. What do you think?

I'd still like to know if anyone can find more commentaries specifically addressing this. You'd think this would have been addressed by at least a few theologians.


Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:20 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Sorry all, the poor fellow is now taking a permanent holiday in South America. :)

This is not an Agony Aunt column.

Finally, please keep in mind that this is a family forum where we keep the injunction of St. Paul not even to let certain things be named amongst us.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:49 am
Posts: 29
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Joe Cupertino wrote:
Are there any exceptions? Would we be violating a divine law, without exception, if we were to let a non-Catholic grand-parent, father, mother, sibling, uncle, aunt, son, or daughter into our home?

Any thoughts or Catholic sources are welcome.


Hi Joe,

The following is taken from “The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide”, Vol.VI, pp.502-504 (2 John).

Ver. 10.—lf any one come to you, and bring not this doctrine, &c. S. John in this place not only advises, as some think, but also commands Electa and all the rest of the faithful not to receive to hospitality, nor say Hail, to any one who brings another doctrine, i.e. one which is contrary to the orthodox faith of Christ. For he who saith hail to such is partaker of their evil deeds. That is, he seems to favour and applaud the heretical teacher.
Observe, not only by human and canon laws, as since the time of S. John they have been enacted by Pontiffs and Councils, heretics are to be avoided in three cases. The first is, when there is danger lest you or yours should be perverted by them, which is a thing which ordinarily happens. For, as S. Paul saith, “Their word doth creep as doth a cancer.” (2 Tim. ii. 17.)
2d. When, by receiving, you would seem to favour his heresy, and tacitly profess or encourage it. As, for example, if you were to receive to your house and table a recognised Calvinistic minister, who came for the purpose of propagating his heresy. In the same way it would be wrong to be present at his preaching, or eucharists, or to communicate with him in sacris.
3d. When you give scandal to others, so that they, thinking you to be a host and patron of heretics, should be by your example emboldened to do the same.
These cases being excepted, intercourse with heretics is not forbidden by the Divine and natural law, especially if necessity, or mercy, or grave benefit counsels it.
What S, John here teaches by way of precept he enforced by his example. For having entered into a bath, as soon as he saw Cerinthus there, he sprang out, crying, “Let us flee quickly lest the bath in which is Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, should fall upon us!”
S. John’s disciple, S. Polycarp, followed his master, saying in his Epistle to the Philippians, in allusion to these words of S. John, “Abstain,” he says, “from scandals, and from false brethren, who bear the name of the Lord in vain, who cause foolish men to go astray. For every one who confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he is antichrist: and he who confesses not the mystery of the Cross is a devil.” Thus wrote holy Polycarp, and he acted accordingly. For meeting the heretic Marcion, and being asked by him if he knew him, he answered, “I know thee to be the devil’s first-born.”
Thus S. Hermenegild was slain by command of his father, Levvigild, king of the Goths, because he would not receive the Eucharist at Easter from an Arian bishop. This is related by S. Gregory (3 Dial. 31), who calls him a martyr of the Church.
Eusebius of Vercelli, being taken by the Arians, preferred to die of hunger rather than take food from those heretics.
S. Paphnutius took Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem by the hand when he was through simplicity associating with heretics, and led him away from them, saying, “I cannot suffer so venerable a bishop to sit in the seat of pestilence, and to communicate with unclean heretics even by a word.”
When S. Martin communicated with the Bishops of the Ithacian sect, in the hope of saving them, he was warned by an angel not to do so. And although he repeated, he experienced a diminution of grace, so that he did not work so many miracles as he had previously wrought. (Sulp. Sever. lib. 3 Dial)
Still more are heretical books to be avoided. For these pestilent productions conceal their heresy like a plague under an appearance of elegance and wisdom, and instil it into the minds of the readers. In this present age the heresy of Luther and Calvin has been dispersed through so many kingdoms by means of their books. If you wish to take away their heresy, take away their books and their ministers. In truth you will have taken it away as soon as you have substituted pious and learned priests and preachers.
Neither say godspeed (ave) to him. The Syriac has, ye shall not say either hail to him or farewell. The ancient Romans said ave, or salve at coming in, vale at going out. Ave then here means the same as the Greek χαὶζειν, rejoice.
For he who saith to him Ave (Syriac rejoice) is a partaker in his evil deeds. For he who salutes a heretical teacher seems to approve his heresy. Some Latin copies add here, Lo, I have told you beforehand, that ye may not be confounded in the day of the Lord. [Underlining my own]


The “Great Commentary” is a translation of the work of Cornelius a Lapide by the Anglican, Thomas W. Mossman. While I would not usually trust a translation by a Protestant the Dublin Review (January 1882) described Mossman’s translation to be “on the whole, very good and faithful.” This was in reference to the third volume, but presumably subsequent volumes were of similar standard. For the entire review see The Dublin Review, Third Series, Vol. VII, January-April, MDCCCLXXXII
pp.271-272. http://www.archive.org/stream/3sdublinr ... t_djvu.txt


Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
I think the main thing here is prudence, necessity and whether or not its your house.

Take for example me, I don't currently own the house I am living in. I would say that a majority of traditionalist suffer through this, especially the younger ones who are completely Orthodox in their faith and practice. However, they will do the best given the plate they have been given, in a house where the head of the house is a solid Catholic, such heretics should never be permitted to enter the home for the sake of befriending but maybe for other reasons such as discussing with him about the heresies they hold. You should never pretend to be too familiar with that kind of person, always be honest and frank with them, treating them with charity and patience especially if they are particularly nasty about it. So it is difficult for me to be able to kick out heretics, because I simply can't; thus I am by necessity stuck in my situation with lots of bad stuff to deal with in my environment. I would completely do things differently if I had the power to do so, but I am not held guilty because the Lord knows the heart of man and all of our particulars.

Another different point, the family needs to definitely know if they are heretics or not. The difference is whether you or someone else more capable has done that already, if no one that you know has done it. Then you have to by divine charity, tell them the truth that saves.

The main thing is don't pretend to show familiarity with such people. If you ever talk to them, let it be about the Catholic faith and whatever necessity demands. Necessity demands for example that you sell your products (if you are a business) to non Catholics, for your survival etc... On the other hand, if you know that its a gay couple asking you to rent, borrow your place, or take pictures of them for their "gay" ceremony or in any way shape/form participate in their abominable heresies, the Catholic faith says that you simply refuse in that case.

I don't particularly see what MHFM and their "ilk" have said wrong, when it comes to the above mentioned topic. I tend to think they have much more charity towards protestants then with their own kind (traditionalists), just listen to their audio and you will see how I am right >.<.

+PAX+

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Thu May 02, 2013 3:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Relying heavily on the internet, I attempted to translate the below passage from Cardinal John De Lugo Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio.I . (http://books.google.com/books?id=FnlXyNNfqioC , pp.560-561)

I struggled to find the proper English word or phrase in some places (ie. I don’t think “suppono” should be actually translated as “suppose” in this passage). Can anyone confirm my translation is correct, and/or help correct it?

Quote:
Suppono, hanc communicationem posse aliunde esse illicitam propter scandalum, vel propter periculum pervertionis, vel aliquid aliud: nunc vero solum quaerimus, an ex hoc praecise capite, quod haeretici omnes excommunicati sunt, ut suppono ex disputatione sequenti,reddatur illicita communicatio cum illis. Est autem duplex excommunicatio, altera sacra, seu in rebus sacris; altera civilis, seu in rebus profanis, & civilibus, & de utraque potest quaestio procedere.

Prima sententia docet, quoties constat aliquem esse haereticum, eo ipso prohibitam esse cum illo communicationem. Ita Sotus in 4. Dist. 25. Quast.1 art.1 & 3. & dist. 20. Quast.1. art.5. conclus. 2. Communis tamen sententia id negat, quandiu haereticus non est juridice declaratus, & denuciatus; quia Concilium Constantiense indulsit generaliter omnibus fidelibus, ut possent licite communicare cum omnibus excommunicatis, exceptis nominatim denunciatis ubi nulla prorsus sit exceptio de haereticis: non est ergo cur indultum illud ad communicationem etiam cum illis non extendatur.
Ita Toetus, Ugolinus, Suarez, Azor, & alii, quos refert, & sequitur Thomas Sanchez lib.2. in Decal.cap.9.n.3 Hurtado in prasenti, disp.76&4. & alii comuniter, quod ego etiam in aliis locis semper amplexus sum.


My translation:

Quote:
Suppose, this communication can be unlawful from another source than because of scandal, or because of the danger of perversion, or something else: but now alone we inquire, whether from this precise chapter, that all heretics are excommunicated, as supposed from the following argument, rendering communication with them unlawful.

The first opinion teaches, as often as it is evident that someone is a heretic, the very fact makes communication with them forbidden. Thus Soto 4. Dist.25. Quast.1 art.1 & 3. & dist. 20. Quast.1. art.5. conclus. 2. The common opinion, however, denies this, in as much as they are not legally declared a heretic, & denounced; because the Council of Constance granted all the faithful in general, as to permit communication with all the excommunicated, except those denounced by name, & those notorious for striking a cleric, with no given exception of heretics: there is not therefore a reason the permission is not extended to communicate with them. Thus so Toetus, Ugolinus, Suarez, Azor, & others, in what may be of importance, & follows Thomas Sanchez lib.2. in Decal.cap.9.n.3 Hurtado in prasenti, disp.76&4. & others in common, that I still also in other places always esteemed.


I’ve seen some people say that the laws permitting communication with tolerati excommunicates are only in reference to excommunication for anything other than heresy, and that canon laws, such as 2261, don’t apply to heretics. The above quote is significant in that it provides an authoritative source that concisely shows that the permission to communicate withtolerati excommunicates also applies to heretics. There is also a quote (which can be found online) from this same section that was finely translated by John Daly showing that sacraments can be received from heretics in certain cases.

I’d be very grateful if someone can help correct my translation above.


Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Hi Joe, using your translation I got this. See if it helps.

Quote:
I assume that this excommunication may be unlawful form somewhere else, because of scandal or because of the danger of perversion, or something else: but now we only inquire, whether from this precise chapter, that all heretics are excommunicated, as I assume from the next disputation, is illicit the communication with them. Excommunication is twofold: one is sacred or regarding sacred things; the other one is civil, or in profane and civil things and the question may fall on both.
The first opinion teaches, as often as it is evident that someone is a heretic, the very fact makes communication with him forbidden. Thus Soto 4. Dist.25. Quast.1 art.1 & 3. & dist. 20. Quast.1. art.5. conclus. 2. The common opinion, however, denies this, in as much as they are not legally declared a heretic, & denounced; because the Council of Constance granted all the faithful in general, as to permit communication with all the excommunicated, except those denounced by name, & those notorious for striking a cleric, with no given exception of heretics: therefore there is no reason by which that permission don’ t be extended to communicate with them. Thus teach Toetus, Ugolinus, Suarez, Azor, & others, quoted and followed by follows Thomas Sanchez lib.2. in Decal.cap.9.n.3 Hurtado in prasenti, disp.76&4. & others in common, which also I’ve always embraced in other places.


Note: in bold the differences. The part in red it isn´t found in the original.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
I made a mistake transcribing this from http://books.google.com/books?id=FnlXyNNfqioC, pg. 561. I've added the missing portion below in bold.

Quote:
Suppono, hanc communicationem posse aliunde esse illicitam propter scandalum, vel propter periculum pervertionis, vel aliquid aliud: nunc vero solum quaerimus, an ex hoc praecise capite, quod haeretici omnes excommunicati sunt, ut suppono ex disputatione sequenti,reddatur illicita communicatio cum illis. Est autem duplex excommunicatio, altera sacra, seu in rebus sacris; altera civilis, seu in rebus profanis, & civilibus, & de utraque potest quaestio procedere.

Prima sententia docet, quoties constat aliquem esse haereticum, eo ipso prohibitam esse cum illo communicationem. Ita Sotus in 4. Dist. 25. Quast.1 art.1 & 3. & dist. 20. Quast.1. art.5. conclus. 2. Communis tamen sententia id negat, quandiu haereticus non est juridice declaratus, & denuciatus; quia Concilium Constantiense indulsit generaliter omnibus fidelibus, ut possent licite communicare cum omnibus excommunicatis, exceptis nominatim denunciatis, & notoriis Clericorum percussoribus, ubi nulla prorsus sit exceptio de haereticis: non est ergo cur indultum illud ad communicationem etiam cum illis non extendatur. Ita Toetus, Ugolinus, Suarez, Azor, & alii, quos refert, & sequitur Thomas Sanchez lib.2. in Decal.cap.9.n.3 Hurtado in prasenti, disp.76&4. & alii comuniter, quod ego etiam in aliis locis semper amplexus sum.


Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:31 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
By the way, thank you, Christian for taking the time to go through this and make corrections. Much appreciated!


Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:43 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Joe Cupertino wrote:
I made a mistake transcribing this from http://books.google.com/books?id=FnlXyNNfqioC, pg. 561. I've added the missing portion below in bold.

Quote:
Suppono, hanc communicationem posse aliunde esse illicitam propter scandalum, vel propter periculum pervertionis, vel aliquid aliud: nunc vero solum quaerimus, an ex hoc praecise capite, quod haeretici omnes excommunicati sunt, ut suppono ex disputatione sequenti,reddatur illicita communicatio cum illis. Est autem duplex excommunicatio, altera sacra, seu in rebus sacris; altera civilis, seu in rebus profanis, & civilibus, & de utraque potest quaestio procedere.

Prima sententia docet, quoties constat aliquem esse haereticum, eo ipso prohibitam esse cum illo communicationem. Ita Sotus in 4. Dist. 25. Quast.1 art.1 & 3. & dist. 20. Quast.1. art.5. conclus. 2. Communis tamen sententia id negat, quandiu haereticus non est juridice declaratus, & denuciatus; quia Concilium Constantiense indulsit generaliter omnibus fidelibus, ut possent licite communicare cum omnibus excommunicatis, exceptis nominatim denunciatis, & notoriis Clericorum percussoribus, ubi nulla prorsus sit exceptio de haereticis: non est ergo cur indultum illud ad communicationem etiam cum illis non extendatur. Ita Toetus, Ugolinus, Suarez, Azor, & alii, quos refert, & sequitur Thomas Sanchez lib.2. in Decal.cap.9.n.3 Hurtado in prasenti, disp.76&4. & alii comuniter, quod ego etiam in aliis locis semper amplexus sum.


Ahhh, that´s what I thought!

You are most welcome Joe!

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Below is something from Suarez I attempted to translate that connects Ad Evitanda Scandala to heretics. This is found on pp.38-39 of The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Vol.VII-1886 (“Can a Priest say Mass privately for a deceased Protestant?” by Thomas Livius, C.SS.R.).
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PR1&id=qKM9AAAAYAAJ


Here’s the original passage that quotes Suarez:
Quote:
Suarez in his Treatise, De Fide, (Disp. xxi. Sect, iii.) in answer to the question: "Utrum ex vi hujus excommunicationis teneantur onmes fideles ad vitandum omnem haereticum sibi notum," replies:—

"... Jure antiquo haec obligatio universalis erat, nec postulabatur alia conditio ex parte excommunicati nisi quod in re ipsa excommunicationem incurrisset. Ex parte vero aliorum solum erat necessaria sufficiens notitia censurae, hac tantum observatione adhibita, ut si excommunicatus esset occultiis respectu aliorum, occulte vitaretur: si vero publicus, publice. Postea vero in Extrav. Ad evitanda... limitata fuit ilia obligatio, ut fideles tantum tenerentur vitare excommunicatum in particulari et nominatim denuntiatum... Statuendum est hoc novum jus Concilii Const. etiam ad haereticos extendi,... et verba Extrav. convincunt, quae et generalia sunt et addunt exceptionem quae firmat regulam quoad omnes alios. . . . Sententia omnino vera et practice certa, nimirum quantumcumque haereticus sit notorius et publicus, non teneri fideles ad vitandum ilium ex vi hujus censurae, donec sit per sententiam nominatim declaratus ac denuntiatus, est communis sententia. . . . Martinus V. priorem formam (scil. ex Concil. Constant.) approbavit, et communi usu Ecclesiae recepta est, ut latius ostendi in Tom. v., Disp. ix. Sect, ii." Again: "Si haereticus non sit declaratus per sententiam, non tenemur illium vitare ratione censurae, juxta Extrav. Ad evitanda." (De Censuris Disp. xi Sect. i. 16)



Here is my attempt at translating this (I’m basically using a combination of Google Translate, Wiktionary, and http://www.Latin-dictionary.net):
Quote:
Suarez in his Treatise, De Fide, (Disp. xxi. Sect, iii.) in answer to the question: “Whether by virtue of this excommunication all the faithful are to hold as to be avoided anyone known to be a heretic,” replies:-

“… the universal obligation of the old law was this, it did not demand another condition on the side of excommunicates except the fact that an excommunication was incurred. It was really only necessary that the censure was sufficiently known, which was the only observation employed, even if his excommunication was secret in another respect, he should be secretly avoided: if it was truly public, publicly. After this truth in Extrav. Ad evitanda… the obligation was limited, that the faithful were only bound to avoid those particularly excommunicated and denounced by name… This new law established by the Council of Constance also extends to heretics and the words of Extrav. prove this, which in general are added exception to strengthen rule as far as all others. The true opinion of all is practically certain, without doubt as much as a heretic is notorious and public, the faithful are not bound to avoid him because of his censure, until a sentence declares and denounces him by name, is the common opionion…. Martin V previously formed (scil. from the Council of Constance) approval, and the common usage received by the Church is, even broadly exhibited in Tom. v., Disp. Ix. Sect, ii.” Again: “If a heretic is not declared by a sentence, he is not to be held as to be avoided by reason of his censure, according to Extrav. Ad evitanda.” (De Censuris Disp. xi Sect. i. 16)

Does anything need corrected in this translation? I wasn’t able to figure out what the abbreviations “scil.” and “Extrav.” meant.


Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Joe, a quick translation:

Quote:
Suarez in his Treatise, De Fide, (Disp. xxi. Sect, iii.) in answer to the question: “Whether by virtue of this excommunication all the faithful are bound to avoid every heretic known to himself, he replies:-

“… By the old law this obligation was universal; it did not demand any other condition on the side of the excommunicated except the fact that he incurred in the excommunication. On the side of the others it was only necessary that the censure was sufficiently known, having this observation in mind: if his excommunication was secret to others, he should be avoided secretly: if it was public, publicly. Afterwards in Extrav. Ad evitanda… the obligation was limited, in such a way that the faithful were only bound to avoid those particularly excommunicated and denounced by name… This new law established by the Council of Constance also extends to heretics and the words of Extrav. prove this, which are both general and add an exception which confirms the rule towards everybody else. This teaching is completely true and certain in practice, in the sense that in as much as the heretic is notorious and public, the faithful are not bound to avoid him because of his censure, until a sentence declares and denounces him by name, is the common opinion…. Martin V approved the first form (that is, from the Council of Constance), and it was commonly received by the Church, as I broadly exhibited in Tom. v., Disp. Ix. Sect, ii.” Again: “If a heretic is not declared by sentence, he is not to be held as to be avoided by reason of his censure, according to Extrav. Ad evitanda.” (De Censuris Disp. xi Sect. i. 16).


scil = scilicet (namely, that is). I can´t remember the meaning of "Extrav" but I always had the idea it was a kind of official document, such as decretals, bulls, etc., but I´m not sure.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:30 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Joe, a quick translation:


Thanks to both of you - it's a worthy text.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
scil = scilicet (namely, that is). I can´t remember the meaning of "Extrav" but I always had the idea it was a kind of official document, such as decretals, bulls, etc., but I´m not sure.


Extrav. is an abbreviation of "litterae extravagantes" which I understand is a term used to refer to those official documents which remained outside of the semi-official collections, such as the Decretals (which makes sense literally, "extra" = outside and "vagantes" = wandering, as in wandering bishops). So these are "uncollected" texts, texts which for that reason must be referred to without a numerical reference. Somebody has translated "litterae extravagantes" as "private letters" and that seems to be all around the place, but I think that's wrong.

In this text "Extrav." is a reference to Ad evitanda scandala, the letter of Martin V upon which Suarez is commenting. This letter is very often referred to in this way.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Thank you John :)

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:28 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
No worries, Cristian, as we say here, and remember, I could well be mistaken. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Thanks Christian and John.

John, based on what you said about "Extrav.", I wonder if it's use with Ad Evitanda Scandala has something to do with the decree coming down in two different readings, as stated below in Charles Augustine's commentary on can.2258 https://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary#page/n3705/mode/2up:

Quote:
Note, however, that this decree has come down in two different readings, one of them being that of the Council of Constance, as reported by St. Antoninus of Florence, the other that preserved in the acts of the Vth Latern Council. ...The Code, in $2 of can. 2258, rather favors the Constance text...



On another note, I found the full quote of Cardinal De Lugo's teaching on communication with heretics in the sacred, of which John Daly had translated the more important parts. There was one part of what he didn't translate which I thought was interesting. In it Cardinal De Lugo speaks about heretics during his time that attended sacred rites, even the College of Cardinal's mass.

Here is the full quote about communicating with heretics in sacred rites. The bold parts are the parts that aren't seen in John Daly's translation, obviously left out for the sake of brevity. This is found on pp.562-563 of http://books.google.com/books?id=FnlXyNNfqioC
Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio.I wrote:
Secundo principaliter dubitatur, an non solum in civilibus, & humanis possimus cum haeretico non denunciato communicare, sed etiam in sacris, & spiritualibus. Certum autem est, non posse nos cum haereticis communicare in ritibus propriis sectae haereticae, quia hoc esset contra praeceptum confessionis fidei, & contineret implicitam professionis erroris: sed quaestio est de rebus sacris nullum errorem continentibus, v.g. an liceat cum haeretico Missam audire, vel eo praesente celebrare, vel ipsi ritu Catholico celebranti adesse, etc. Negat Basilius Pontius in tomo de matrimonio, in sine, in Appendice de matrimonio Catholici cum haeretico, cap.9. $.1,n.8. decens, coram haretico ex nulla causa celebrari posse, nec ex gravissmo metu: ideque pro competto supponit, nec ulla ratione probat. Miror viram doctum non advertise in contrarium esse auctoritatem omnium Doctorum, quos sequuatur Sanchez dicto cap.9 n.7. Suarez dicta sect.3.n.5. Azor, & alii, quos sequitur Hurtado dicta disp.76.$.12. & conitat ex dictis, quia excommunicatus non denuntiatus, nec notorious Clerici percussor non est vitandus etiam in sacris, ut constat ex dicta extravaganti: ex eo autem quod haereticus sit, non est specialis ratio, cur id non liceat, nisi aliunde sit scandalum, vel irreverentia contra sidem, aut aliquid aliud, quae omnia sunt extrinseca, & non semper inveniuntur Usus etiam est in contrarium, nam Principes aliqui haeretici, qui quandoque Romam, vel ad alia Catholicorum loca, permittentibus superioribus, veniunt, eunt ad Ecclesias, & sacris intersunt, sacerdotibus id scientibus, & absque scrupulo celebrantibus. Imo vidi ego aliquando eos coram sacro Cardinalium Collegio Missae solemni interesse scientibus bene omnibus eos esse haereticos, & simulantibus, & merito propter fructum experientia probatum; concipiunt enim meliora de ritibus Catholicis, & fraudes suorum magistrorum advertunt. Fateor, eos seclusa ignorantia non posse Missae interesse, cum excommunicati sint, & Concilium Constantiense illis non faveat: qui tamen coram illis celebrant, non peccant, cum ab eodem Concilio licentiam habeant cum illis communicandi in profanes, atque etiam in sacris.

Tertio tamen dubitari magis potest, an possint Catholici ab haereticis non denunciatis sacramenta suscipere. Negat Azor 1.tom.lib.8.c.11.q.7. & cap.13.q.7. licet parum constans in fundamento nam primo loco dicit, id provenire non solum ob excommunicate onem, sed etiam ob haeresim: in 2. Autem loco dicit, non esse ob haeresim, se dob excommunicationem, quatenus omnis excommunicatus etiam occultus caret jurisdictione, cui favet Sotus in 3.dist.20.q.1.art.5.conclus.2. ex alio fundamento, quia putat omnes haereticos, & schismaticos censeri nominatim excommunicatos, & vitandos.


Contraria sentential communis, & vera est, nisi aliunde ratione scandali, vel ob negationem fidei implicitam illicitum sit, vel quia charitas obligat ad impediendum peccatum ministry haeretici indigne ministrantis, si necessitas non urgeat, ita cum Navarro Sanchez ubi supra num.10. Suarez num.5. Hurtado ubi supra,$.13. & loquens de sacramento poenitentiae idem dixi disp.18 de poenitentia, sect.2num.18& 19. & loquens de matrimonio ac aliis sacramentis, idem dixi disp.8.de sacramentis in genere, sect.14. & constat ex dicta extravaganti, in qua conceditur fidelibus communicatio non excommunicatis tolerates in susceptione, & administratione sacramentorum: cum ergo ii haeretici non sint excommunicati denunciati, nec notorii Clerici percussores, non est cur ratione excommunicationis prohibeamur ab iis sacramenta suscipere: quanvis id aliunde possit saepe illicitum esse, nisi necessitas excuset, ut explicui in praedictis locis. An vero possit etiam Catholicus iis aliquando sacramenta ministrare, dixi praedicta disp.8. de sacramentis in genere.

Agit rurfus Hurtado in hoc loco dicta disp.76.$.15.& sequentibus, de aliis communicationum generibus in rebus sacris, nempe de Catholico suscipiente ex sacro fonte filium haeretici, de comitante funus haeretici; de sepeliente haereticum in templo: de quibus tamen, & aliis ad hanc materiam spectantibus nos diximus ex professo supra disp.14.sect.5.$.5. & ibi videri possunt. Restabat dicere de communicatione cum iis haereticis in matrimonio cum illis contrahendo; de hoc tamen dicemus sectione sequenti.


Here's the piece from above that I attempted to translate:
Quote:
Usus etiam est in contrarium, nam Principes aliqui haeretici, qui quandoque Romam, vel ad alia Catholicorum loca, permittentibus superioribus, veniunt, eunt ad Ecclesias, & sacris intersunt, sacerdotibus id scientibus, & absque scrupulo celebrantibus. Imo vidi ego aliquando eos coram sacro Cardinalium Collegio Missae solemni interesse scientibus bene omnibus eos esse haereticos, & simulantibus, & merito propter fructum experientia probatum; concipiunt enim meliora de ritibus Catholicis, & fraudes suorum magistrorum advertunt. Fateor, eos seclusa ignorantia non posse Missae interesse, cum excommunicati sint, & Concilium Constantiense illis non faveat: qui tamen coram illis celebrant, non peccant, cum ab eodem Concilio licentiam habeant cum illis communicandi in profanes, atque etiam in sacris.


Here is my translation attempt:
Quote:
The practice is to the contrary, for leaders of some heretics, which whenever in Rome, or going to other Catholic places, superiors permit, they come, they go to the Churches, & attend the sacred, priests knowing it, & celebrate without scruple. Indeed, I have sometimes seen them in the presence of the sacred College of Cardinal’s Mass that I solemnly attend, all knowing well that they are heretics, & imitating, & because of the esteemed merits produced by the experience; for receiving the benefits of Catholic rites, & deceiving their teacher’s notice. I acknowledge, excluding ignorance, they cannot attend Mass, when they are excommunicated, & the Council of Constance does not favor them: those, however, who celebrate in the presence of them, do not sin, when the same Council permits them to hold communication with them in profane, and also even in the sacred.


Does anything in my translation need corrected?


Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
My quick review :)

Quote:
The practice is to the contrary, for some heretical princes, which whenever go to Rome or other Catholic places, they go, with the permission of the superiors, to the Churches, & attend the sacred (ceremonies), priests knowing it, & celebrate without scruple. Indeed, I have sometimes seen them in the presence of the sacred College of Cardinal’s solemn Mass, all knowing well that they are heretics, & pretending, & because of the esteemed merits produced by the experience; indeed they conceive better thoughts of the benefits of Catholic rites, & notice the frauds of their teachers. I acknowledge, excluding ignorance, they cannot attend Mass, since they are excommunicated, & the Council of Constance does not favor them: those, however, who celebrate in the presence of them, do not sin, since the same Council permits them to communicate with them in profane, and also even in sacred (ceremonies).


Not sure of the red sentence. I think it means something like: “rightly proved (as good) by the experience”.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Last edited by Cristian Jacobo on Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:51 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
My quick review :)

Quote:
The practice is to the contrary, for some heretical princes, which whenever go to Rome or other Catholic places, they go, with the permission of the superiors, to the Churches, & attend the sacred (ceremonies), priests knowing it, & celebrate without scruple. Indeed, I have sometimes seen them in the presence of the sacred College of Cardinal’s solemn Mass, all knowing well that they are heretics, & pretending, & because of the esteemed merits produced by the experience; indeed the conceive better thoughts of the benefits of Catholic rites, & notice the frauds of their teachers. I acknowledge, excluding ignorance, they cannot attend Mass, since they are excommunicated, & the Council of Constance does not favor them: those, however, who celebrate in the presence of them, do not sin, since the same Council permits them to communicate with them in profane, and also even in sacred (ceremonies).


Not sure of the red sentence. I think it means something like: “rightly proved (as good) by the experience”.


Yes, and "the" should be "they": "indeed [from this experience] they conceive better thoughts of the benefits of Catholic rites, & [consequently] notice the frauds of their [own heretical] teachers."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
My quick review :)

Quote:
The practice is to the contrary, for some heretical princes, which whenever go to Rome or other Catholic places, they go, with the permission of the superiors, to the Churches, & attend the sacred (ceremonies), priests knowing it, & celebrate without scruple. Indeed, I have sometimes seen them in the presence of the sacred College of Cardinal’s solemn Mass, all knowing well that they are heretics, & pretending, & because of the esteemed merits produced by the experience; indeed the conceive better thoughts of the benefits of Catholic rites, & notice the frauds of their teachers. I acknowledge, excluding ignorance, they cannot attend Mass, since they are excommunicated, & the Council of Constance does not favor them: those, however, who celebrate in the presence of them, do not sin, since the same Council permits them to communicate with them in profane, and also even in sacred (ceremonies).


Not sure of the red sentence. I think it means something like: “rightly proved (as good) by the experience”.


Yes, and "the" should be "they": "indeed [from this experience] they conceive better thoughts of the benefits of Catholic rites, & [consequently] notice the frauds of their [own heretical] teachers."


Typo corrected. Thanks :)

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Heretics in the Home 2John 10-11
Wonderful. Thank you both!


Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:20 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.