Did you hear this at Mass today?

13 The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son, Jesus, whom you indeed delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged he should be released.
14 But you denied the Holy and the Just one, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you.
15 But the author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.
16 And his name, through the faith of his name, this man, hath made this man strong whom you have seen and known: and the faith which is by him, hath given this perfect soundness in the sight of you all.
17 And now, brethren, I know that you did it through ignorance, as also your rulers.
18 But those things, which God had foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out:

We at ABE Ministry* have always heard this as a bit curious for, at first blush, it would seem the Jews acted out of ignorance and, thus, were not culpable, but our first Pope, nonetheless, solicits the repentance and conversion of the Jews.

Of course, Holy Mother Church does no such thing anymore; that is, she does not solicit repentance of the Messias-Deniers nor does she seek their conversion.

Too old school; or is it because there exists the doctrinal novelty that, effectively, there are two covenants, both of which are slavific?  Who knows exactly but we at ABE Ministry are of the opinion that this situation stinks like the bottom of a monkey's cage.

In any event, back to the bolded parts in verses 17 and 19.  What are we to make of them?

Well, when such questions arise, Raider Fan turns to a reliable source, in this instance, St Thomas Aquinas, and he answers in ways that would get him excommunicated today but, upon reading his reasons for his conclusions, we at ABE ministry understand that the hatred of Jesus by the Messias-Deniers is as profoundly ponderous today as is fear of the Jews politically palpable.

Lord, we pray that our Prelates will preach the truth to the Messias-Deniers and solicit their repentance and conversion even as we at ABE ministry confess the numbers of our sins are as uncountable as the depths of our sins are unfathomable; that is, it takes a sinner to know a sinner.

Whether Christ's persecutors knew who He was?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's persecutors did know who He was. For it is written (Mat. 21:38) that the husbandmen seeing the son said within themselves: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." On this Jerome remarks: "Our Lord proves most manifestly by these words that the rulers of the Jews crucified the Son of God, not from ignorance, but out of envy: for they understood that it was He to whom the Father says by the Prophet: 'Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance.'" It seems, therefore, that they knew Him to be Christ or the Son of God.

Objection 2: Further, our Lord says (Jn. 15:24): "But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." Now what is seen is known manifestly. Therefore the Jews, knowing Christ, inflicted the Passion on Him out of hatred.

Objection 3: Further, it is said in a sermon delivered in the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, cap. x): "Just as he who tears up the imperial message is doomed to die, as despising the prince's word; so the Jew, who crucified Him whom he had seen, will pay the penalty for daring to lay his hands on God the Word Himself." Now this would not be so had they not known Him to be the Son of God, because their ignorance would have excused them. Therefore it seems that the Jews in crucifying Christ knew Him to be the Son of God.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." And (Acts 3:17), Peter, addressing the Jews, says: "I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers." Likewise the Lord hanging upon the cross said: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34).

I answer that, Among the Jews some were elders, and others of lesser degree. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. lxvi, the elders, who were called "rulers, knew," as did also the devils, "that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead." Consequently the Apostle says: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (Jn. 15:22): "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." And afterwards He adds (Jn. 15:24): "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin." And so the expression employed by Job (21:14) can be accepted on their behalf: "(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways."

But those of lesser degree---namely, the common folk---who had not grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend that He was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted sometimes whether He was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His teaching, as is stated Jn. 7:31,41, nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them: "I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers"---namely, because they were seduced by the rulers.

Reply to Objection 1: Those words are spoken by the husbandmen of the vineyard; and these signify the rulers of the people, who knew Him to be the heir, inasmuch as they knew Him to be the Christ promised in the Law, but the words of Ps. 2:8 seem to militate against this answer: "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance"; which are addressed to Him of whom it is said: "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." If, then, they knew Him to be the one to whom the words were addressed: "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance," it follows that they knew Him to be the Son of God. Chrysostom, too, says upon the same passage that "they knew Him to be the Son of God." Bede likewise, commenting on the words, "For they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34), says: "It is to be observed that He does not pray for them who, understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify Him rather than acknowledge Him." But to this it may be replied that they knew Him to be the Son of God, not from His Nature, but from the excellence of His singular grace.

Yet we may hold that they are said to have known also that He was verily the Son of God, in that they had evident signs thereof: yet out of hatred and envy, they refused credence to these signs, by which they might have known that He was the Son of God.

Reply to Objection 2: The words quoted are preceded by the following: "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin"; and then follow the words: "But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." Now all this shows that while they beheld Christ's marvelous works, it was owing to their hatred that they did not know Him to be the Son of God.

Reply to Objection 3: Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems, rather, to aggravate it: for it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. The Jews therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only of the Man-Christ, but also as of God.

* Against Basically Everything

Remember Dear Christian

We can put a man on the moon but we can't cure sodomy? Not so fast...

There are Four Sins crying to heaven for vengeance: Murder, Oppression of the poor, Defrauding workers of their just wages, and Sodomy; all of these moral sins, unrepented of, will end the perps in Hell.

That is the truthful case on the spiritual level but because it is also the case that Americans hate spiritual truth but loves them some science, what if science could help these men take the initial steps towards salvation by helping them stop their perverse desires that always precedes the actions of these perps?

What if science could cure murderers of their impulses?  Who would complain if the perp willingly underwent what was necessary to stop his impulses?

What if science could cure oppression of the poor?
Who would complain if the perps willingly underwent treatment to cure their desire for the tyrannical control of others?

What if science could cure businessman of their propensity to screw their workers out of their wages? Who would complain if the perps willingly underwent treatment to cure them of their greedy wage and labor theft?

What if science could cure sodomites of their lustful perversity? Who would complain if sodomites willingly underwent treatment that resulted in them being physically attracted to women?

Well, the enlightened establishment, for starters.

But first, can science cure a sodomite and lead him to act like a man?

Apparently so: and as you read this, note the condemnation of the cure but not the condemnation of sodomy.

Who do these scientists think they are curing sodomy? In this new new age of enlightenment, sodomy is not an evil desire to be cured but a blessing to be celebrated.

Perhaps the most egregious example was reported in a paper entitled "Septal stimulation for the initiation of heterosexual behavior in a homosexual male," published in 1972. The rationale behind this experiment was that because stimulation of the septal area evoked pleasure, if it was combined with heterosexual imagery it could "bring about heterosexual behavior in a fixed, overt homosexual male." 

And so Patient B-19, a 24-year-old male homosexual of average intelligence who suffered from depression and obsessive-compulsive tendencies, was wheeled into the operating room. Electrodes were implanted at nine different sites in deep regions of his brain, and three months were allowed to pass after the surgery to allow for healing. Initially stimulation was delivered to all nine electrodes in turn. However, only the electrode implanted in the septum produced pleasurable sensations. When Patient B-19 was finally allowed free access to the stimulator, he quickly began mashing the button like an 8-year-old playing Donkey Kong. According to the paper,

"During these sessions, B-19 stimulated himself to a point that, both behaviorally and introspectively, he was experiencing an almost overwhelming euphoria and elation and had to be disconnected despite his vigorous protests."

...

Back to patient B-19: Before his brain stimulation began, he was shown a "15 min long 'stag' film featuring sexual intercourse and related activities between a male and female." Not surprisingly, he was sexually indifferent to this material and even a bit angry about being made to view it. Following pleasure circuit self-stimulation, however, he readily agreed to re-view the film," ... "and during its showing became sexually aroused, had an erection and masturbated to orgasm." All this in the decidedly unsexy environment of the lab. 

So, with the patient starting to exhibit heterosexual tendencies, what were the experimenters to do? Would he ever have an actual sexual relationship with a woman? After careful consideration of all the options and with the well-being of the patient foremost in their minds, the investigators, whose names were Drs. Moan and Heath ( I know. Too bad the name wasn 't groan) made a sober medical and scientific decision: Upon getting approval from the attorney general of the state of Louisiana, they hired a hooker to come to the lab at Tulane and attempt to seduce him. She succeeded -- they had sexual intercourse. The concluding sentence to the lengthy, overly descriptive paragraph describing their 2-hour long sexual encounter reads, "Then, despite the milieu and the encumbrance of the electrode wires [poor B-19 was attached to an EEG machine the whole time], he successfully ejaculated [in her vagina]."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-j-linden/compass-pleasure_b_890342.html

So, yeah, scientists can prolly cure sodomy but they will not be allowed to do so; they can kill innocent babies and contribute to the construction of weapons to be delivered by rockets and drones and they can develop drugs and mutilate the reproductive organs of a man so that he can pretend he is a woman etc etc  but Sodomy is sacred and it must not be cured.

C'est la vie.

Did the Anglicans coin the term, "Roman Catholic Church?"

When did the term "Roman Catholic Church" first come into being?

Full Question

When did the term "Roman Catholic Church" first come into being?

Answer

It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the "Roman Catholic Church," but it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).

Different variants of the "Roman" insult appeared at different times. The earliest form was the noun "Romanist" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective "Romish" (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun "Roman Catholic" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb "to Romanize" (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun "Romanism" (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun "Roman Catholicism," a synonym for the earlier "Romanism."

A similar complex of insults arose around "pope." About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term "papist" and later its derivative "papism." A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective "popish." Next came "popery" (1525-1535), then "papistry" (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, "papistical" and "papistic." (Source: Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)

This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all, even national or racial) has such a complex of insults against it woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say "Catholic" without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Answered by ABE Ministry:

As Founder and Chairman of ABE Ministry, it is Raider Fan's duty to simply supply one fact (there are more) which is in no way intended to denigrate the reputation of the normally reliable Catholic Answers answers but, come on, what Catholic Traditionalist does not know their answer was an error of galactic proportions?

From the letter "Fitts exemplo" to the Archbishop of Terraco, Dec. 18, 1208]

423  By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved.