0.Introduction:
Jesus Christ is the only Human Being who is very soon going to come from the Holiest Apartment of the Heavenly Sanctuary appearing on this Earth's Sky on October 15th, 2024 at 1:59' A.M to Punish All Transgressors of 10 Commandments of Almighty God: Vatican Transgresses endlessly the 6th Commandment in its intentions to Kill in order to safeguard the so called Common Good which aims to protect the Child of the Papacy"Sunday Rest and Worship":You Shall Not Kill". James 2:10-13.John 14:1-31. Proverbs 1:1-33.Exodus 20:1-17.
The Almighty God's Divine 6th Commandment was deeply attacked by SATAN Himself using ignorant and fools hating knowledge stupid humans in trying to manipulate unchangeable Divine Precepts that construct the everlasting reign of Our everlasting Holy True Father Almighty God in Heaven.Proverbs 1:1-33
1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;
2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;
3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;
4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
9 For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.
10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
18 And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.
20 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you."Former and Latter Rain: 2020-2021-2022-2023-2024(Psalm 20, Psalm 21, Psalm 22, Psalm23 & Psalm24)".
24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;7/2/2021-7/2/2024" 3rd Angel's Loud Cry Message"
25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
26 I also will laugh at your calamity"Real Climate Change which will soon fall are 7 Last Plagues from February 16th, 2024- October 15th, 2024 at 1:59' a.m as desolation of mass extinction of humanity on this Planet Earth"; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. February 16th, 2024- October 15th, 2024 at 1:59' a.m -7 Last Plagues.''
28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.
In this Article, AUSC exposes the ignorants fools stupid people who decided to depart from the norms of obeying Almighty God's proper words while wore White Robes pretending to be Holy Persons deceiving the whole world's individuals using a Satanic booklet-The Catechism-editing it to forge a death penalty against global individuals deniers of Vatican's Sun Worship Sacredness against the 10 Commandments of The Creator of the Universe The Almighty God,especially the 4th Commandment of Remembering The 7th Day Sabbath To Keep It Holy: Brugger, Latzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis follow a Demon canonized by Satanic Pope to St.Thomas Aquinas, and their intentions to try to find a way they will exterminate the Saints of Almighty God from the face of this planet Earth, they forged the 1997 Roman Catholic Catechism inserting the Capital Punishment a Death Penalty through which the Roman Catholic Church hides its self behind the United Nations (UN)' Member National Governments to serve for the Roman Catholic Church Survivability in Authoritarian protection of Sunday Rest and Worship referred to as a Universal Common Good from Pope Francis' Encyclical Letter Laudato SI' to Combat Climate Change and Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti to Combat Covid-19 leading the World's Nations(UN Allies) Presidents to Kill 7th Day Adventists to Safeguard Sun-Day Rest and Worship as a Universal Common Good Through Climate Change's Ecocide. . .1997 the Year of a Serial Killing Roman Catholic Catechism.
Brugger contrasts his interpretation of the Catechism with the “plain-face interpretation” offered by, among others, Cardinal Ratzinger: Clearly, the Holy Father [John Paul II] has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances.
Common Good Through Climate Change's Ecocide. . .1997 the Year of a Serial Killing Roman Catholic Catechism. It is very shameful to see a human kind, an individual person who was born like Me or like You, trying to manipulate Almighty God's Words, it is to play with fire, this is how the parents of Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, Thomas Aquinas have given birth to innocent babies but whom they raised and grown very very stupid and ignorant children and adolescents matured to dishonor the Mighty Divine Being who created them from their mothers wombs.
It is a shame to have a person who can dare consciously to dishonor His Creator ,but very very very shameful to see how much these ignorant people develop a framework to deceive the whole world to bring death penalty through Ecology and protection of the Pershing Earth under ECOCIDE to the Climate Change and Covid-19 Sundays Lockdown to dishonor the 7th Day Holy Sabbath of the 4th Commandment of Almighty God in which Almighty God said about His Creating Power in 7 Days was embedded in the 7th Day of the week of Creation,which Almighty God called the 7th Day Holy Sabbath. Genesis 2:1-4, Exodus 20:1-17, Exodus 31:12-18, Isaiah 58:13-14, Luke 6:1-5.
These ignorant men have no reason to dishonor the Almighty God by creating Ecological SIN"ECOCIDE " and Pushing Sundays Rest and Worship by Force alongside their Satanic Death Penalty willing to safeguard Sunday: the Universal So called Common Good to protect Laudato SI'237' Sunday Climate Change.
It is a duty of a True 7th Day Adventist to expose the Universal So called Common Good to protect Laudato SI'237' Sunday Climate Change ignorance of a person like Pope Francis whom peoples worldwide see like a genuine Divine inspired person while He is a Stupid fool Satanic machinery Person sentencing Saints to Death such as Drugged by , Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, imitating their demon St.Thomas Aquinas and others who hidden themselves in white Lobs and seating down to forge deceptions that they raised up in writings that they know very surely that they will affect mentally, Psychologically and physically affecting continuously the whole world's individuals negatively leading them to Hell. Revelation 20:1-15.
Video:[ Red Alert Ecocide. UN, Papa,Senator:We Can Save Ourselves. Gospel Martyrs. Rain Makes The Difference ].
Video:[ Catholic Attack National SUNday Law Book & The Sabbath. SDA General Conference Great Hoax Silent ].
When the manipulation of the 6th Commandment of Almighty God was taking place through Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, St.Thomas Aquinas they generated a proposal that to Kill is not a Sin if it is conducted in order to safeguard the Common Good, and in their traditional reference to a Demon canonized name of St.Thomas Aquinas, these ignorant men Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, St.Thomas Aquinas have given a way to make Killing a Supported Act in a Divine way!!!!!
It is not True, to Kill is Transgression of the 6th Commandment of Almighty God, whosoever Kills is a Transgressor of the 6th Commandment of Almighty God.
II.Almighty God said You Shall Not Kill.
Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, St.Thomas Aquinas they chose to deviate what Almighty God said, as if these ignorant selfish stupid transgressors thought every person is selfish like them.
Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, St.Thomas Aquinas are the Author of the Final Act of Trying to exterminate Saints Chosen People of Almighty God who can never close their eyes to give a passageway to the Sunday Rest and worship by Law to deceive the Whole World to make individuals globally to dishonor the True 7th Day Holy Sabbath because this can lead the deceived individuals to honor SATAN.
The Role of a True 7th Day Adventist is to expose SATAN and His Servants while trying to deceive other Human beings who were not before enlightened by the Truth about the unchangeable Words of Almighty God especially the 10 Commandments of Almighty God among which the 4th Commandment of Remembering to Keep the 7th Day Sabbath Holy is the Most Brightly revealed Commandment on April 3rd, 1847 which Almighty God Himself revealed to Madam Ellen Gould White in a Vision telling Her to disseminate this Light to the Whole World because the 7th Day Holy Sabbath is the Lord's Day and this Lord's Day will be the Only Final Testing Tool for the Final Generation's individuals to show their Final Position towards the Obedience to their Creator Almighty God or Obedience to SATAN.
But those who will choose to Obey not their Creator Almighty God will accept to Worship and Rest on Sundays considering Sunday as the True Lord's Day while this Sunday is not the True Day of Rest and Worship that Almighty God said to Remember to Keep It Holy.
Almighty God said that human beings will have to Remember the 7th Day Sabbath to Keep It Holy, but these ignorant selfish foolish stupid transgressors Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, St.Thomas Aquinas tried to defend the Ancient Pagan god's Sun Worship on Sundays, and forged a framework through which Authorities in this world will help them to deceive the whole world to keep Sundays as if the Sundays are supported by the Divine Instructions delivered properly from the Mouth of Almighty God, while Sunday Rest and Worship by Law was delivered Satanically from the mouth of Emperor Constantine on March 7th, 321 and had its Anniversary of 1700 Years on March 7th, 2021 recently.
In the Holy Bible, Almighty God said that Honoring Almighty God by Honoring His Full 10 Commandments including the 4th Commandment of Remembering To Keep The 7th Day Sabbath Holy is the True Wisdom and is the True Knowledge. Therefore Dishonoring Almighty God is Stupidity, foolishness and Ignorance. Proverbs 1:1-33, Job 28:1-28.
Therefore, AUSC confirmed the ignorance and stupidity of Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis and St.Thomas Aquinas based on their closed eyes while trying to deceive other humans trying to make individuals globally believe that Capital Punishment is not a Sin when an Authority is safeguarding the so called Common Good which is their based theology that supports Death Penalty. Hebrew 2:1-18.
In the below Video , AUSC identified that Pope Francis has an intension to partake with the USA President Joe Biden and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres in trying to deceive the world's Presidents to misuse their Authorities to bring on their Nations a tragedy of mass killing of individuals globally who can never close their eyes and shut their mouths and allow SATAN to deceive individuals globally through Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis and St.Thomas Aquinas forged framework of pushing Universal Sunday Rest and worship by Law to combat Climate Change and Covid-19 in which these ignorant selfish stupid transgressors think ECOCIDE can be a worried and Fearful Word that will help them to shut the mouths of global True 7th Day Adventists stopping them to proclaim widely the 3rd Angel's Loud Cry Message to the whole World's Individuals to bring the whole world on the Final Judgment from which the Global Probation will Close very very soon and follow the Biblical 7 Last Plagues falling sequentially from February 16th, 2024 until the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ on Tuesday October 15th, 2024 at 1:59' A.M.Video[Shopping On SUNday Increases Pollution. ECOCIDE Mother Church False Sabbath. We can Save The Planet].
Shameful manipulation of the Word of Almighty God the Holy Bible by Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis and St.Thomas Aquinas trying to deviate what Almighty God said about the 6th Commandment that Individuals globally Shall Not Kill, and producing reasons to support the Capital Punishment which is the St.Thomas' Death Penalty is not a supporting divinely promise that whosoever Kills will not face the wrath of Almighty God.
Those people that individuals globally elected or helped to become their Authorities, are also persons like others, there is no distinction available from the Holy Bible that supports them if they choose to break the 6th Commandment of Almighty God in order to praise these ignorant selfish stupid transgressors Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, St.Thomas Aquinas.
Authorities on this earth if they have intact brains, let them remember that once they were young people and also that once they had to listen to a Faithful Servant of Almighty God warning them to fear Almighty God rather that fearing SATAN and His Right Hand Pope Francis and Jesuits Masters who are using them to kill their own people through locking down their Counties and injecting poisons in the Arms of innocent babies of Almighty God.
Those World's Governments Authorities who can dare consciously to dishonor the Holy Sabbath and make Capital Punishment"Death Penalty " Laws applied to individuals honoring the 7th Day Holy Sabbath instead of Honoring Pope Francis' Laudato SI'237' Universal Sunday Rest and Worship by Law globally, while trying to praise Pope Francis because this Lord's Day was mistaught to them from Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis and St.Thomas Aquinas ,those Authorities will not escape the wrath of Almighty God in which the 7 Last Plagues are going toexterminate them All together with All Transgressors of Almighty God's 10 Commandments.
Below is a shameful framework forged by Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis and St.Thomas Aquinas and resulted in making fair the Sin of Transgression of the 6th Commandment of God"You Shall Not Kill". Whosoever You Can be, if You are a person, it is very serious that You Better Choose Almighty God rather than choosing Satanic deception of Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis and St.Thomas Aquinas regarding the Sin of Killing under the term International Criminal Act"ECOCIDE " by which Death Penalty "Capital Punishment" was forged to be applied by Government Authorities by Brugger, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis and St.Thomas Aquinas trying to shape a possible way to exterminate True 7th Day Holy Sabbath Keepers to safeguard Sundays for Roman Catholic Church to survive the Pressures being applied on Its Fundamental Satanic Transgressions condemned by the Holy Bible in the Book of Revelation 14:9-12 and Daniel 12:1-13.
III.THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH NOT ONLY CREATED JESUITS PRIESTS TO KILL ,ALSO CREATED A SATANIC PRIEST WHO DEVELOPED A SPIRIT OF SAVING THE COMMON GOOD ON THE FINAL COST OF DEATH PENALTY!!!!!!!!:
This Roman Catholic Church Priest "Thomas Aquinas" is considered one of the Catholic Church's greatest theologians and philosophers. Pope Benedict XV declared: "This (Dominican) Order ... acquired new luster when the Church declared the teaching of Thomas to be her own and that Doctor, honored with the special praises of the Pontiffs, the master and patron of Catholic schools."[17] The English philosopher Anthony Kenny considers Thomas to be "one of the dozen greatest philosophers of the western world".[18]
Quoted from St Thomas Aquinas Articles{Yet St Thomas Aquinas quite definitely considers those with public authority to be a different case. In a previous article, he states the reason for this exception:It is lawful for any private individual to do anything for the common good, provided it harm nobody: but if it be harmful to some other, it cannot be done, except by virtue of the judgment of the person to whom it pertains to decide what is to be taken from the parts for the welfare of the whole.75Those like Brugger who fail to distinguish between what is morally required of and permitted to a private person, and what is morally required of and permitted to public authority, must reject all intentional killing as specifically evil. For Thomas, on the other hand, the presence of public authority makes one act of self-defense specifically different than the other. It is not that it is good for the public official to do something that is evil per se, which would be contradictory, since an act that is evil per se is by definition an act that is never good. Rather, the act of intentional killing is insufficiently specified until we know who is killing and who is killed. Thomas claims that the act of intentionally killing a wrongdoer for the common good is specifically good, but it is only possible to one with authority for the common good. This does not mean that the public official intends the offender’s death for its own sake, an intention that Thomas condemns.76 This in fact would make it an act of hatred, and therefore an evil act. The principle that one with public authority may kill for the common good is operative also in the case of CP: It is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death(7th Day Adventists, 7th Day Holy Sabbath Keepers, Lord's Saints who Keep 10 Commandments fully involving immortals 144.000)!!!!
Quoted from ROMAN CATHOLIC Church's SATANIC Catechism on "II. The Lord's Day"{2188 In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays. They have to give everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. If a country's legislation or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this "festal gathering," this "assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven."125} .
.
 |
The Other Main Reason, I & You Shouldn't/Never Sign/Support to Unit with Roman Catholic Church"October 31st, 2017", It is because through Their St Thomas Aquinas' Capital Punishment(CP) and the Roman Catholic Moral Tradition and Social Teachings Via their Catechism They Supported and Still Support KILLING HUMAN BEINGS"Civil Disorder"To SAVE THE COMMON GOOD"SUN-DAY LAWS"!!!!!!
|
Thomas Aquinas (/əˈkwaɪnəs/; Italian: Tommaso d'Aquino, lit. 'Thomas of Aquino'; 1225 – 7 March 1274) was an Italian[10][11] Dominican friar, philosopher, Catholic priest, and Doctor of the Church. An immensely influential philosopher, theologian, and jurist in the tradition of scholasticism, he is also known within the latter as the Doctor Angelicus and the Doctor Communis.[12] The name Aquinas identifies his ancestral origins in the county of Aquino in present-day Lazio, Italy. He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology and the father of Thomism; of which he argued that reason is found in God. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy developed or opposed his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory.
Unlike many currents in the Church of the time,[13] Thomas embraced several ideas put forward by Aristotle—whom he called "the Philosopher"—and attempted to synthesize Aristotelian philosophy with the principles of Christianity.[14]
His best-known works are the Disputed Questions on Truth (1256–1259), the Summa contra Gentiles (1259–1265), and the unfinished but massively influential Summa Theologica aka Summa Theologiae (1265–1274). His commentaries on Scripture and on Aristotle also form an important part of his body of work. Furthermore, Thomas is distinguished for his eucharistic hymns, which form a part of the Church's liturgy.[15] The Catholic Church honors Thomas Aquinas as a saint and regards him as the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood, and indeed the highest expression of both natural reason and speculative theology. In modern times, under papal directives, the study of his works was long used as a core of the required program of study for those seeking ordination as priests or deacons, as well as for those in religious formation and for other students of the sacred disciplines (philosophy, Catholic theology, church history, liturgy, and canon law).[16]
Thomas Aquinas is considered one of the Catholic Church's greatest theologians and philosophers. Pope Benedict XV declared: "This (Dominican) Order ... acquired new luster when the Church declared the teaching of Thomas to be her own and that Doctor, honored with the special praises of the Pontiffs, the master and patron of Catholic schools."[17] The English philosopher Anthony Kenny considers Thomas to be "one of the dozen greatest philosophers of the western world".[18]
*75S.T. II-II, q. 64, a. 3, ad 3.
*76 See, for example, S.T. II-II, q. 43, a. 7, ad 1: “In the infliction of punishment it is not the punishment itself that is the end in view, but its medicinal properties in checking sin; wherefore punishment partakes of the nature of justice, in so far as it checks sin.”
*77S.T. II-II, q. 64, a. 3.}
This Ancient PAGAN Roman Army's Church has a record of Killing not only Jesus Christ on the Cross and Killing all who truly worked for Jesus Christ and with Killing Almighty God's 4th Commandment His Seal the 7th Day Sabbath, it was not sufficient for them to repent from their foundational Criminality their top Sins, from this article the Roman Catholic Church be revealed on its Anti-Christ Physical and Spiritual Property they Categorically Disobey also the 6th God's Commandment "You Shall not kill" They Kill and They put it in their Catechism teach to kill From the Priest St Thomas Aquinas who allows to Kill Protestants in other to save their Common Good"SUN Worship Day!!!!!!", and with that Philosophy, The International SUN-DAY LAND LAWS are going to be punishable in all Nations Worldwide with Death Penalty, to whosoever deny their Ecological SIN which is the Mark of The Beast. Read about the Papacy's Saint Thomas Aquinas on the Death Penalty to Save the Common Good,While The Common Good in the catholic Catechism signifies SUN-DAY OBSERVANCE Worldwide by LAW.
*30 POPE Benedict XVI, “Address to the Diplomatic Corps,” 7 January 2008: “I rejoice that on 18 December last the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution calling upon States to institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and I earnestly hope that this initiative will lead to public debate on the sacred character of human life.”
*31 For discussion of the doctrinal status of various Church statements on CP, see E. Christian Brugger, “Catholic Moral Teaching and the Problem of Capital Punishment(CP)” Thomist 68 (2004). I will not address this theological question in my paper.
*32C.C.C. 2267, quoting John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56.
*33 John Paul II, Encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), n. 56. The encyclical quotes the early edition of the new catechism (the English translation was published in 1994). When the Editio Typica was issued in 1997, it included the reference to Evangelium Vitae.
*34E.V. 62 (emphasis in original). The same language is used in C.C.C. 2271.
*35 “Rethinking Capital Punishment,” Catholic Dossier 4.
*36 There is diversity among those who claim that E.V. develops the doctrine of CP, but I focus here on what I take to be the most common interpretation: that the Church is tending toward a condemnation of all intentional killing. This position is maintained by E. Christian Brugger, Germain Grisez, and Gerald V. Bradley, among others.
*37 E. Christian Brugger, Capital Punishment and the Roman Catholic Moral Tradition, 12. See also Brugger’s “Catholic Moral Teaching and the Problem of Capital Punishment,” 41-67, 43.
*38 This passage is an excerpt from a letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger to Fr. Richard Neuhaus and published in “The Public Square,” First Things, no. 56 (October 1995), 83. Cited in Brugger, 12.
*39 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 17-18.
*40 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 37.
*41 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 153.
*42 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 156.
*43 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition,158.
*44 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition,159.
*45 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition,160-161.
*46 Brugger claims that in the case of CP, all the conditions (described in Lumen Gentium) for an infallible exercise of the ordinary and universal magisterium have been met, except the following: “the judgment upon which the bishops agree must be proposed ‘as one that has to be definitively held’ (definitive tenenda) (LG, no. 25).” Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 146.
*47 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 161 (emphasis removed).
*48 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 161.
*49 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 162.
*50 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 162.
*51 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 162.
*52 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 165 (footnote omitted).
*53 Finnis says that Aquinas fails “to reply convincingly to the argument that capital punishment, since it involves the intent to kill as a means, is ‘doing evil that good may come’ ...” Finnis, Aquinas, 282.
*54 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 179.
*55 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 34.
*56 John Finnis, Germain Grisez, and Joseph Boyle, “‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’: A Reply to Critics of our Action Theory,” 43.
*57 Bradley, 161.
*58 Bradley, 161.
*59S.T. I, q. 1, a. 8, ad 2
*60 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition, 187-88.
*61 See S.T. II-II, q. 64, a. 7.
*62 English trans. Libreria Editrice Vaticana (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006), n. 468.
*63 Fifth Commandment (n. 280).
*64C.C.C. 2266.
*65 If it did, the sentence should read: Punishment then, in addition to defending public order, has the medicinal purposes: protecting people’s safety and contributing to the correction of the guilty party.
*66S.T. II-II, q.
*68, a. 1. The punishments of eternity are not sought for their own sake, either (see S.T. I-II, q. 19, a. 10, ad 2), but they are sought for the order of which they are a part, rather than for some extrinsic end.
*67C.C.C. 2267.
*68Roman Catechism, 280; S.C.G. III, c. 37, n. 7.
*69S.T. II-II, q. 68, a. 1: “Now the punishments of this life are sought, not for their own sake, because this is not the final time of retribution, but in their character of medicine, conducing either to the amendment of the sinner, or to the good of the commonwealth whose calm is ensured by the punishment of evil-doers.”
*70S.T. II-II, q. 64, a. 2, ad 2.
*71 Brugger, CP and the RC Moral Tradition,12. See also Brugger’s “Catholic Moral Teaching and the Problem of Capital Punishment,” 41-67, 43.
*72S.T. II-II, q. 64, a. 7: “Morales autem actus recipiunt speciem secundum id quod intenditur, non autem ab eo quod est praeter intentionem, cum sit per accidens, ut ex supradictis patet.” See also S.T. II-II, q. 34, a. 3, on the sin of scandal: “The scandal is accidental when it is beside the agent’s intention, as when a man does not intend, by his inordinate deed or word, to occasion another’s spiritual downfall, but merely to satisfy his own will. On such a case even active scandal is not a special sin, because a species is not constituted by that which is accidental.”
*73 Ibid., c.: “Illicitum est quod homo intendat occidere hominem ut seipsum defendat, nisi ei qui habet publicam auctoritatem, qui, intendens hominem occidere ad sui defensionem, refert hoc ad publicum bonum.”
*74 Thomas A. Cavanaugh, “Aquinas’s Account of Double Effect,” The Thomist 61 (1997). {Author: Elinor Gardner}
Quoted from Finally, Spaemann notes that the criminal is never completely bad. This does not mean that we should excuse him of his guilt, but neither should we place all the guilt of society on him. In removing him from our midst, society finds an easy alibi, saying with Cain, am I my brother’s keeper? Spaemann calls us rather to accept the task of being our brothers’ keepers, though this requires the expenditure of money and effort. This task will allow society “itself to perform the expiation, which the murderer owes his victim.”24Spaemann provides us with an example of applying the Thomistic criteria of utility, equity, and custom to the death penalty in a modern context.
E.V. follows the same line of thought in its discussion of the death penalty: On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence.” Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization ofthe penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”33The first thing to be noted about these statements from E.V. and the Catechism is that neither of them rule out the death penalty altogether. However, both texts say that non-lethal punishments are to be preferred. Second, both texts maintain that the death penalty is only licit “in cases of absolute necessity,” or in other words, if it is “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Third, the documents offer a practical observation: that is, the penal system today is such that cases fitting this description “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” The first principle, that non-lethal punishments are to be preferred to the death penalty, presupposes the legitimacy of CP, though no argument for its legitimacy is offered. Clearly, legitimacy is not the primary concern here. It is helpful to compare the language used in these texts with the language used in the same documents to treat the question of abortion. In reference to “the unspeakable crime of abortion,” the language is unqualified: “direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.”34 In reference to the death penalty, on the other hand, no comparable claim is made; neither E.V. nor the Catechism say that to kill a person as punishment is always a grave moral disorder. Rather, they limit the use of the penalty to cases of “absolute necessity,” and say that such cases now are “very rare, if not practically non-existent.” Yet by admitting that CP may be chosen as a valid means of punishment, however rarely or theoretically, they do not place CP in the category of “grave moral disorder.” A normative claim is being made in these selections: non-lethal punishments should be preferred (“public authority must limit itself to such means” and “ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity”). This does not imply that public authorities always do prefer non-lethal means when they have the choice (it seems likely that they do not), but that in principle these means are better in some decisive way, and therefore ought to be preferred. In what way are non-lethal punishments better than the death penalty? The documents give two reasons: “the concrete conditions of the common good” and “the dignity of the human person.” The second principle spells out the limit given in the first principle (that non-lethal punishments are to be preferred): it is licit to choose a lethal punishment when non-lethal means are insufficient “to defend human lives” and “to protect public order and the safety of persons.” If, in some case, the death penalty is the only way to defend lives and protect order, it may be chosen. There seem to be two possible interpretations of thissecond principle: (1) in certain (rare) cases, it is permissible but not necessary to use the death penalty or (2) in certain (rare) cases, it is permissible and necessary to use the death penalty. I think the second interpretation is correct, but it could also be misleading. In a particular case, it is not that one must first determine whether the penalty is permissible in that case, and then whether it is necessary. Rather, its permissibility is determined by its necessity. If, and only if, the penalty is necessary, it is permissible. But this leaves us with a puzzle. If the death penalty is a morally legitimate form of punishment, why should the presumption always be against its use? The puzzle is only confirmed when we consider the many pleas made by John Paul II on behalf of criminals condemned to death and his frequent criticism of the death penalty in speeches, homilies, etc. As moral theologian Janet Smith suggests, it almost seems that John Paul would like to say that CP is intrinsically evil, but either will not or cannot do so: Other Pope-watchers have shared with me their suspicions that Pope John Paul II may well wish he could say that capital punishment is intrinsically evil and thus ought never to be done. Such a position would, of course, be a radical break with traditional Church teaching and thus is unlikely to be true, if not impossible to be true.35Some have answered this puzzle with the idea of a development of Catholic doctrine in regard to CP. In this view, the Church is heading toward an absolute condemnation of CP as per se evil, though she has not yet made a definitive statement to that effect. Thomas’s account is compatible with a relative condemnation of CP, one that says for instance, that other punishments are preferable or that in the present social context, CP ought not be used, but it is incompatible with an absolute condemnation of CP. If the Church is teaching, or at some point in the future does teach that CP is per se evil, then those who accept the authority of the Church must reject Thomas’s account. CFirst Objection: There Has Been a Development of Doctrine on CPSt. Thomas’s teaching on CP defined Church statements on this subject for centuries, but his teaching is notably absent from the two most recent authoritative documents, which mention CP, E.V. and the Catechism. Some have interpreted this absence as a conscious departure from traditional thinking on the death penalty. They read these documents as a “development of doctrine,” pointing toward an absolute condemnation of CP, and indeed of all intentional killing.36The most articulate presentation of the development of doctrine position to date is found in E. Christian
IV.Brugger’s book, Capital Punishment and the Roman Catholic Moral Tradition (2003).
This careful study deserves our sustained attention, if we are to understand the relationship between Thomas’s teaching and recent Catholic teaching on CP.
Brugger begins with the teaching on CP found in the 1997 Catechism, and he then traces Church teaching from apostolic and patristic times through the pontificate of John Paul II.
In the final section of the book, he argues that a development of doctrine is takingplace. Brugger makes several important claims in his book: first, that what the Catechism calls poena mortis is not punishment, but collective self-defense; second, that CP is not a morally licit punishment because it is intentional killing, and all intentional killing is morally illicit; and third, that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is developing toward an absolute prohibition of capital punishment. Brugger notes that the 1997 Catechism treats the death penalty under the heading, “Legitimate Defense.” In contrast, the Roman Catechism treats it under the heading “Exceptions to the Fifth Commandment.”.Brugger takes this to be a significant move: It is my contention that something new is being said about the morality of capital punishment is sections 2263-2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church ... Because the text strictly ties its analysis to a model of self-defense against the wider conceptual backdrop of double-effect reasoning, it is reasonable to conclude (1) that the act referred to in the text as poena mortis is not, precisely speaking, an act of punishment, but an act of collective self-defense by the community against a dangerous internal aggressor, and (2) that capital punishment as well as all acts of legitimate killing should be limited by conditions traditionally used to limitlawful killing in private self-defense.37In other words, Brugger interprets the Catechism as saying that death may not be chosen as a form of punishment, but that in some cases public authority may kill a guilty individual as an act of social self-defense.
Brugger contrasts his interpretation of the Catechism with the “plain-face interpretation” offered by, among others, Cardinal Ratzinger: Clearly, the Holy Father [John Paul II] has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism,
but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances.
Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear. Such a development, occurring within society and leading to the foregoing of this type of punishment, is something good and ought to be hoped for.38
According to Brugger, on the other hand, the Church teaches in the 1997 Catechism that legitimate defense, whether personal or communal, should be understood using the idea of double effect. “Corporate” defense is subject to the same moral limits as individual self-defense. Commenting on the transition from self-defense to communal defense in the Catechism, Brugger says: Although the context has changed from addressing the needs of an individual to those of a community, and from the right of an individual to defend his own life to the rights and duties of public authority to defend the community for which it is responsible, the context is otherwise the same. We are still referring to the need (previously individual, and now corporate) to repel an aggressor—here including both internal and foreign aggressors—and the requirement that in so doing, only the degree of force necessary to render an aggressor unable to cause harm should be used. The act of legitimate defense here, as before, is an act of self-defense. While section 2265 does not explicitly state that any death following from this act of self-defense must be unintended, the reference to collective self-defense in 2263 requires that this be the meaning of 2265.39
Is CP a legitimate act of collective self-defense? If CP is intentional killing, Brugger’s answer is no. Self-defense is legitimate when it does not intend death. But one necessarily intends death when performing an execution: The lethal nature of the punishment is not ancillary to what is chosen; it is the measure of punishment chosen ... In the case at hand, then, the plan of action very clearly includes the criminal’s death. Until the criminal is dead, the punishment is not complete nor is the disorder redressed. In other words, death is (among other things) what we are trying to bring about ... The intent to kill cannot be separated from capital punishment, whatever other intentions accompany it.40
However, Brugger thinks that the Catechism also uses CP to refer to something else: an act of legitimate defense by society against an internal aggressor in which the death of the offender is not intended. Such might be the case in a hostage situation or a prison riot.
In Part III, “Rethinking the Church’s Traditional Notion of Justifiable Homicide,” Brugger addresses the question of whether CP is the kind of teaching subject to doctrinal development. He notes that doctrines (whether of faith or morals) may be infallibly asserted or non-infallibly asserted.41 For the former, only one kind of development is possible, that which brings about “a fuller and more perfect understanding, and henceverbal expression, of the divine mystery, while all the time maintaining continuity with antecedent principles and types.”42 For non-infallibly asserted teachings, Brugger suggests “that there are two possible patterns of development ... The first I will call development as filtering and reformulating, and the second, development as specification.”43 The first pattern occurs when an assertion contains both true and false propositions. Over time, the false propositions are filtered out, leaving only the true teaching. For an example, Brugger offers the true teaching on reservation of priestly ordination to men alone, which was at one time asserted together with false propositions about the inferiority of women.44By specification, the second pattern of development, Brugger does not mean a particular determination of a more general teaching, as the name might imply. Rather, he means a clarification of ambiguities in a true teaching. For example, if “murder” is taken to mean any deliberate act that foreseeably results in the death of another, then many more acts are characterized as murder than if “murder” is rightly defined as killing the innocent with intent. Development in this instance would mean specifying with increasing precision the nature of the moral acts under consideration, or the language with which the acts have hitherto been described, with the possible result that the sense in which a moral doctrine has been interpreted stands in need of revisions.
45After showing that the teaching on CP has not been asserted infallibly,
46 Brugger argues that the Church is now developing this teaching by filtering and reformulating it, the first mode of development. The filtered teaching put forth in the Catechism then stands in need of clarification, the second mode of development. Brugger proposes, as the traditional teaching of the Church on CP, the following complex assertion A: for human dignity and the common good of society to be honored and preserved, the deliberate crimes—especially grave crimes—of social offenders should be punished, if need be with death. Therefore capital punishment is legitimate and should be defended in the face of those who publicly deny it and/or seek to have it abolished.
47He divides this assertion into four separate propositions: (Y) deliberate crime brings into existence a disorder in civil society, and grave crime, grave disorder; (K) to preserve the conditions for the common good this disorder must be redressed; (L) proportionate punishment can redress this disorder; (M) it is legitimate to impose proportionate punishment upon offenders, including grave punishments on grave offenders; and (Z) the act of killing entailed in lawfully executed capital punishment is legitimate and should not be subsumed under the norm forbidding homicide.
48Brugger suggests that while propositions Y, K, L, and M are true, proposition Z is false and needs to filtered out of complex assertion A, producing a new complex assertion B: The nature of certain offenses is such that an offender could not complain of distributive injustice (i.e., unfairness) if, as punishment, he were deprived of life; yet capital punishment is still wrong, not because it is unfair (in the distributive sense just stated), but because as an act precisely intended to destroy human life it is a violation of inalienable human dignity and hence a violation of the norm singling out and forbidding all such acts. Therefore, although punishing deliberate crime is good and necessary for the maintenance of the common good, non-lethal punishments should always be chosen.
49He concludes, “This is essentially the conclusion that, as I have argued in chapter 1, lies inchoate in the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
50This new assertion depends, of course, on the existence of a norm against all intentional killing. Brugger claims that this norm is contained, at least implicitly, in the 1997 Catechism, but adds that the terms of this teaching, “would need careful specification in order to make clear what kinds of acts are and are not singled out by it as contrary to human good.”51 This he does in his final chapter, entitled “Toward an Ethical Judgment that Capital Punishment is Intrinsically Wrong.” In the first chapter, Brugger presented evidence for his conclusion that the Catechism is doing something new with regard to CP; in this last chapter, he presents the term of this movement: an absolute norm against intentional killing of human persons. Brugger admits, “The Catholic Church has never taught that all intentional killing is wrong,” and that the norm against intentional killing of the innocent is “the model used by Aquinas and by Evangelium Vitae in the formulations of its three most authoritative negative norms.”52 Nonetheless, Brugger wants to formulate a rational account of the norm against intentional killing which he takes to be “inchoate” in the Catechism’s teaching on CP.
Brugger begins by criticizing Thomas’s account, which he rightly takes to be the most developed philosophical defense of CP in the Christian tradition. Brugger’s two main objections are ones that we have seen before. He rejects Thomas’s part-whole defense of CP, and the comparison of sinner to beast. He concludes, in words similar to those of Finnis:53Aquinas’ account fails to respond to the charge that capital punishment, because it is the willful destruction of an intrinsic human good, is wrong per se. In the absence of Aquinas’ arguments for the lawfulness of capital punishment, Catholic tradition (and, for that matter, Western philosophical tradition) has no other philosophical ground from which to argue that the object chosen in a deliberate act of killing the guilty—by the state or any other person—is, morally speaking, fundamentally different from the object chosen in an act of killing the innocent.54According to Brugger, the moral object of an act of execution is the same as the moral object of an act of murder; or in other words, that CP is murder: “Simply put, I cannotwill the death of a human person, any human person, innocent or guilty, with a good will.”55Brugger’s interpretation of the Catechism as implicitly affirming an absolute prohibition of intentional killing is affirmed also by Finnis, Grisez, and Joseph Boyle: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, most plainly in its revised edition—in relation to killing in capital punishment, and war, and in general ... has adopted a position like the one defended for thirty years by Grisez. Killing of human beings is justifiable only insofar as it is not intended. [Footnote: The revised CCC’s entire treatment of cases of justifiable killing is put under the aegis of Aquinas’s distinction between the “double effect” of lethal self-defensive actions that do notintend the killing of the aggressor ...] 56Gerard Bradley agrees with Finnis, Grisez, and Boyle that E.V. and the Catechism aim at an absolute norm, but disagrees about whether CP is thereby ruled out. He includes CP as public defense of society, which is the “same moral species” as private self-defense.57Both seek to “disable aggressors without intending to kill.”58 Brugger makes a similar claim. If Bradley and Brugger are right, however, CP as punishment is ruled out. If the Catechism does presuppose a norm against intentional killing, then for Catholics, this would be a decisive objection to Thomas’s teaching on CP. Response to the First ObjectionIn Chapter IV, I considered the idea of a norm against intentional killing in response to the objections of Grisez and Finnis. I argued that this norm does not follow from a Thomistic understanding of human action and that it has serious philosophical difficulties in its own right. No absolute prohibition of intentional killing can be derived from natural law, as Thomas understood it. Yet even if the natural law contains no such norm, revealed law might. Thomas tells us that “although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest.”59The Church teaches authentically on morality as well as faith, but arguments based on what the Church might teach in the future (the end point of a development that is thought to be occurring now) are doubtful. We can only reason about what we knowand not what we might know in the future. Therefore, we can only reason about what has been revealed, and not what might be revealed by the continued working of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Magisterium has not absolutely condemned capital punishment. If it is not evident from reason that CP is immoral, and if it has not (at least not yet) been revealed to us through the Church’s ever-deepening interpretation on the Word of God, then we have no basis for making such a claim. Still, some have argued that an absolute condemnation of CP is implicit in some Church teachings, and so we must consider whether this is so. Secondly, we must consider whether the Catechism applies double-effect reasoning to CP, as Brugger suggests, as a way of reconciling its new teaching to the tradition. This would mean essentially that while punishing by death is always wrong, what we normally think of as punishment by death is really a kind of self-defense, which is justified because the killing is not what is intended. Brugger admits that the norm against intentional killing is not found in the tradition of Catholic moral theology, but thinks that the norm is implicitly affirmed in the 1997 Catechism: In reformulating the Catholic position on justifiable violence to exclude intentional harm to basic goods, I have tied to develop a systematic and philosophically consistent account of the morally relevant elements of the new position that (I have argued) lies implicit in the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on capital punishment.60Brugger rightly notes that the 1997 Catechism treats punishment, bearing arms, and self-defense under the heading of “legitimate defense,” and that the use of this category in reference to all three kinds of killing is something new. He takes this new grouping as an indication that the Catechism wants to treat war and capital punishment as specifically similar to self-defense. In itself, the grouping of war, punishment, and self-defense does not say anything about the species of the acts. Previous catechisms, such as the Roman Catechism, treat these topics together, without implying that they are specifically the same kind of act. Thomas, as we saw in Chapter II, treats self-defense, CP, and otherforms of killing together in q. 64, and he clearly does not think they are the same species of act. The Catechism does not say or imply that all kinds of legitimate defense are specifically the same. There may be different species of legitimate defense; the traditional view has at least three: self-defense by private persons, self-defense by persons in public authority, and defense of others by an act of punishment, which are all specifically different.61 After addressing self-defense, section 2266 introduces civil punishment: The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rightsand to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party. Several concepts are introduced in this paragraph, which were not part of the explanation of self-defense: safeguarding the common good, legitimate public authority, and the presence of a guilty party. The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Churchexpands on this definition: “A punishment imposed by legitimate public authority has the aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense, of defending public order and people’s safety, and contributing to the correction of the guilty party.”62 The Compendium and the Catechism essentially affirm the teaching of the Roman Catechism, with the additional emphasis on correction. The Roman Catechism says that civil punishments tend to “the preservation and security of human life ... by repressing outrage and violence.”
63The Catechism and the Compendium provide no reference for their statements about the primary end of punishment. Yet of the four quotations in the section on “Legitimate Defense,” two are from the Summa Theologiae. More importantly, the Catechism reaffirms Thomas’s view that punishment is directed primarily toward redressing disorder, and secondarily toward “the correction of the guilty party.”64 That is, an act is penal insofar as its object is to redress disorder produced by an offense. This is a general definition of punishment, applying alike to eternal and temporal penalties; therefore, paragraph 2266 goes on to specify civil punishment: “in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, [punishment] has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.” The text indicates that the correction of the wrongdoer is an additional purpose of punishment, distinct from the defense of public order. However, “protecting people’s safety” is here presented along with “defending public order,” whereas the preceding sentence simply gave “redressing the disorder introduced by the offense” as the primary purpose of punishment. The Catechism does not make the protection of public safety a medicinal end of punishment,
65like the reform of the wrongdoer, but includes it with the primary end of redressing disorder. The most reasonable interpretation is that “protecting people’s safety” is a part of, or the specification of, “defending public order.” As we have seen, Thomas describes different levels of order: the order within a man’s soul, the civil order, the order of the universe as a whole. The phrase “protecting people’s safety,” specifies how civil punishment goes about redressing disorder. Unlike eternal punishment, it does not redress disorder perfectly. It does not give to each exactly what his acts deserve in respect to the order of the universe. Civil punishment redresses only civil disorder.. Thomas observes that only eternal punishments are retributive in an absolute sense. Man’s punishments, including those of the state, “are sought, not for theirown sake, because this is not the final time of retribution, but in their character of medicine, conducing either to the amendment of the sinner, or to the good of the commonwealth whose calm is ensured by the punishment of evil-doers.”
66Paragraph 2267 brings all three of the above-mentioned characteristics of punishment to bear on its treatment of the death penalty. Paragraph 2267 begins by “[a]ssuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined.” The presence of public authority is mentioned in the second sentence, as is the common good: If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Thus, all the elements that are characteristic of punishment in the Catechism’streatment are also present in its treatment of CP, implying that CP is being considered precisely as a punishment. What about the Catechism’s assertion (2267) that CP is licit if it is “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”? Does this indicate a rejection of the public order justification in the case of CP? This simply does not follow, especially when we consider that paragraph 2266 identified protecting people’s safety as at least one part of defending public order. The Catechism does imply that it is illicit for public officials to use the death penalty simply as retribution. They must consider whether a lethal punishment is necessary to defend human lives. If necessary—that is, if the available non-lethal punishments would be insufficient to defend human lives—then public authority may rightly choose CP. This kind of decision-making is obviously subject to many contingencies. Non-lethal punishments may turn out to be ineffective in cases when they were thought to be adequate, and lethal punishments may be thought necessary in cases when they are not. The possibility of error does not make it impossible to make a moral judgment. Practical knowledge, since it depends on particulars, not all of which can be known by the human agent, does not have the same certainty that speculative knowledge has, but it is nonetheless knowledge.Brugger is mistaken in thinking that because the Catechism stresses the secondary or specific justification of the death penalty, it rejects the primary or general justification for punishment. The Catechism’s reasoning on CP is similar to the reasoning used to justify private self-defense in its insistence that lethal force is a last resort (“the only possible way of defending human lives”). But while private self-defense only presupposes that the aggressor represents a serious and immediate threat, CP presupposes not only that the aggressor represents a threat, but that the aggressor has already committed some offense: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.”
67 The Catechism does not deny that the death penalty may be used as punishment, but it adds that this punishment ought to be used only when necessary for the defense of society. The idea of CP as a kind of defense is not new; the tradition also sees CP as a way in which society defends itself from threats and preserves innocent human lives. For what is meant by defense of society, if not something very like the “preservation and security of human life” and “freedom from external disorders”?
68 What is new is the judgment that at the present time, situations in which CP is necessary to defense of society are rare. The Catechism does not deny the retributive justification for CP, but it emphasizes the secondary justification, defense of society. So both Aquinas and the Catechism make retribution a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the just use of CP. Punishment presupposes guilt (the primary, retributive justification), he says, but the punishments of this life are further characterized by their medicinal quality. Not only must the criminal be guilty of a grave crime, he must present a grave threat to the common good, in order for CP to be justified. Because this world is not the stage for perfect retribution,69 the death penalty is only used to remove those offenders who are a grave threat to the civil community: “human justice ... puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.”70The second part of Brugger’s development of doctrine position is the association of CP with the principle of double effect. In his treatment of the Catechism, Brugger suggests that the death penalty may be justified not as a punishment, but as social self-defense: Because the text [of the Catechism]strictly ties its analysis to a model of self-defense against the wider conceptual backdrop of double-effect reasoning, it is reasonable to conclude (1) that the act referred to in the text as poena mortis is not, precisely speaking, an act of punishment, but an act of collective self-defense by the community against a dangerous internal aggressor, and (2) that capital punishment(CP) as well as all acts of legitimate killing should be limited by conditions traditionally used to limit lawful killing in private self-defense.
71The application of double effect to CP is problematic for two reasons: it is philosophically untenable, and it is not supported by the text of the Catechism.Brugger stretches the idea of double effect beyond its reasonable application. He maintains that sometimes CP describes an act of collective self-defense, which does not include death as an intention. This is not a reasonable use of double-effect. The source of double-effect reasoning is the article on self-defense in S.T. II-II, q. 64. Thomas argues there that killing in self-defense is sometimes licit. He gives the principle, “Moral acts receive their species according to what is intended, but not from that which is praeter intentionem.”
72 Death may result from an act of proportional self-defense by a private person, and death in this case is praeter intentionem. Since he has said that what is praeter intentionem does not give species to the moral act, it follows that in an act of private self-defense, the killing of the attacker does not determine the moral species. In the same article, he concludes, “A man may not lawfully intend to kill a man in order to defend himself, except for him who has public authority, who, intending to kill a man in self-defense, refers this to the public good.”73 While a private person may not intend to kill a man, he may use potentially lethal forms of self-defense. As one recent commentator puts it, “he may knowingly risk the assailant’s life by defending himself with such force that the aggressor’s death, if it results, would be one of the foreseeable characteristic consequences of the self-defensive act.”
74Yet Thomas quite definitely considers those with public authority to be a different case. In a previous article, he states the reason for this exception: It is lawful for any private individual to do anything for the common good, provided it harm nobody: but if it be harmful to some other, it cannot be done, except by virtue of the judgment of the person to whom it pertains to decide what is to be taken from the parts for the welfare of the whole.75Those like Brugger who fail to distinguish between what is morally required of and permitted to a private person, and what is morally required of and permitted to public authority, must reject all intentional killing as specifically evil. For Thomas, on the other hand, the presence of public authority makes one act of self-defense specifically different than the other. It is not that it is good for the public official to do something that is evil per se, which would be contradictory, since an act that is evil per se is by definition an act that is never good. Rather, the act of intentional killing is insufficiently specified until we know who is killing and who is killed. Thomas claims that the act of intentionally killing a wrongdoer for the common good is specifically good, but it is only possible to one with authority for the common good. This does not mean that the public official intends the offender’s death for its own sake, an intention that Thomas condemns.76 This in fact would make it an act of hatred, and therefore an evil act. The principle that one with public authority may kill for the common good is operative also in the case of CP: It is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.7. .
To continue to read the full article about Roman Catholic Church 's Catechism supporting Death Penalty as a Capital Punishment Open this Link and share it to the World to let them also see, read open to know and understand clearly All about this Last Days' Satanic Church's Deceptions: [ http://www.africanunionsc.org/2020/10/true-7th-day-adventists-will-soon-be.html ].'
Video[Shopping On SUNday Increases Pollution. ECOCIDE Mother Church False Sabbath. We can Save The Planet].
......
.
Chapter 30—Called to Reach a Higher Standard
This chapter is based on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
In the hope of impressing vividly upon the minds of the Corinthian believers the importance of firm self-control, strict temperance, and unflagging zeal in the service of Christ, Paul in his letter to them made a striking comparison between the Christian warfare and the celebrated foot races held at stated intervals near Corinth. Of all the games instituted among the Greeks and the Romans, the foot races were the most ancient and the most highly esteemed. They were witnessed by kings, nobles, and statesmen. Young men of rank and wealth took part in them and shrank from no effort or discipline necessary to obtain the prize. AA 309.1
The contests were governed by strict regulations, from which there was no appeal. Those who desired their names entered as competitors for the prize had first to undergo a severe preparatory training. Harmful indulgence of appetite, or any other gratification that would lower mental or physical vigor, was strictly forbidden. For one to have any hope of success in these trials of strength and speed, the muscles must be strong and supple, and the nerves well under control. Every movement must be certain, every step swift and unswerving; the physical powers must reach the highest mark. AA 309.2
As the contestants in the race made their appearance before the waiting multitude, their names were heralded, and the rules of the race were distinctly stated. Then they all started together, the fixed attention of the spectators inspiring them with a determination to win. The judges were seated near the goal, that they might watch the race from its beginning to its close and give the prize to the true victor. If a man reached the goal first by taking an unlawful advantage, he was not awarded the prize. AA 310.1
In these contests great risks were run. Some never recovered from the terrible physical strain. It was not unusual for men to fall on the course, bleeding at the mouth and nose, and sometimes a contestant would drop dead when about to seize the prize. But the possibility of lifelong injury or of death was not looked upon as too great a risk to run for the sake of the honor awarded the successful contestant. AA 310.2
As the winner reached the goal, the applause of the vast multitude of onlookers rent the air and awoke the echoes of the surrounding hills and mountains. In full view of the spectators, the judge presented him with the emblems of victory—a laurel crown and a palm branch to carry in his right hand. His praise was sung throughout the land; his parents received their share of honor; and even the city in which he lived was held in high esteem for having produced so great an athlete. AA 310.3
In referring to these races as a figure of the Christian warfare, Paul emphasized the preparation necessary to the success of the contestants in the race—the preliminary discipline, the abstemious diet, the necessity for temperance. “Every man that striveth for the mastery,” he declared, “is temperate in all things.” The runners put aside every indulgence that would tend to weaken the physical powers, and by severe and continuous discipline trained their muscles to strength and endurance, that when the day of the contest should arrive, they might put the heaviest tax upon their powers. How much more important that the Christian, whose eternal interests are at stake, bring appetite and passion under subjection to reason and the will of God! Never must he allow his attention to be diverted by amusements, luxuries, or ease. All his habits and passions must be brought under the strictest discipline. Reason, enlightened by the teachings of God's word and guided by His Spirit, must hold the reins of control. AA 311.1
And after this has been done, the Christian must put forth the utmost exertion in order to gain the victory. In the Corinthian games the last few strides of the contestants in the race were made with agonizing effort to keep up undiminished speed. So the Christian, as he nears the goal, will press onward with even more zeal and determination than at the first of his course. AA 311.2
Paul presents the contrast between the chaplet of fading laurel received by the victor in the foot races, and the crown of immortal glory that will be given to him who runs with triumph the Christian race. “They do it,” he declares, “to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.” To win a perishable prize, the Grecian runners spared themselves no toil or discipline. We are striving for a prize infinitely more valuable, even the crown of everlasting life. How much more careful should be our striving, how much more willing our sacrifice and self-denial! AA 311.3
In the epistle to the Hebrews is pointed out the single-hearted purpose that should characterize the Christian's race for eternal life: “Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.” Hebrews 12:1, 2. Envy, malice, evil thinking, evilspeaking, covetousness—these are weights that the Christian must lay aside if he would run successfully the race for immortality. Every habit or practice that leads into sin and brings dishonor upon Christ must be put away, whatever the sacrifice. The blessing of heaven cannot attend any man in violating the eternal principles of right. One sin cherished is sufficient to work degradation of character and to mislead others. AA 312.1
“If thy hand cause thee to stumble,” the Saviour said, “Cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire. And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell.” Mark 9:43-45, R.V. If to save the body from death, the foot or the hand should be cut off, or even the eye plucked out, how much more earnest should the Christian be to put away sin, which brings death to the soul! AA 312.2
The competitors in the ancient games, after they had submitted to self-denial and rigid discipline, were not even then sure of the victory. “Know ye not,” Paul asked, “that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize?” However eagerly and earnestly the runners might strive, the prize could be awarded to but one. One hand only could grasp the coveted garland. Some might put forth the utmost effort to obtain the prize, but as they reached forth the hand to secure it, another, an instant before them, might grasp the coveted treasure. AA 313.1
Such is not the case in the Christian warfare. Not one who complies with the conditions will be disappointed at the end of the race. Not one who is earnest and persevering will fail of success. The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. The weakest saint, as well as the strongest, may wear the crown of immortal glory. All may win who, through the power of divine grace, bring their lives into conformity to the will of Christ. The practice, in the details of life, of the principles laid down in God's word, is too often looked upon as unimportant—a matter too trivial to demand attention. But in view of the issue at stake, nothing is small that will help or hinder. Every act casts its weight into the scale that determines life's victory or defeat. And the reward given to those who win will be in proportion to the energy and earnestness with which they have striven. AA 313.2
The apostle compared himself to a man running in a race, straining every nerve to win the prize. “I therefore so run,” he says, “not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” That he might not run uncertainly or at random in the Christian race, Paul subjected himself to severe training. The words, “I keep under my body,” literally mean to beat back by severe discipline the desires, impulses, and passions. AA 314.1
Paul feared lest, having preached to others, he himself should be a castaway. He realized that if he did not carry out in his life the principles he believed and preached, his labors in behalf of others would avail him nothing. His conversation, his influence, his refusal to yield to self-gratification, must show that his religion was not a profession merely, but a daily, living connection with God. One goal he kept ever before him, and strove earnestly to reach—“the righteousness which is of God by faith.” Philippians 3:9. AA 314.2
Paul knew that his warfare against evil would not end so long as life should last. Ever he realized the need of putting a strict guard upon himself, that earthly desires might not overcome spiritual zeal. With all his power he continued to strive against natural inclinations. Ever he kept before him the ideal to be attained, and this ideal he strove to reach by willing obedience to the law of God. His words, his practices, his passions—all were brought under the control of the Spirit of God. AA 314.3
It was this singlehearted purpose to win the race for eternal life that Paul longed to see revealed in the lives of the Corinthian believers. He knew that in order to reach Christ's ideal for them, they had before them a life struggle from which there would be no release. He entreated them to strive lawfully, day by day seeking for piety and moral excellence. He pleaded with them to lay aside every weight and to press forward to the goal of perfection in Christ. AA 315.1
Paul pointed the Corinthians to the experience of ancient Israel, to the blessings that rewarded their obedience, and to the judgments that followed their transgressions. He reminded them of the miraculous way in which the Hebrews were led from Egypt under the protection of the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. Thus they were safely conducted through the Red Sea, while the Egyptians, essaying to cross in like manner, were all drowned. By these acts God had acknowledged Israel as His church. They “did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” The Hebrews, in all their travels, had Christ as a leader. The smitten rock typified Christ, who was to be wounded for men's transgressions, that the stream of salvation might flow to all. AA 315.2
Notwithstanding the favor that God showed to the Hebrews, yet because of their lust for the luxuries left behind in Egypt, and because of their sin and rebellion, the judgments of God came upon them. The apostle enjoined the Corinthian believers to heed the lesson contained in Israel's experience. “Now these things were our examples,” he declared, “to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.” He showed how love of ease and pleasure had prepared the way for sins that called forth the signal vengeance of God. It was when the children of Israel sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play, that they threw off the fear of God, which they had felt as they listened to the giving of the law; and, making a golden calf to represent God, they worshiped it. And it was after enjoying a luxurious feast connected with the worship of Baalpeor, that many of the Hebrews fell through licentiousness. The anger of God was aroused, and at His command “three and twenty thousand” were slain by the plague in one day. AA 315.3
The apostle adjured the Corinthians, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Should they become boastful and self-confident, neglecting to watch and pray, they would fall into grievous sin, calling down upon themselves the wrath of God. Yet Paul would not have them yield to despondency or discouragement. He gave them the assurance: “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way of escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” AA 316.1
Paul urged his brethren to ask themselves what influence their words and deeds would have upon others and to do nothing, however innocent in itself, that would seem to sanction idolatry or offend the scruples of those who might be weak in the faith. “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” AA 316.2
The apostle's words of warning to the Corinthian church are applicable to all time and are especially adapted to our day. By idolatry he meant not only the worship of idols, but self-serving, love of ease, the gratification of appetite and passion. A mere profession of faith in Christ, a boastful knowledge of the truth, does not make a man a Christian. A religion that seeks only to gratify the eye, the ear, and the taste, or that sanctions self-indulgence, is not the religion of Christ. AA 317.1
By a comparison of the church with the human body, the apostle aptly illustrated the close and harmonious relationship that should exist among all members of the church of Christ. “By one Spirit,” he wrote, “are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.... God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked: that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” AA 317.2
And then, in words which from that day to this have been to men and women a source of inspiration and encouragement, Paul set forth the importance of that love which should be cherished by the followers of Christ: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” AA 318.1
No matter how high the profession, he whose heart is not filled with love for God and his fellow men is not a true disciple of Christ. Though he should possess great faith and have power even to work miracles, yet without love his faith would be worthless. He might display great liberality; but should he, from some other motive than genuine love, bestow all his goods to feed the poor, the act would not commend him to the favor of God. In his zeal he might even meet a martyr's death, yet if not actuated by love, he would be regarded by God as a deluded enthusiast or an ambitious hypocrite. AA 318.2
“Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.” The purest joy springs from the deepest humiliation. The strongest and noblest characters are built on the foundation of patience, love, and submission to God's will. AA 319.1
Charity “doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil.” Christ-like love places the most favorable construction on the motives and acts of others. It does not needlessly expose their faults; it does not listen eagerly to unfavorable reports, but seeks rather to bring to mind the good qualities of others. AA 319.2
Love “rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” This love “never faileth.” It can never lose its value; it is a heavenly attribute. As a precious treasure, it will be carried by its possessor through the portals of the city of God. AA 319.3
“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” AA 319.4
In the lowering of the moral standard among the Corinthian believers, there were those who had given up some of the fundamental features of their faith. Some had gone so far as to deny the doctrine of the resurrection. Paul met this heresy with a very plain testimony regarding the unmistakable evidence of the resurrection of Christ. He declared that Christ, after His death, “rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,” after which “He was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve: after that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, He was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also.” AA 319.5
With convincing power the apostle set forth the great truth of the resurrection. “If there be no resurrection of the dead,” he argued, “then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.”The apostle carried the minds of the Corinthian brethren forward to the triumphs of the resurrection morn, when all the sleeping saints are to be raised, henceforth to live forever with their Lord. “Behold,” the apostle declared, “I show you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? ... Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” AA 320.2
Glorious is the triumph awaiting the faithful. The apostle, realizing the possibilities before the Corinthian believers, sought to set before them that which uplifts from the selfish and the sensual, and glorifies life with the hope of immortality. Earnestly he exhorted them to be true to their high calling in Christ. “My beloved brethren,” he pleaded, “be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” AA 321.1
Thus the apostle, in the most decided and impressive manner, endeavored to correct the false and dangerous ideas and practices that were prevailing in the Corinthian church. He spoke plainly, yet in love for their souls. In his warnings and reproofs, light from the throne of God was shining upon them, to reveal the hidden sins that were defiling their lives. How would it be received? AA 321.2
After the letter had been dispatched, Paul feared lest that which he had written might wound too deeply those whom he desired to benefit. He keenly dreaded a further alienation and sometimes longed to recall his words. Those who, like the apostle, have felt a responsibility for beloved churches or institutions, can best appreciate his depression of spirit and self-accusing. The servants of God who bear the burden of His work for this time know something of the same experience of labor, conflict, and anxious care that fell to the lot of the great apostle. Burdened by divisions in the church, meeting with ingratitude and betrayal from some to whom he looked for sympathy and support, realizing the peril of the churches that harbored iniquity, compelled to bear a close, searching testimony in reproof of sin, he was at the same time weighed down with fear that he might have dealt with too great severity. With trembling anxiety he waited to receive some tidings as to the reception of his message. .
Article Title: End of This Earth's Final 4 Years Application of The Book Great Controversy within 1177 PRN and 3rd Angel's Loud Cry Message Period and QAnon.Happy 7th Day Holy Sabbath Day-March 13th, 2021 at 12:59'P.M.
The Sanctuary Messages-October 22nd, 1844- October 22nd, 2024.
The Tabernacle and the Messiah.[ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wVUcJUJBFMU&t=139s ].
Jesus Christ, the Passover Lamb.[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g7lewy22t4M&t=11s ].
The Day of Atonement in The Heavenly Sanctuary-October 22nd, 1844- October 22nd, 2024- Leviticus 16.
Understanding the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur-Leviticus 16, Hebrew 9-10[ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UYT-0AmlnA&t=126s ].
Understanding 1st Fruit, Pentecost and the Feast of Weeks.[ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ubPKLDF_G6E&t=351s].
Understanding Feast of Trumpets or Rosh Hashanah.[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g9wDnsjMtW0&t=263s ].
Understanding Feast of Tabernacles or Sukkot.[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6PmxypqZ9I&t=288s ].
7 Last Plagues of Ending this Covid19 New World Order following the 3rd Angel's Loud Cry Message February 7th, 2021 - February 7th, 2024 -October 15th, 2024 at 1:59' a.m. Link:[ http://www.africanunionsc.org/2021/01/new-ausc-article-on-january-7th-2021-at.html?m=1 ].
Associated Article Title:
Our King Jesus Christ ,the SON of MAN,The Lord of 7th Day Holy SABBATH, The Owner of 10 Commandments of Almighty God is Coming Very Very Soon in this Coming Spring 2024.This is the Last week, that Completes 70 weeks Daniel 9:1-27.Please Prepare His Way, Repent,Repent, Repent, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Link:[ http://www.africanunionsc.org/2020/10/article-title-our-king-jesus-christ-son.html?m=1 ].
The 1847 End Time 2024 and Hell 3024 Application of 1177=1000+177 PRN within 24th-25th-26th-27th-28th of The 28 Fundamental Beliefs: The core beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists(SDA) April 3rd, 1847 Theology and QAnon From October 22nd, 1844.Repent, Repent, Remember The 7th Day Sabbath To Keep It HolyJesus is Coming on Tuesday-October 15th, 2024 at 1:59' a.m. Published on A Happy 7th Day Holy Sabbath Day-March 13th, 2021 at 1:59'P.M. Link:[http://www.africanunionsc.org/2021/03/application-of-11771000177-prn-withing.html?m=1 ].
Jesus Christ Our 7th Day Sabbath Lord is very very very soon coming at the End of 70 Years on October15th, 2024 at 1h59'a.m from 1954 when the King of Babylon Pope Jean Paul II"Nebucadinezzar" Begun His Sunday Law Satanic Teachings at the Fall of His Son Pope Francis"Belshazzar" from the New World Order Presidency Predicted by Roman Catholic Archbishop James E. Quigley at His 170 Years of existence from October 15th, 1854: After The Writing on the Wall due to "Laudato Si 237-Sunday Law 7/2/2021" is going to be explained in Loud Cry by All Anointed 7th Day Adventists"144000 Saints" till 7/2/2024, Jeremiah 29:10-14, Jeremiah 30:1-24.Repent-Remember the 7th Day Sabbath To keep It Holy. Link:[http://www.africanunionsc.org/2021/03/jesus-christ-our-7th-day-sabbath-lord.html?m=1 ].
Read, Listen and Share Links of the Book "National Sunday Law". Associated Link:[ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C-7rLl1z86E&list=PLp4EdRHp7h4dnkW5gKD1BoLIwPTq4wI_d&index=2 ].
You can Click Here to View our Alarm, set for You to Start Counting down for 2nd Coming of Our Lord Messiah Jesus Christ our King of 7th Day Holy Sabbath and of All Sealed 7th Day Holy Sabbath Keepers until Tuesday, 15 October 2024 (Chicago time).
| 1765 | days |
| 42364 | hours |
| 2541843 | minutes |
| 152510588 | seconds |
The Great Controversy
Home EGW Writings Books The Great Controversy
Preface
37.[Chapter 37—The Scriptures a Safeguard/The Great Controversy-Audio in English],(in Kinyarwanda),
38.[Chapter 38—The Final Warning/The Great Controversy-Audio in English],(in Kinyarwanda),
39.[Chapter 39—The Jacob's Time of Trouble/The Great Controversy-Audio in English],(in Kinyarwanda),
40.[Chapter 40—God's People Delivered/The Great Controversy-Audio in English],(in Kinyarwanda)=JESUITS,
41.[Chapter 41—Desolation of the Earth/The Great Controversy-Audio in English],(in Kinyarwanda),
42.[Chapter 42—The Controversy Ended/The Great Controversy-Audio in English],(in Kinyarwanda).
1) National Sunday Law Book"Text ":
Associated Link:[ http://www.anym.org/pdf/National_Sunday_Law.pdf ].
2) National Sunday Law Book" Audio ":
Associated Links to All 7 Chapters:
1. Chapter I:NSL- CHAP 1. THE TWO HORNED BEAST.
2.Chapter II:NSL- Chapter 2. The Beast Identified.
3.Chapter III:NSL- CHAPTER 3. THE BEAST DESCRIBED.
4.Chapter IV:NSL- Chapter 4. Dynamite.
5.Chapter V:NSL- Chapter 5. The Mark Of The Beast.
6.Chapter VI:NSL- CHAPTER 6. THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST.
7.Chapter VII:NSL- Chapter 7 Global Conflict.
Our King Jesus Christ ,the SON of MAN,The Lord of 7th Day Holy SABBATH, The Owner of 10 Commandments of Almighty God is Coming Very Very Soon in this Coming Spring at 01:59' a.m on 15/10/2024,Southern Hemisphere DST.
Author:
Dr. IRAGUHA BANDORA Yves, BScN, RN, MG, MD.
Original Article, Copy Rights, November 29th, 2019, 02:00 A.M. All Rights Reserved.
 |
Copy and paste to share to 7 people /Sangiza n' abandi bantu 7,Yesu yaje twatashye:2020-06-06:14h41'51''Inama y' Agakiza Yesu i Getsemani itangiranye n' itariki ya 1Nzeri2020 kugeza kw' Itegeko ry' Icyumweru 15Gashyantare 2021,Yesu azagaruka 15 Ukwakira 2024,Isaha yageze,Mwiyeze Imbabazi Z'Imana Kubeza Isabato ni 22Ukwakira 2020. Imvura y'itumba n'ihembura rizamara amezi 3 n' iminsi 15, bizahuza na Gashyantare 7th-17th, 2020.Twatashye Yesu Yaje,Mwige Ikigisho cya 42 Intambara Ikomeye, musome Yesaya 12:1-6, Musome 1 Abami 81:66, Mubihuze na Yohana 17:1-26"17:17"Ubereshe Ukuri, Ijambo Ryawe niryo Kuri:1)Inyandiko: http://www.africanunionsc.org/2020/06/2020060614h4151getsemani-itangiranye.html ,2) Amajwi: https://vocaroo.com/93jDG6UqbSC , 3) YouTube updates on Sunday Law movements: http://www.africanunionsc.org/2020/05/click-here-to-listen-to-updated-sunday.html |
"Uwiteka Imana yacu Mwami W' Isi n' Ijuru Uhoraho Yehova Uhabwe ikuzo n' Icyubahiro hano Mu Isi nk' Uko biba aho no mu Ijuru, dore aho iki gitabo kigeze, mu majwi no mu Inyandiko, aho umuntu wese uje aha abasha nawe kumva no gusoma ibice byose by'iki gitabo INTAMBARA IKOMEYE" Great Controversy " mu Kinyarwanda ndetse no mu Icyongereza"English ", kandi akanakanda ahanditse download, ibice byacyo byose uko ari 42 akabikura kuri interineti akabika amajwi y' iki gitabo hafi ye, bitewe n'akarengane kegereje abeza isabato yawe Data wa twese, akazabasha kuba aho yabisangiza n' abandi bitamusabye kuba yasubiye kuri interineti.
kandi Mwami mana yanjye ,nkaba ngusaba kumvisha abasoma iby'iyi nyandiko kurarikirwa nayo gutakambira Uwiteka Imana yacu ngo tubashe guhabwa Imbabazi z' Ibyaha, no gusukirwa Umwuka Wera Mu Mvura y'itumba.
Mbisabye byose nizeye mu Izina rya Yesu Kristo Umwami n' Umukza wacu.Amen." By Dr. IRAGUHA BANDORA Yves, BScN, RN, MG, MD.
0.Chap 0-IJAMBO RY'IBANZE
1.Chap 1-KURIMBUKA KWA YERUSALEMU
2.Chap 2-AKARENGANE MU BINYEJANA BYA MBERE
3.Chap 3-INTANDARO YO KUGOMA
4.Chap 4- ABAVODUWA
5.Chap 5-YOHANI WYCLIFE
6.Chap 6-HUSE NA YORAMU
7.Chap 7-LUTHER YITANDUKANYA NA ROMA
8.Chap 8-LUTHER IMBERE Y'URUKIKO RW'I WORMS
9.Chap 9-ZWINGLE
10.Chap 10-AMAJYAMBERE Y'UBUGOROZI MU BUDAGE
11.Chap 11-UBUHAKANYI BW'IBIKOMANGOMA
12.Chap 12-UBUGOROZI MU BUFARANSA
13.Chap 13-IBIHUGU BYITWA PAYS-BAS
14.Chap 14-ABAGOROZI BAKURIKIYEHO MU BWONGEREZA
15.Chap 15-BIBILIYA N'IHINDURAMATWARA MU BUFARANSA
16.Chap 16-ABAPADIRI B'ABAGENZI
17.Chap 17-INTEGUZA ZO MU RUTURUTURU
18.Chap 18-UMUGOROZI W'UMUNYAMERIKA
19.Chap 19-KUVA MU MWIJIMA UJYA MU MUCYO
20.Chap 20-IVUGURURA RIKOMEYE MU ITORERO
21.Chap 21-UKUBURIRWA KUTITAWEHO
22.Chap 22-UBUHANUZI BUSOHORA
23.Chap 23-UBUTURO BWERA
24.Chap 24-AHERA CYANE
25.Chap 25-AMATEGEKO Y'IMANA NTAHINDUKA
26.Chap 26-UMURIMO W'UBUGOROZI
27.Chap 27-IVUGURURA RYO MURI IKI GIHE
28.Chap 28-ISUZUMARUBANZA
29.Chap 29-INKOMOKO Y'IKIBI
30.Chap 30-URWANGO HAGATI Y'UMUNTU NA SATANI
31.Chap 31- UMURIMO W'IMYUKA MIBI
32.Chap 32-IMITEGO YA SATANI:(Imyaka 6000)
33.Chap 33-IKINYOMA GIKOMEYE CYA MBERE NA MBERE
34.Chap 34-ABAPFUYE BASHOBORA KUVUGANA N'ABAZIMA
35.Chap 35-IMICO N'IMIGAMBI Y'UBUPAPA
36.Chap 36-INTAMBARA YEGEREJE N'INTANDARO YAYO
37.Chap 37-IBYANDITSWE BYERA NI UMURINZI WACU
38.Chap 38-IMIBURO IHERUKA
39.Chap 39-IGIHE CY'UMUBABARO (WA YAKOBO-2024)
40.Chap 40-GUCUNGURWA K'UBWOKO BW'IMANA
41.Chap 41-ISI IHINDUKA UMUSAKA
42.Chap 42-IHEREZO RY'INTAMBARA:(Imyaka 6000)
.
WERA_BY_ABAKURIKIYEYESU_FAMILY_CHOIR,_COPYRIGHT_RESERVED,_2020( Indirimbo Yo Kuramya no Guhimbaza Imana Umuremyi'[ https://voca.ro/1cZQmcgUtEt5 ]'.)
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment