-
A Papal Foreword
May 16, 2005 | 0 comments
A Further Perspective
Peggy Noonan’s Church History
It’s wrong to suggest that the Catholic Church hasn’t been a leader in confronting sex abuse.
Peggy Noonan is usually so good. But I am afraid she is stuck in the past with regard to the Catholic Church’s response to sexual abuse (Wall Street Journal, April 17). She charges Vatican officials with complacency and declares, the “more relaxed the institution, the less likely it will reform.”
But Peggy has apparently not noticed that tremendous reform has occurred. In fact, more reform has taken place in the Catholic Church than in any other social institution in which the abuse of minors has occurred. In 2002 the U. S. Bishops approved a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. They hired the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to conduct an independent investigation of the problem. They established a National Review Board chaired by a woman (Peggy called for a woman’s touch), Justice Anne M. Burke. The National Review Board monitors the policies of the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection of the bishops and oversees its annual audit. Five of its current 13 members have that “woman’s touch.” One of the original members of the Review Board was a media representative, William Burleigh, at the time head of the Scripps news agency. This was surely expressive of a desire on the part of the bishops for transparency.
The chairman of the research committee of the original National Review Board, Robert Bennett, said when the report was issued that the sexual abuse of minors was a broad social problem and that a focus merely on the Catholic Church would be a disservice to our children. Regrettably, however, that is exactly what has happened.
There will be media reports of sexual abuse by school teachers, Scout leaders, swimming coaches, and others, but they are fleeting. In March a judge ordered the Boy Scouts to release over 1,200 “perversion files” with Scout leaders who had molested boys. In early April a headline shouted, “Sex Abuse Pervasive in USA Swimming,” with reports of molesters going unchallenged for decades as they moved from state to state. In 2002 Dr. Charol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University prepared a report for the U.S. Department of Education that found that 6 to 10 percent of high school students across the country have been sexually abused or harassed. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,” she declared. However, such reports will surface for a day and then quickly recede from public consciousness.
Many have heard of the sexual abuse by clergy in Catholic schools in Germany. However, at the time these reports were surfacing, it was learned that a prestigious private boarding school had an unspeakable record of abuse of its own. The Odenwaldschule is a UNESCO model school whose administration would arrange to have students provide “entertainment” for visitors and whose male students were having sexual relations with the wives of teachers. A music teacher had numerous pupils living with him in his apartment. The administrator of the school was an advisor to the German Ministry of Education. Where were the headlines proclaiming that a UNESCO model school was engaged in the systematic molestation of children? In fact, when the report of the Odenwaldschule first appeared it was under a headline decrying abuse in Catholic schools!
None of these other social institutions have put safeguards in place that even begin to approach those that have been established by the Catholic Church. There is nothing on a national level that tracks abusive school teachers, for example. And such negligence by these other institutions leaves more children at risk.
Frankly, the only pedophile our family has ever known personally was our children’s dentist. He was married with children, an elder in his Protestant church, and delivered Meals on Wheels to shut-ins. He was also a child pornographer and abuser. If we are not vigilant against abuse everywhere, our children are at risk.
The reforms in the Church have been extensive, indicating anything but complacency. When Josef Ratzinger was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he arranged for abuse cases to be moved from another Vatican office to his own — not for purposes of cover-up but so that the cases could be dealt with in a more expeditious manner. In 2001 Pope John Paul II issued a decree Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela drawn up by Cardinal Ratzinger. Among other things, it amended canon law in 18 places to allow a more effective response to charges of sexual abuse. Priests came to be more easily disciplined and defrocked, and they were.
Other reforms continued. One can visit the website of virtually any diocese in this country and there will be an icon taking the visitor to the policies pertaining to abuse. Most dioceses have a Victims’ Assistance Coordinator who is a layperson to whom abuse can be reported if the victim would be uneasy approaching a cleric. The Church has also adopted a “zero tolerance” policy, meaning that if a priest admits to any past sexual activity with a minor or is found guilty of it, he may no longer function as a priest. No other social institution has as many safeguards in place for dealing with perpetrators of these criminal acts.
All were shocked by the sexual abuse in Catholic and state institutions in Ireland. But is it known that the Church has been engaged for some time in addressing the problem?
In 1996 the Catholic Church in Ireland published Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response which provided guidelines for dealing with abuse cases. The Bishops’ Committee on Child Abuse actually commissioned independent research into the problem by the Royal College of Surgeons. Their report was published in 2003 as A Time to Listen. The National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland had its inaugural meeting in May 2006 and was headed by the layman Justice Anthony Hederman. It is currently chaired by an attorney. Four of its members are women. (There’s that woman’s touch again, Peggy.) Pope Benedict severely criticized the Irish bishops for their handling of the abuse cases, and four have offered their resignation. And the Holy Father just met with abuse victims during his trip to Malta, not shying away from a public acknowledgment of the sins of members of the Church and the Church’s desire to make amends. None of this seems to express complacency.
Peggy Noonan and others should recognize and applaud the reforms which have taken place in the Catholic Church and urge other institutions working with the young to be equally as bold and as far-reaching in establishing programs to protect our children.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (722) | Leave a comment
More Articles by John M. Haas
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/23/peggy-noonans-church-history
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Razing Reagan
- What’s in a Name?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Nick| 4.23.10 @ 6:44AM
How long before Doctor Wrong, and others, show up with their anti-Catholic bigotry?
Ted| 4.23.10 @ 9:55AM
Oh, no doubt not long. I bet as I scroll down the comments I shall find some soon enough.
Alan Brooks| 4.23.10 @ 11:39PM
I've always liked Catholics more than Protestants and Muslims.
Catholics have been around longer, and are more civilized. besides, how many kids have been to bed with Protestants & Muslims?
Alan Brooks| 4.24.10 @ 10:23AM
Just yesterday (4/23) a single plaintiff won a seven figure sum from the Boy Scouts (BSA). So the 'problem' is far bigger than the Church, or any house of worship. In fact though the number of actual molesters is statistically small, the number of pedophiles is enormous: how many guys have looked at a 16 or 17 year old?
Alan Brooks| 4.24.10 @ 10:32AM
oh, wait, the BSA fork-over is $18.5 mil punitive added to a previously awarded $1 mil. compensatory judgment.
Must have been a great deal of molestation--
19.5 million of it.
Pingback| 4.23.10 @ 6:55AM
The American Spectator : Peggy Noonan's Church History | Child Molestation Lawyer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.23.10 @ 7:34AM
The American Spectator : Peggy Noonan's Church History American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.23.10 @ 7:44AM
The American Spectator : Peggy Noonan's Church History | Ireland today links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 8:55AM
The John Jay study referenced above is here:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
The graph in 2.3 is telling:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/prev3.pdf
It shows that the number of incidences of sexual abuse peaked in 1982 and has declined more than 90% between 1982 and 1995, holding steady at less than 50 incidents per year.
Even one incident is too many, which is why the Dallas Charter was adopted in 2002---AFTER the Church had successfully acted to slash the incidence of sexual abuse---in order to eliminate it entirely.
The fair-minded will note that the cases making the news today are for incidents going back to that 1982 period or earlier and are not reflective of the Church today.
Mark| 4.23.10 @ 11:17AM
Clearly we know and understand that the sexual abuse of children is committed by men and woman from facets of society, not just clergy. I am a practicing catholic but not naive enough to believe our church leadership is beyond reproach.
The John Jay study was strictly controlled, funded and cases supplied by the very men who covered this up, our bishops. How do you know they handed over ALL the files...we know from recent court cases in many, many cases they did not. Secondly they continue to hide pedophile clergy. Just last week we learned of a bishop who cleared a very troubled priest with a serious history of stalking and making advances to woman, when he transferred to the Orlando diocese the Bishop from the Archdiocese of Newark (now the bishop of Paterson) gave him a clean bill so this troubled priest could practice elsewhere among the unsuspecting, even though his record had police reports and all sorts of stalking complaints. Shortly after moving to Florida he began to stalk another woman, broke into her house and attacked her. After his conviction he has changed his name to Walter Fisher and is still a priest of the Archdiocese of Newark. PEOPLE WAKE UP!!!
I suppose you did not read (or see as the acts were taped and can be seen on you tube) about the 82 year old Brazilian priest caught on tape have sex with a young boy, he had begun this relationship at least 4 years ago, another boy he had been abusing secretly taped the 82 year old priest having sex with another boy. Do you really think, after all these years no other adult, or priest knew of his sexual crimes...I seriously doubt it.
It is not what the Catholic Church has done in recent years it is about WHAT IT HAS NOT DONE. Remove predator priests and those who cover for them from ministry and tell us the WHOLE TRUTH!
Peggy Noonan is CORRECT!
As long as their are Catholics who are unwilling or unable to challenge our bishops, they have no reason to change, had they changed we would not be witnessing this repeat performance across Europe, Australia, Canada and now even South America..what did we learn in the US in 2002. How to better cover up the truth...but it still is not working.
Nick| 4.23.10 @ 12:10PM
Mark,
This story wasn't exposed in 2002. The Wanderer was covering it in the mid-90's, when I started reading it. They had been for years.
Also, lay people don't get to "challenge" bishops. They are the shepherds and we are their flocks.
Try humbly assenting to all of the Catholic Church's teachings. The Magisterium is protected by the Holy Spirit. Even when the teachers reject God.
Mark| 4.23.10 @ 1:41PM
Nick, you have just proved my point...as long as bishops have blind sheep who believe they are they must blindly obey the master, Catholics who believe we cannot "challenge" the bishops actions or inaction's within our society...they have no reason to change, and in fact they haven't.
Try exercising some healthy exploration of the truths you have been sold. The thousands upon thousands of children who have been sexually abused by clergy DEMANDS we ask some serious questions. If you reflect upon scripture you will find that Christ had little respect for the clergy of his day, the pharisees.
Catholics time to "awake from your slumber"
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 1:57PM
Well, let's all follow Pope Mark I.
My goodness, come to our diocese and meet with Bishop Jugis. The notion that he's not challenged---DAILY---ought to be good for a laugh.
The man received death threats for daring to state that he wouldn't dispense the Eucharist to Catholics creating public scandal through support for abortion---against 200o years of Church teaching.
Christ founded the Church---kindly point to me the Scripture where Christ commands us to not listen to his apostles.
Don Altobello| 4.24.10 @ 6:07PM
Teflon--
I disagree with a lot of what Mark has said. But what the heck does obedience to the faith (the magisterium) have to do with calling out bishops who aid and abet sexual abusers? You're saying that the laity should never protest and scream bloody murder when there is a corrosive culture such as this within the hierarchy?
It strikes me as truly mind-boggling that your first move was to break out the apologetics talking points.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 3:06PM
Don-
Read Mark's sneering post again.
"Try exercising some healthy exploration of the truths you have been sold. "
We've been SOLD?
Really?
"Catholics time to 'awake from your slumber.'"
According to whom?
Of course, your "break out the apologetics talking points" is evidence of the same ridiculous attitude.
We are called to Truth---and yes, sometimes that means "calling out" brothers and sisters---even in the clergy---for abuses.
That does NOT mean we are our own Pope. It does not mean that every utterance of priest or bishop is dead on arrival unless and until we decide otherwise.
If you want an example of what obedience to Truth and Church looks like, look up St Theresa of Avila.
Or read the epistles if you think Catholics have EVER been blindly obedient. If only we were---there wouldn't have been any sexual abuse in the first place!
Note also that this scandal is the direct result of Catholics deciding in the wake of Vatican II we didn't need to be obedient any longer. Didn't work out so well.
Nick| 4.23.10 @ 8:44PM
Mark,
I never wrote the sheep should be "blind."
I wrote that a Catholic should humbly assent to Church TEACHING, the Magisterium.
As far as the day to day operation of a diocese, the sheep have no authority to compel the bishops to do anything.
If by "challenge", you mean to petition the bishop for something, prayerfully in Christ, of course the sheep may do this.
The "We Are Church" movement of Call to Action is dying out, with the rest of the hippies and baby-boomers.
The time has come for true fidelity to the Bride of Christ and to implement the AUTHENTIC "spirit of Vatican II."
Don Altobello| 4.23.10 @ 11:33PM
This is rubbish, Nick. Bishops ought to have their hand forced when they are practicing crap like this--playing switcharoo with sexually abusive priests. Give me a break!! Use some common sense, for goodness sakes.
Nick| 4.24.10 @ 12:12AM
Mr. Altobello,
Sorry, that is not how Christ set up His Church.
Christ gave authority to the Apostles and the disciples. They, in turn, gave others authority through the laying on of hands. This is how the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has opperated for nearly 2000 years.
A bishop's responsibility is to teach the Faith to the flock. The flock's responsibility is to learn the Faith and live it.
This doesn't mean that bishops, priests, deacons, and religous should not be subject the civil or criminal laws of society.
If you had read the rest of my posts, before you spoutted off, you would have seen that I condemn the shuffling of these predatory priests. I was condemning it in the mid-90s, before the rest of the world bothered to notice.
The authority to run a diocese is completely in the bishop's hands. Lay people have no say, nor should they. The Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with the King, i.e. pray.
Nick| 4.24.10 @ 12:17AM
Oops! That should be: "[...] has OPERATED for nearly 2000 years."
Don Altobello| 4.24.10 @ 5:52PM
Nick--
Don't be an idiot. Pressuring a fellow Christian to do the right thing--that is, prevent an abusive priest from doing the same thing--is in *no* way being disobedient to the faith. This is really a very simple concept. We're not talking about turning the Church into a democracy. What some of these bishops did (or didn't do) is flat out evil. It's got to stop.
Engaging in happy talk--which many orthodox Catholics do--is not the answer. Sometimes you need to question authority. If you see a bishop with his hands down a youngster's pants, are you going to "humbly" request excellency, that you stop, with all due deference? Hell, no! This is just one step removed--demanding that when a priest under their charge is caught in that same act, that he report the situation.
Get you head out of the apologetics books (or your ass!) and back in reality.
Don Altobello| 4.24.10 @ 6:00PM
"If you had read the rest of my posts, before you spoutted off, you would have seen that I condemn the shuffling of these predatory priests. I was condemning it in the mid-90s, before the rest of the world bothered to notice. "
Piss off, Nick. I've read plenty of your posts. And there were quite a few people reporting on this issue in the mid-90s. I really couldn't care less what you reported. And your admonition that I "pray" about it is quite presumptuous too...like you know a damn thing about my prayer life. You seem more concerned with making it seem like people who are outraged have a problem...as opposed to the stupidity in chancery offices.
If this trash hadn't been exposed, if people weren't yelling from the rooftops at the hierarchy, little would have been done. "Humbly" requesting that our bishops use common sense (and morality) probably got you a nice little pat on the head and an "attaboy, now go in the church and pray more so that we can continue business as usual."
Nick| 4.25.10 @ 12:26AM
Mr. Altobello,
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you are delusional, mentally retarded, and can't read plain English.
"Don't be an idiot."; "Get you head out of [...] your [expletive deleted]!) [...]"; "[Expletive deleted] off, Nick."
How VERY Christ-like of you! Are you really this thin skinned? Can't you handle respectful criticism?
And, could you fit any more straw men into your unprovoked tirades? Try reading what I've written again, V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y.
Maybe, next time, you won't falsely accuse me of things I've never claimed.
That the bishops are the sole leader of their dioceses, is just a fact. Even the Holy Father can't tell a bishop how to run his See (unless he is breaking canon law, of course.) The Pope has his own diocese to run, in addition to shepherding the Bride of Christ.
I clearly stated that people have the right to petition their bishop with Charity, prayerfully in Christ. The bishop doesn't have to listen to us.
What got bishops, like Cardinal Law, in trouble was that they LISTENED to society, when professionals told them that these criminals could be cured. Other bishops seem to have been more interested in changing the Church's teaching on sexuality.
I will pray for the uncontrolled fits of pique from which you are currently suffering.
God Bless!
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 3:07PM
I wonder if Don is a Baby Boomer.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:11PM
Don,
Did you ever get the feeling that Nick, Teflon93, etc, are more concerned with protecting the Catholic Church's reputation than the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests?
BTW...Don't eat the canoli...
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 7:37PM
Doctor Wrong,
Can you EVER tell the truth?
Teflon93, and myself, have condemned the vile acts of these perverted (like yourself) predator priests, numerous times.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 7:37PM
And also Mr. Koel!
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:00AM
Anger much, Don?
So much for toning it down, huh?
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 9:18AM
This is certainly not true in the Eastern Churches, including the Eastern Catholic Churches. Bishops are given a special charism to teach the true faith, pass on the Tradition as it was received, and to maintain good order and discipline within their dioceses. But if they should fail in any of these duties, it is the responsibility of the laity to challenge them and hold them accountable--in both matters of doctrine and morality. The Holy Spirit is no respecter of persons, and Paul did challenge Peter to his face in Antioch, when Peter would not eat with the gentiles.
In the Eastern Churches, there is a long history of layman challenging bishops, and frequently being justified. Maximos the Confessor was just a layman when he stood alone against the entire Church in the monothelite controversy.
The role of the laity is not merely to "pay, pray and obey", it is also to safeguard the true faith and to uphold the teachings of the Church against any who transgress them--even those who wear the mitre.
That said, most of the Church's internal critics in this matter are abysmally informed of the facts, and are responding not to the situation as it is, but as it is reported to them by sources that are far from objective.
As regards "The Magisterium", I have been to Rome, and I can tell you there is no such organization, no such office. You cannot go to Rome and ask, "Where is the Magisterium, please"? Magisterium is not an office, it is nothing other than the teaching authority of the Church, and it resides not in one man, or one group of men, but within the entire Church, each member according to his gifts and status. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, because all of those who have been baptized and chrismated have received the gift of the Holy Spirit--that is, the Holy Spirit dwells within each and every one of us, and we are expected to listen to the voice of the Spirit and cooperate with the gift, that we might achieve the holiness to which we are all called.
John - TMF| 4.24.10 @ 10:05AM
Thanks Stuart.
You offer a reminder that in the Latin Rite(s) - there are several - the responsibility of the laity is not fealty but faith.
The sacraments of Holy Orders do not make any man absolute monarch of anything. Papal infallibility is rarely asserted, and often at grave peril to the Church. Most Popes are very reticent to use it.
Priests are servants, not masters. Of course we as laity are instructed to serve as well so the circle of faith is tied together not from the top to the bottom. It is a circle is bound together by the Holy Spirit, in the common vocational call to serve one another.
God is not magic. He is not invoked my incantations and spells cast about with wands. Priests are men, Bishops are men, the Pope is a Man.
Last week we were reminded of the story of Christ's appearance to the Apostles at the Sea of Galilee, after Simon-Peter had, in frustration and fatigue returned to fish. Jesus once again fed his people, and invested formally in Peter a charge based on Simon's denials...
John - 21:15-19
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,
“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He then said to Simon Peter a second time,
“Simon, son of John, do you love me?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
Jesus said to him the third time,
“Simon, son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was distressed that Jesus had said to him a third time,
“Do you love me?” and he said to him,
“Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.
Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger,
you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted;
but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands,
and someone else will dress you
and lead you where you do not want to go.”
He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God.
And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”
Humble old me again...
No where in that charge, in that blessing, in that grave responsibility did Jesus tell Pope Peter to be better than his people. No where did he grace Peter with a vast sea of vassals waiting to attend to him and serve him.
He ended with a grave warning as to what was going to come.
A great and equally humbling experience.
Peace, Brother.
John
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 11:23AM
The statement "Jesus tell Pope Peter to be better than his people" is ludicrous.
Jesus never told "Pope Peter" anything because Peter was never a "Pope". Period. And there is NO scriptural justification (None. Zip. Zero. Zilch) for believing that he was.
The Catholic Church is so full of bull-crap and outright contradictions that you can swim in it.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 12:12PM
The Church should be easy to refute in that case, using Scripture as evidence. So why can't you do that, Doctor Right?
Why, here's why:
John 21:
15] So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
[16] He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
[17] He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
[18] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
[19] This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
[20] Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
[21] Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
[22] Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
[23] Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
[24] This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
[25] And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Christ asked Peter, whom is foremost among the Apostles throughout the Gospels, if he loves him "more than these" --- referring to the other Apostles.
He commands Peter to feed his sheep---not everyone, Peter.
And of course the last line pretty clearly refutes the notion that all Tradition is---or ever would be---compiled in Scripture.
Christ came to found his Church----not to write a book.
It is that Church which compiled Scripture.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:12PM
You've been to Rome? WOW! How amazing!
Then you must know so much more than the rest of us about the Catholic Church!
Except for me, that is...I lived in Italy! That makes me an EXPERT on Catholicism!
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 1:54PM
Mark, if you're going to make an accusation about the study, back it up with evidence.
John Jay is reputable---this wasn't an internal Church study if that's what you're worried about.
Sounds like you're on a witch hunt.
Mark| 4.23.10 @ 8:29PM
Teflon93...perhaps you should read TODAYS paper as Supreme Court Justice and former National Review Board member (first appointed to the review board by our own bishops) Ann Burke has called on the Pope to take concrete action against bishops who have protected pedophiles, words will no longer due.
John Jay is a GREAT institution which did all it could with the information it was given...but I have spoken with those who worked this study and do know more than I can share here..but I can easily say..getting at the information from our bishops was not always easy and many resisted. The information was encrypted not once but twice for continued secrecy. Where did they find the most cases of abuse of children...in the New Mexico desert and nearby areas of Jimenez where many of these predator clergy were sent for rehab.
Call it as you like...it's nothing we haven't already heard from our church...healthy individuals and organizations take responsibility for wrongs which happen on their watch. But you and the bishops would have the faithful believe it is the victim here. This is precisely why our beloved bishops will not change..by the virtue of your blind allegiance...they have been placed above the norms of our society. It is this very power, this elite clericalism which has reduced our church to irrelevance. Yes our church DOES many good things through out society, teaching, feeding the hungry and the poor...but the safety of our children cannot be sacrificed for some "greater good". Christ railed against the pharisees of His day..perhaps history is repeating itself.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 3:08PM
Facts and data, Mark---where are they?
Doctor Right| 4.23.10 @ 9:12AM
OOPS!
When he was a cardinal, the future Pope Benedict was informed that a German priest he helped send to therapy for pedophilia 30 years ago would be returned to pastoral service only days after beginning psychiatric treatment, according to a published report.
The priest, the Rev. Peter Hullerman, was convicted of molesting boys in another parish six years later, and this week allegations surfaced that he abused more boys in 1998.
Earlier this month, the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising blamed the pedophile priest's return to duty on the the archdiocese's then-deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber.
But a key 1980 memo on the case was copied to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then the archbishop of Munich and now the pope. It shows that he not only led a meeting in January of that year approving Hullerman's transfer, but also was kept informed about the priest's reassignment, the New York Times reported Friday.
Cardinal Ratzinger was later put in charge of handling thousands of abuse cases on behalf of the Vatican and was in a position to have stopped the priest from coming into contact with children and to have him prosecuted.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....z0lvdaD5lO
Tim*| 4.23.10 @ 9:24AM
The Rest Of The Story :
"The memo was routine and was "unlikely to have landed on the archbishop's desk," the Rev. Lorenz Wolf, judicial vicar at the Munich Archdiocese, told The Times. But he said he could not rule out that Cardinal Ratzinger had read it.
Before he became pontiff, Pope Benedict was known for handling abuse cases and has been praised by victims' advocates for taking the issue seriously and particularly for apologizing to American sex-abuse victims in 2008. "
You're Up !
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 10:02AM
The present campaign is a rerun of the systematic slander of Pope Pius XII regarding the Holocaust. The Holocaust having lost its cachet among leftist intellectuals (Palestinians being the victims du jour), they turn to the subject which excuses all sorts of idiocy and dishonesty: "We're doing it for the children".
Bull.
Ted| 4.23.10 @ 9:56AM
Nick,
Yep, didn't take long at all.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 11:25AM
And once again Doctor Bigot has his facts wrong.
When Pope Benedict XVI headed up the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, their jurisdiction was initially---and for this period---limited to those allegations which involved a breach of the Confessional. The vast majority of these allegations did not fall under CDF jurisdiction because they didn't involve the Confessional. Much of his correspondence involved jurisdictional clarification.
Frustrated with this, he sought changes to the canon law processes for these cases to extend jurisdiction. He spent the last years of Pope John Paul II's pontificate reviewing all such cases every Friday under his expanded jurisdiction. Unfortunatelyfor Doctor Bigot, this happened AFTER these cases.
Every time Doctor Bigot's favorite newspaper digs up a "new" allegation, check the date. It's invariably from the early to mid 80s.
Before God's Rottweiler had jurisdiction to address them.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:13PM
Way to cover for the molesters, Chester!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:15PM
And BTW...The fact that it happened in the 80's IS EXACTLY the point, because many of these perverts are STILL at their jobs today, you complete and utter fool!
But keep providing cover for the sickos! You're a wonderful Catholic drone!
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:02AM
Facts and evidence, Doctor Bigot---where are they for your assertion that many of those who were accused of sexual abuse in the 80s are still at their jobs today?
Name names. Should be a long list if you're correct, right?
And every name ought to be found readily at the main site tracking this.
aslanson| 4.23.10 @ 9:17AM
When the entire church hierarchy ties a millstone around it's neck and throws itself in the sea, it will be following the commands of Jesus.
The perverts in the church may as well be working for the Insane Muslim usurper and Kevin Jennings, since they share the same worldview.
So long as the church buys the liberal lies, I will never support it again.
The same percentage of guilty pervert priests that were/are pedophiles is equal to that of the general population (less than one percent). The other ninety nine percent caught doing evil were doing so with teenaged boys -- same as any perverted fag would do if they could get away with it. And most of them do.
Queerness is not an orientation, according to the Bible, it is an evil, and a sin.
If you can't call evil evil and a sin a sin, then you are a slave of satan.
As far as I can remember, Jesus had a lot to say about this...
Didn't He tell us to go and sin no more?
Jeremy Stevens| 4.23.10 @ 9:17AM
Hey Nick!
Took Dr Wrong nearly three hours to show up!
Must have had a late night ride with his buddies, and they had to drop the white sheets and hoods off at the laundry!
Nick| 4.23.10 @ 10:12AM
Mr. Stevens,
Ha-ha! Good one.
It seems Doctor Wrong spent some of the time reading his favorite "conservative" newspaper, the New York Slimes.
One has to make deals with the devil to attack the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Jeremy Stevens| 4.24.10 @ 1:03AM
He's hardly alone, sadly, even on these "conservative" websites.
Not as notorious as Free Republic, which tolerates the virulently anti-Catholic Alex Murphy, while banning those who dare point to him as an example - not the only one - of a bias that is sadly quite prevalent there.
Doctor Right| 4.23.10 @ 9:17AM
OOPS! We DID IT AGAIN!
ROME —The longest-serving bishop in Belgium resigned Friday after admitting to sexually abusing “a young man in my close entourage” many years ago, becoming the latest Catholic official to quit amid a spreading abuse scandal.
The development dealt a new blow to the Roman Catholic Church, and marked a new entry in a corrosive catalog of disclosures that has damaged its credibility and shaken the trust of many believers in their spiritual leaders.
In a statement issued by the Vatican on Friday, Roger Vangheluwe, 73, the bishop of Bruges since 1984, said that the abuse had occurred “when I was still a simple priest and for a while when I began as a bishop.”
“This has marked the victim forever,” the statement said.
The bishop said he had on several occasions asked the victim and his family to forgive him but the wound had not healed, “neither in me nor the victim.” A media storm in recent weeks had merely deepened the trauma, he said.
“I am enormously sorry,” he said. Earlier this week, in a rare, direct comment on the issue, Pope Benedict XVI promised that the church would take action to deal with the crisis.
Well, at least he's "sorry"! (But apparently NOT sorry enough to step-down when it happened, and admit what he did). But hey...It's the NY TIMES, so it MUST be a lie, right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04.....tican.html
Nick| 4.23.10 @ 10:01AM
Doctor Wrong gives Pinch Sulzberger a big, wet, sloppy kiss, by once again defending the New York Slimes.
When are you going to start quoting The Nation and Mother Jones, Doc?
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 11:03AM
Another 30 year old incident.
Doctor Bigot, where is the evidence for your contention that sexual abuse is on the rise in the Church?
Doctor Right| 4.23.10 @ 9:20AM
Boy, it didn't take long for the Church drones/apologists to come out of hiding! Guess that rock gets lonely...
The Catholic Church's "walls" were breached long ago by false and misleading doctrines. Why is it a surprise that they shield perverts? (MAYBE 'cuz its soooo deep, they fear the repercussions?)
Have a great weekend, y'all!
Nick| 4.23.10 @ 10:08AM
"The Catholic Church's 'walls' were breached long ago by false and misleading doctrines."
Have any DATES to back up this fallacious assertion, Doctor Wrong?
When, exactly, did this "breach" take place? Who led it?
If you have studied the subject, these should be easy questions to answer.
But, you haven't.
So, you won't answer, as usual.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:51PM
Just the usual ex cathedra announcement from Doctor Bigot, Nick. Move along---nothing to see here.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:17PM
It happened when the Catholic Church was formed after Constantine's conversion. Imperial Rome was full of creeps, especially the priesthood. When they became Catholics, they brought their "practices" with them.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 7:42PM
When precisely was the Catholic Church founded again, Doctor Bigot?
Provide contemporary evidence.
Tim*| 4.23.10 @ 9:35AM
Pinch Sulzberger & Dr.Ripe join ranks :
" In point of fact, the scandal ended about a quarter century ago: the timeline when most of the abuse took place was the mid-60s to the mid-80s. The only thing "growing" is coverage of abuse cases extending back a half-century, something the ( New York )Times has contributed to mightily. To say his papacy is being defined by old cases may be the narrative that suits the Times, but it most certainly is not shared by fair-minded observers. "
Don| 4.23.10 @ 9:42AM
I personally would like to thank you Catholics for no longer selling indulgences, that was damn decent of you. I find it ironic however that it took a German of all people to point out this folly. :: ))
Joe Ratzinger| 4.23.10 @ 10:01AM
Why , Thank You Non-Catholic Donny .
Would you like me to baptize you now ?
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 11:03AM
Do you tithe, Don?
ds80| 4.23.10 @ 1:22PM
Don
Since you're banking on them ... how much do you think your Sola Fides/Sola Scriptura will get you at your Particular Judgment?
Tim*| 4.23.10 @ 9:47AM
Where's Pinch Sultzberger & Dr.Ripe ?
"According to a report in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, in the last year, Brooklyn’s State Supreme Court has issued an increasing number of subpoenas to members of the Jewish Orthodox community in relation to child sexual abuse cases. Until recently, most of these cases were handled within the community.
According to the Kings County DA’s office, 30 members of this community in Brooklyn have been prosecuted for child sexual abuse ."
Tim| 4.23.10 @ 9:53AM
Peggy is like the people that still talk about the Catholic Church in "Crusade" lingo!
Every once in a while you hear some folks still go on and on about how the catholic Church led two brutal crusades in the name of Christ and the Church a 1000 years ago or so.
Well that is whats going on with this issue of child abuse by a few crazy priests.
No question that for many years the Church for whatever the reason chose to turn a blind eye when confronted with these sick-priests who abused boys or girls.
However, for those that are true bigots or have lived in a cave, the church has for the past few years confronted this issue directly.
Naturally, there are still some old Bishops that need to be purged but as the remaining bits of the old culture of denials are swept away the Church will become stronger then ever.
For those that hate the church and all the good it stands for the best thing you have done is to keep bashing on this issue. You have made it stronger.
And like the far left zombies who just thought that you can scare and bully folks into walking away from our US Constitution and Democracy, you also will find that the more you hammer folks and their Faith with your Commie and anti religious rethoric the more folks will slip through your grip and destroy you at the polls and in the airwaves and on the street corner.
Be careful what you wish for. As I stated before,
Now that all focus is on sexual perverts, that sword cuts both ways and not just with a few sexual perverts who just happened to sneak into the priest hood but for perverts walking into a store to buy whips and chains if you get my drift.
La Realidad| 4.23.10 @ 10:03AM
To add to Mr. Haas comment, "One can visit the website of virtually any diocese in this country and there will be an icon taking the visitor to the policies pertaining to abuse." This is true and the diocese I am in requires ANY adult dealing with ANY children to participate in a training program for this exact reason.
Doctor Right, I would suggest you actually study up on Church positions on this matter, teachings, and the history of it all and not just reference secular media outlets. I'm sure you'll be surprised by what you find. Catholics defend the Church and Faith, as much as you probably defend whatever your beliefs are. No one in their right mind would defend the actions of those priests that committed these horrendous and disgusting crimes. Also explain "false" and "misleading" doctrines. That's quite a tall claim you bring to the table to a Church with 1 billion followers that don't feel misled. I hope you can match your facts with your rage.
Nick| 4.23.10 @ 10:21AM
La Realidad,
You are whistling past the graveyard.
Doctor Wrong has a deep seated hatred for the Catholic Church. It seems to be some kind of rebellion against his parents. For 2 weeks, several of us here TAS have been rebutting Doc's inanities. And have had our beliefs attacked for it.
He is a anti-Catholic bigot. Take this into account, if you decide to refute his posts in the future.
God Bless!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:19PM
Hey, "Non Realidad"...
"...No one in their right mind would defend the actions of those priests that committed these horrendous and disgusting crimes..."
Oh, really?? Then how do you expalin the Bishops and Cardinals who have committed these horrendous and disgusting crimes..???
Please...This forum has enough Catholic drones. We don't need more.
Dan Hirsch| 4.23.10 @ 10:35AM
Methinks the fair Peggy is too enamored of main stream approbation to understand main stream disapprobation....especially of late.
Didn't she once have a short term 'thing' for not-yet President Obama...
Don't tread on me!
Dan Hirsch| 4.23.10 @ 10:37AM
That should read:
"...main stream media approbation to understand main street disapprobation..."
Sheesh, sorry.
DH
jd| 4.23.10 @ 10:38AM
After reading Dr. Wrong's comments on anyVatican-related article on this post, I have definitely come to the conclusion that his attack on the Church only (not with regards to even more abuse in pc institutions) proves that he has a deep-seated bias against the Catholic Church. I have read his numerous posts previously and the more I read his posts, the more convinced I am that not only does he discriminate agaisnt the Catholic Church but that he has no understanding or comprehenions of FACTS. He needs to visit a REAL doctor, one that can help him with his mental issues.
Michael C| 4.23.10 @ 10:47AM
Revising History Vatican Style, by Thomas Doyle
http://ncronline.org/blogs/exa.....ican-style
Nick| 4.23.10 @ 11:43AM
Micheal C,
How does linking to a dissenting priest's article in a heretical newspaper shed any light on this issue?
Believer4| 4.23.10 @ 10:54AM
Myself, two brothers and three sisters were sexually abused by a priest when we were little kids...between ages 5 yrs. old to 12 yrs. old. I went public in 2005 and as a result 22 other victims of the same priest contacted me.
None of them have yet to come public because they see what I'm going through. Bishop Murphy, Rockville Centre diocese, refuses to meet with me, my siblings, or mother.
Some stats: about half of sexual abuse occurs within the family...incest; about 40% occurs with teachers (rubber rooms), doctors, counselors, and sports coaches. About 2% occurs within the clergy...priest, pastors, rabbis, etc.
Currently there's a bill pending in Albany, NY, which would remove the statue of limitations for civil claims of past sexual abuse of offenders in all the above catagories.
The Catholic Church spends hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the bill. (Would Jesus Christ have a statue of limitations on the sexual abuse of little boys and girls?) Also fighting the bill is the various teacher unions.
In closing, victims of sexual abuse get accused of trying to destroy the church, I submit to you the cardinals and bishops are destroying the church with their lying and coverup.
By the way, Christianity is not the bricks and mortar, Christianity is a reality.
What if you had a son or daughter who came to you when they were older and said "Mom, dad, father so & so, or uncle so & so, or doctor so & so, or coach sexually abused me when I was a little kids
The sexually abuse of a little boy or girl is Soul Murder.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 11:15AM
Thank you for coming forward and I'm very sorry to hear about your situation.
While the Church was very slow to respond, they can only respond when people like yourself come forward. It is the nature of the crime---it is conducted in secret and away from others.
No one is defending the men who committed such crimes nor any who participated in covering them up.
That said, there are realities to consider:
1. Not everyone who alleges abuse was abused. Remember the McMartin Preschool case.
2. The accused have the right to an investigation and a trial. If you were accused of such a crime, wouldn't you want there to be an investigation before punishment?
3. Because Christianity isn't bricks and mortar, the actions of men don't overturn Christ. St Paul wrote extensively on this. We need to be holy; the presence of the unholy merely confirms this. There is no large group of people or institution today which is immune to sin.
4. You and all victims are entitled to justice. Given the Church was founded by he who suffered the most grievous injustice of all, you have a special place in Christ's heart. Continue to seek justice; it won't destroy Christ's Church but strengthen it---it being the embodiment of Truth.
5. Do not be too hard on the Church for seeking to exercise its legal rights. There are many reasons for opposing legislation---we see it in the bishops' stand against Obamacare. It is not always what you think it is, politicians being who they are.
May God bless you and keep you and I will pray for you this Sunday---thank you for your courage and I am so sorry for your suffering.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:26PM
You're a phony.
You're not sorry at all for what this man and his family have suffered. If you were, you wouldn't have resorted to discussing such idiotic, irrelevant issues such as the McMartin Pre-School case, which has absolutely nothing to do with his post.
If the Catholic Church was truly sorry for what's happened, WHY would they be fighting the legislation described in his post? It has NOTHING to do with "ObamaCare" - another straw-man.
He must fell sooooo good that you think he deserves justice while you actively work to obfuscate the facts.
You're pathetic.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 7:43PM
Believer4 can speak for himself, Doctor Bigot.
Lawrence,from Uganda| 4.23.10 @ 11:40AM
Where are your Siblings,and can`t they talk for themselves?
I hope you p`ple let`s take the issue as it is.Some p`ple have used this scenario with thier hatred towards the church to expless thier hatred.Now what`s wrong with the dollars you are talking about?First off all it`s you Americans who abuse the children everyday and night.So many institutions have abused them,but you are fighting the catholic church only why?Can you tell us some of htose institutions a part from the catholic church?
The Catholic church was fought long time a go but it ia still standing and it will never collapse as you think today.Long live Pope.
Ed| 4.23.10 @ 10:55AM
way back in the late fourties I joined a boys choir in our parish in FLANDERS. A young under pastor was our choir director. After practice he used to play with us by turning us upside down, grabbing us by the ankles and standing us on our heads. I noticed his beady bloodshot eyes behind his thick hornrimmed glasses darting in our short pants we all were wearing. I FOUGHT HIM OFF BRAVELY and was slippery as an eel. I don't know if he ever went any further then that with any of my friends, and I NEVER REALIZED till the recent media frenzy woke me up to the fact that perhaps the good father had a problem . It never made a dent in my faith. My son used to be an altar boy for many years serving Navy Chaplains on an overseas Base, and tired of his anti priest ranting, I asked him point blank if any of the many Chaplains he served had ever tried to come on to him, and he said"NO". Personally I volunteered for over 40 years helping the Base Chaplains in one capacity or the other and OVER ALL THESE YEARS I ran over only 2 bad apples. One I caught, while selling Insurance off base, shacking up with a couple enlisted GI's in an isolated apartment far from base. I DID NOT BLOW THE WHISTLE on him, HOWEVER he is not a priest nor an officer anymore. Another one,
an african priest, was found to have a wife living in an appartment off base. The Navy kicked him out. I am still going strong.
Tim| 4.23.10 @ 11:10AM
Believer4,
Six kids from the same family being sexually abused by a priest? Was it the same priest?
I will take you at your word because I have better things to do with my time then to investigate your claim but I will say this:
You claim that 6 of you in one family and twenty two others were abused by one priest and in 2005 you came public.
Perhaps the reason you haven't got any money is becuase they have investigated and have come to the conclusion that your story lacks any merit.
That said, what is your opinion of non priest grown men who prey on young boys and seduce them into submitting to homosexual acts as do the Man Boy society?
If your story is true, than I think I speak for all Catholics of good Faith when I say that the priest, if guilty, should be castrated, whipped and burned in the public square but if you are spinning a wild tail than the same goes for you.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 11:30AM
Easy, Tim---even though the cases of actual pedophilia allegations are very rare---81% involving pubescent victims---there are some. It is possible that Believer4's story is absolutely true and given the horror of not being believed when telling the truth about such a terrible crime, shouldn't we presume it to be?
It is very difficult for victims of sexual abuse to come forward---we shouldn't make it harder for them to do so, while still investigating the allegations fully so as to ascertain the truth. After all, if a priest did molest 22 children, far better to catch him early and punish him severely than to put a 23rd child at risk!
And far better still if he'd been stopped before the 1st child suffered.
Lawrence| 4.23.10 @ 11:29AM
Hey,how many institutions a part from the Catholic church have been put fowardconcerning the same issue?
I have come to know that p`ple are after fighting the Cathlich church not looking at the problem.
P`ple have talked a lot,have abused the Pope among others.That shows actually that are ant-catholic church.Apart from sex abuse by some priests,can you trace the developments that the church has put in place,though others are looking at the riches in the church as nothing.
The Pope and the whole church already knows the problem,but when he comes out to say something about the issue,they react negatively.What do you want him to do now as a leader of the church.Why don`t you give him a room and he solves the problem.I hope and pray that one time all those quarrals will end.In other institutions like the Anlican church there also the same case,but why pointing the finger at the catholic?
God Bless the Catholic church
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 11:34AM
The problem in the American Church is greatly reduced. It topped out in 1982---that's 28 years ago---when there were 800 allegations all across America, where the Catholic Church is the biggest single denomination. Since 1995, there have been 50 allegations or less each year across America---that's a 90% reduction over a 13 year period.
It is a myth that "nothing has been done" or "the situation is getting worse"---people like Doctor Bigot never provide any evidence for these claims because they cannot. They simply set the Wayback Machine for the early 80s, when the problem was at its worst, and flail away.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:46PM
"...It topped out in 1982---that's 28 years ago..."
Ummm...says who??
Cite the source, genius.
teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 7:44PM
It has been cited for you many times, Doctor Bigot.
Here it is yet again. How about looking at it this time? Fig 2.3 is very helpful.
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
Now where is your data?
Jenny Johnston| 4.23.10 @ 11:58AM
Ms. Noonan was once one of my favorite writers. Then she fell in love with Obama and lost her sanity.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 4.23.10 @ 1:45PM
Bingo Jenny! Peggy Noonan should not be judging anyone after the way she & others (Frum, Smerconish, Parker, Will, Buckley, etc.) in the elite, so-called conservative media "fell in love" as you put it with our current POTUS & did everything they could to help him win the Presidency. This country is suffering due to the horrible policies of President Obama & the Leftocrat majority in Congress (they devised Obamacare, not Obama) & Peggy Noonan sold her credibility, if not her soul to help get him elected. IF the Catholic Church hierarchy are not doing enough to put a stop to pedophilia in their priesthood & not removing priests who pose a threat to children in the church, be assured, GOD will deal with this matter . If I recall correctly, vengeance belongs to Almighty GOD. Not Peggy Noonan, not "Mr. Right (Wrong)", not me, or anyone else. Peggy needs to "clean up her own backyard" & make amends for helping the state-run media foist the most unqualified left wing POTUS on America in her history.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 2:18PM
Has she apologized for that?
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 4.23.10 @ 2:38PM
Teflon93, not to my knowledge she hasn't. If she has, please give me a link to read it. I'd love to read why she went ga-ga over The One & why she is now sorry for it, if that is indeed the case. I once respected her too.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 3:00PM
I don't believe she has. Couldn't find anything about it in a Google Search.
But she's never had much in the way of humility.
Believer4| 4.23.10 @ 12:08PM
Dear Teflon93;
Thank you for your kind words.
To touch on some of your points:
1. “Not everyone who….was abused”. Your right…in Calif about 600 victims came forward and six cases were found to be false right off the bat. Calif dioceses paid out close to a billion dollars and 300 clergy were exposed to have been pedophiles. Won’t have happened with victims coming forward.
2. With current statue of limitations in NY state a victim cannot bring a case to court because of SOL, therefore no investigation.
3. I’m a bible student and I agree with this point. Check out what’s said in Book of Revelations about the church of Laodica
4. Totally agree with this point as well
5. Question…would Jesus Christ have a SOL on little kids having been sexually abused?
You may want to check out the web site www.richardsipe.com Very interesting essays.
There’s another gentleman who posted about “getting money”…it was never about getting money; it was simply about meeting with the bishop and getting an apology.
Thanks again for your kind words and prayers.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 12:45PM
No, Christ certainly doesn't set a statute of limitations on injustice, in Matthew 25 or elsewhere.
We are also taught that justice in this world is nothing compared to justice in the next, which will be infinite.
Statutes of limitations tend to reflect the difficulty in determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law after a certain period of time---people's memories of facts of the case fade, documents get lost, physical evidence obliterated by time and weather, etc. It is a practical reality that the longer one gets from a crime the harder it is to prove it occurred in court.
In the case of sexual abuse of children, the fact that many don't come forward until years have passed makes prosecution all the more difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted either.
Just because Christ will ultimately dispense true and eternal justice upon the perpetrator doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for justice now.
Do you think making it easier for victims to come forward earlier might help more than simply increasing or eliminating the statute of limitations?
Don Altobello| 4.24.10 @ 6:21PM
"5. Question…would Jesus Christ have a SOL on little kids having been sexually abused?"
Much of what has been said on this site by my fellow Catholics I find completely horrifying. With that said, there are very good reasons for having statutes of limitations. It ensures predictability in the justice system. Memories fade, evidence becomes old, and in sex crimes cases, it is usually from the start already a "he said, she said" situation etc... As an attorney, I can tell you that this is a longstanding, and essential, part of our common law.
Many dioceses already pay compensation and for counseling now when victims come forward. I would think that the dioceses in NY and CT should do the same.
Thomas Doyle| 4.23.10 @ 12:10PM
John Haas' article reveals what little he really knows about the nightmare of clergy sexual abuse and the complex reaction of the bishops. Compared to reality, his rendition has less credibility than a fairy tale.
One last sad observation: ther cheerleaders for the pope and the bishops fail to miss the hard fact that none of them have done one single thing in terms of a positive response that was not forced on them by the victims, the media, the courts and a very angry laity.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 12:48PM
Slashing the incidence rate of sexual abuse by over 90%, apologizing to victims and the community, instituting a zero tolerance policy, changing canon law proceedings to allow faster investigation and laicization for perpetrators, implementing stricter screening at seminaries, etc are a hell of a lot more than one thing.
Point me to the institution which has done more.
Thomas Doyle| 4.23.10 @ 12:12PM
John Haas' article reveals what little he really knows about the nightmare of clergy sexual abuse and the complex reaction of the bishops. Compared to reality, his rendition has less credibility than a fairy tale.
One last sad observation: the cheerleaders for the pope and the bishops fail to miss the hard fact that none of them have done one single thing in terms of a positive response that was not forced on them by the victims, the media, the courts and a very angry laity.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish| 4.23.10 @ 12:33PM
I have to disagree with John Hass. What the bishops did in 2002 was not done because there
was any kind of "desire on the part of the bishops for transparency."
Far from it.
What the bishops of the United States did in 2002 was done because they had no choice. There backs were to the wall and they were forced to put thiose protocols and programs in place. In 20 or 25 years they can be studied and evaluated, hopefully by a totally independent body and not one formed and paid for by the USCCB.
There were a number of bishops, including Cardinal Archbishop Justin Rigali from Philadephia who fought against what was subsequently put in place. There was a very aggressive cabal that went along with Rigali and his friends who were in opposition but they were voted down.
It is important to keep in mind that the 2002 mandated programs are by no means a Gold Standard for the Accountability and Transparency that the bishops promised because the fact is that both Acccountability and Transparency has been very slow in coming from the bishops despite the protocols and standards.
Moreover, the USCCB does not have the power to compel compliance from any of the bishops. They choose to follow or not as they wish and how they interpret what the USCCB mandated in conference is completely up to them as individual bishops.
Compliance has been problematic from the beginning has Justice Anne Burke has said from the beginning and continues to say.
I fully agree with Believer4 that individuals like Bishop William Murphy and Bishop John McCormack are a disgrace to all of us and should never have been appointed to head dioceses of their own after the debacle they were involved with in the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts.
In general, the bishops are saying one thing for public consumption and doing quite something else behind the scenes.
One would love to have a financial statement from Bishop Lori of Bridgeport, CN and the state Catholic Conference as to the costs of fighting against releasing the records, files and depositions as the CN courts ordered for eight long years.
The viciousness of those who are supposed to be pastoral church leaders in opposing Statute of Limitation reform has been beyond the pale and shocking beyond belief to the good Catholics in the pews and I have to agree that many victims of childhood sexual abuse have received more concern, sympathy and pastoral care from their lawyers than from their bishops and that is a disgrace.
I could go on but I'll only say that the present movement toward revisionist history will do little to restore any moral credibility to the bishops in particular or to the hierarchial church in general.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 12:50PM
Except that reducing the incidence rate of allegations of sexual abuse by 90% from its peak in 1982 is actual fact, Sister.
You are tarring with a very broad brush.
Nick| 4.23.10 @ 1:18PM
Sister Turlish,
I noticed you didn't mention Cardinal Mahony's many obstructions of justice against the victims of abuse.
Nor, did you mention Bishops Howard Hubbard, Matthew Clark, and Rembert Weakland.
Why is that?
It was mostly dissenting clerics that let these criminals get shuffled from parish, to psychiatric treatment, and back to a parish. Dissenters from the Church's teaching on sexuality, specifically homosexuality and Humanae Vitae.
Unfortunately, other dissenters have used this tragic scandal to try to push for the ordination of women or to end celibacy.
Are you one of these, Sister?
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 1:40PM
There have been no shortage of bishops who have been negligent, incompetent, or malignant from St Peter's day to this. They are men and like all men are imperfect.
There is no shortage of sisters who are guilty of the same---who cannot forget the horror stories from Catholic education of sadistic sisters who physically abused their charges?
The Orders have not been immune---it is too easy to recall the evils done by the Jesuits and the like down through the ages.
More recently, we saw the Church in various parts of the world infiltraded by the KGB and its affiliates. Pope John Paul II got off the plane in Managua on his visit and immediately had to dress down a bishop who ran for office as a Sandinista, of all things. You can see the video on YouTube.
We have had sisters who broke into Air Force bases and damaged aircraft with hammers.
It takes not long at all to find monks who have gone far astray. The Reformation began with one of these, who went on to break a sister out of a nunnery, married her, and retired to his old abbey, which he'd gotten handed over as his personal property after his princely buddies confiscated it from the Church.
And that's without discussing the Medici or the Borgias.
But then, evil is not the sole province of the clergy, is it?
For every faithless religious, there are several orders of magnitude of faithless laymen. Any newspaper you pick up is crammed with our evil---filthy and stinking with it.
The Church gets the attention she gets in part because we expect so much more of those within the Body of Christ, especially those who've answered the call and received Holy Orders. But they are people too and none of us are immune from sin.
It gives me whiplash following the arguments of those who decry the Pope as an autocrat when it comes to something like ordaining women to the priesthood but as weak and feeble when it comes to enforcing canon law on sexual abusers. Should the bishop have supreme power or none? Should the Pope be an autocrat or an advisor? One day this, the next that.
There is always the same subtext regardless of the warring faction banging the drum: the Church is wrong. We know better.
It has always been this way and always shall be. Christ promised that his Bride being not of this world would be hated by it. None hate her more than those worldly religious and laymen within her as it is they who feel the tension between this world and the next the strongest.
The apostles felt it too----in the sixth chapter of John we see it quite clearly. Christ gives his bread of life discourse, horrifying his Jewish audience whose fealty to the Law allowed for nothing but abhorrence for what Christ preached---eat the flesh and blood of the Lord? What? Most left.
The apostles stayed. Where else was there to go?
Indeed. Where else is there to go?
And so we stay, doing what good we can, avoiding what evil we can, with the grace of God and the sacraments of His Church as our aids.
The actions of those who fail to keep their promises to Him never imply He has failed to keep His promises to us. To believe otherwise out of despair or pride is to join the Adversary.
We who are exiles ought always to be wary of those who propose that they have the keys to Eden.
jd| 4.23.10 @ 3:19PM
Nick, you hit the nail on the head. I will wager a high bet that this nun is "one" of those nuns all right. By "those" nuns I mean those that will villify any conservative Bishop or laity yet turn a blind eye towards the lax liberal Bishop who promotes "tolerance" for homosexuality. These nuns have an agenda all right -- to become priests themselves, and if they need to villify the celibate male priesthood as a standard, then so be it so long as they can become priests. What's next, wanting women to become Popes?
Don Altobello| 4.24.10 @ 6:27PM
"It was mostly dissenting clerics that let these criminals get shuffled from parish, to psychiatric treatment, and back to a parish. Dissenters from the Church's teaching on sexuality, specifically homosexuality and Humanae Vitae. "
Actually, it was bishops from both sides of the spectrum. It was a part of the culture of the episcopacy and the clergy at the time--and I think in large part a holdover from how most institutions in society probably handled these things at one time. This gives lie to the left, who scream for democracy and lay election of bishops, as well as the right, who emphasize the decadence of the seminaries. Yes, the seminaries were screwed up. Yes, part of this was clericalism. But these problems cannot be force-fitted into our neat little ideological agendas.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:33PM
Now it's confirmed: You are an absolute ass.
You can't deny anything that Ms. Turlish has said - not a word of it - so you resort to an irrelevant straw-man to question her motives.
You care more for the Church's reputation than for the truth.
The irony is that Ms. Turlish is actually trying to help the Church by embracing the truth, while your obfuscations and support of the liars will further damage the Church.
You're sad.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 7:45PM
And we all know how much you want to help the Church, Doctor Bigot.
ds80| 4.23.10 @ 1:29PM
" ... or to the hierarchial church in general "
And there you have it. Sister, do I whiff the scent of sour grapes because The Magisterium confirms that you can't be ordained?
It's not only priests who should be obedient.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:35PM
She said "hierarchical", NOT "Patriarchal", you fool.
Are you actually denying that the Catholic Church is hierarchical???
This gets sadder every day.
clem| 4.23.10 @ 1:22PM
Were boys molested by priests? Sure. I attended a seminary in the early 80's named "Christ the King," but it was commonly called "Christ the Queen" by diocesan insiders. I was never approached by a gay seminarian because I had just left a state high-security prison guard job and prior to that was an enlisted USMC Force Recon...so I kinda had a reputation preceding me. But I did hear thru the grapevine that guys were giving eachother "massages" and "more" etc in the dorm rooms. For sure, the Church has done a terrible job weeding out gay priest candidates in the minor and major seminaries. And I don't care what anyone says... a gay priest, generally, is more likely to seduce/molest a teenage boy than a straight priest. For this to be such a ghastly claim is just a joke to me....you gay-pride advocates.
Be that as it may, I do believe that this whole pedophile craze has become a total "$$ gravy train." Where were these people before the Church began handing out million $$ settlements like penny-candy?
Hey Toyota, welcome to the Catholic Church's world. This thing now is a total SCAM.
Tim| 4.23.10 @ 1:45PM
And there lies the dilema.
Once you go after a religious institution for not having acted properly at one time in their history but are doing so now you nevertheless open this whole can of worms :
Should you allow "Gays" in the priesthood or in any religious ministry?
Forget Gays in the Military where folks are all adults....
but how do the gay activists come to terms with a gay young priest who gets the hots for an 9 year old alterboy and gooses him in the back room?
See, I think this whole thing is going to subside because the very folks bashing the Church for opposing gay Marriage will be the same ones who will cry foul if the Church going forward refuses to ordain gays.
Its a catch 22 alright. But then again thats what happens when you open up a can a worms.
Should be interesting going forward!
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 2:00PM
Well, there's The New York Times' and liberal Catholics' dilemma in a nutshell.
They want to eliminate homosexual sexual abuse by removing restrictions against active homosexuals in the priesthood.
The logic escapes me.
augustino| 4.23.10 @ 1:58PM
Thank you, Clem. At last, someone with the guts to identiy the real problem ; GAY PRIESTS (and scoutmasters, and band leaders, and teachers, and coaches, etc, etc, etc). These people enter these occupations and prey upon young men because they are sick (perverse, deviant) and because the victims are young and vulnerable. Why to alcoholics go to bars?
And please, no more blather about pedophilia; most of us know the difference between a child and an adolescent/teenager (and so do predatory homosexuals).
The perpetrators protect and promote and re-assign each other because thay share the same deviancy and that deviancy trumps all other obligations and responsibilities.
Until the chanceries and seminaries are purged of the lavendar mafia (and that, thank God, is slowly happening) the problem will persist.
The "smoke of Satan" in the Church is the sin of sodomy.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 2:06PM
True--over 80% of the allegations are of homosexual conduct. Moreover, the John Jay study demonstrated the offenders were ordained at a time when restrictions against active homosexuals in the seminaries were at their nadir---late 60s and 70s.
But this has also greatly diminished since---again, the number of allegations per year is down 90% since 1982, and is far lower among priests ordained since the 80s than in the 60s and 70s.
Truth compels us at least to acknowledge this is a problem which is waning, not waxing, and it is a grave injustice to young priests to tar them with the brush reserved for Baby Boomer and older priests based on their conduct.
Notice that most of the friendly fire comes from Catholics who EMBRACED the loosening of discipline in "the Spirit of Vatican II"---we are merely reaping what they sowed in the 60s and 70s.
Their hatred of Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor John Paul II is also well-established.
You'll also note that the worst concentration of this horrendous crime occurred where the most liberal bishops were in place---Boston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee. It's no coincidence.
Tyler S.| 4.23.10 @ 9:50PM
Wow, those were some impressive logical somersaults you just did there to blame priests abusing children on liberals. Still, I'm actually slightly surprised it hasn't happened more. I mean, we are indisputably to blame for every single bad thing that has or will ever happen, right? Oh, and Gays aren't the same as pedophiles, you bigots.
Nick| 4.23.10 @ 11:51PM
Tyler S.,
I'm glad to finally see some bleeding heart liberal take responsibility for the evil they promote and commit. Now, promptly turn yourself into the nearest police station and confess your crimes.
And, you are correct. Pedophiles can be of either gender and can attack the opposite gender.
But, most homos want to get their hands on little boys. This is why they're always trying to get the age of consent lowered. And when they succeed, they immediately start trying to lower it again.
I'm sure that the age of the boy they prefer is some sort of perverted fetish. Some prefer pubescent boys, while others prefer pre-pubescent.
I don't know if lesbos prefer little girls or not. They're not as vocal as homos.
This is what happens when you reject Christ's Love.
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 10:36AM
" Oh, and Gays aren't the same as pedophiles, you bigots."
Well, the problem with your argument is clinical pedophilia among priests is as rare as it is in the general population. True pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children of both sexes, so if pedophilia was the main problem in the Church, we would expect to see the majority of victims under the age of ten, and more or less equally divided by sex. Instead, we see the vast majority of victims are boys between the ages of 13 and 17.
That indicates the problem isn't pedophilia, it's pederasty--the statutory rape of adolescent boys by homosexual men. Pedophilia is rare among homosexuals; pederasty is not--and is, in fact, an integral part of the gay lifestyle, exalted in gay literature and validated by the push among gay activists to reduce or eliminate the age of consent.
A dirty little secret among the gay community, often overlooked by the mainstream media, because nothing is more likely to cause revulsion among mainstream Americans--and a permanent setback for the gay agenda.
Teflon93| 4.24.10 @ 1:22PM
You might want to research the bishops accused of covering up these allegations before opining.
The worst American dioceses were LA, Boston, San Francisco, and Milwaukee. Why not take a look at the bishops named in these news stories?
Read "The Faithful Departed" if you want to know what happened in Boston and how the liberal bishops there contributed to it. It also explains the empty churches in the blue states.
There is a reason why liberal Catholics wish to blame Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. It is because they don't wish to blame Cardinal Mahony, Cardinal Law et al. Their worldview is not catholic but Manichean.
Believer4| 4.23.10 @ 2:12PM
"All that is hidden will be revealed". I can understand the comments that have been made on this board because if you've never been sexually abused, you would have no idea of the damage that is done to a victim.
To get an idea read this web site:
http://www.richardsipe.com/Cli.....amage.html
KansasGirl| 4.23.10 @ 2:46PM
Hey Peggy, who has been around longer? You or religion?
STEWART FRAZER| 4.23.10 @ 2:55PM
THE HAAS ARTICLE STATES:
"In fact, more reform has taken place in the Catholic Church than in any other social institution in which the abuse of minors has occurred."
However, the Catholic Church is no ordindary "social instution" and we have a right to expect more. The church is where we catholics go to feel the presence of god, and to talk to Jesus and Mary. Our local bar is also a "social institution in which the abuse of minors has occurred", but we don't have high expectations of the local bar. We have very high expections of the Catholic Church and its officials.
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 10:41AM
I hear this a lot from my (utterly secular) Jewish relatives, who waste no time denouncing the Catholic Church for "not having done enough" to forestall or stop the Holocaust. The insist that the Catholic Church's apologies for past instances of anti-semitism (greatly exaggerated, I might add, speaking as both an historian and as a Jew) are utterly inadequate.
The late Richard John Neuhaus (no apologist for sex scandals in the Church, but no blind follower of the mob, either) summarized this attitude as "Never again, never enough".
That is, no matter what the Catholic Church does, right up to and including burning all abusers and their abettors at the stake in St. Peter's Square on Good Friday, would every satisfy them.
And that's because it's not about "the children", it's about the Church as a moral force standing in the way of "progressive enlightenment". In the 60s and 70s, the Left went after the Church because it opposed the political agenda of the Left. Today, the Left opposes the Church because it stands in the way of the Left's moral agenda.
However, considering that the personal is the political and the political is personal, that's a distinction without a difference.
Pingback| 4.23.10 @ 3:04PM
The American Spectator : Peggy Noonan's Church History capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
mame| 4.23.10 @ 3:10PM
These men who comitted these offences are homosexuals who abused young boys. The Roman church encourages this kind of peron by requiring celibacy foisted on them in the 10th century by an errant Pope trying to keep thier property in the church. Time to pull the plug (so to speak) and let some normal, married, heterosexual men into the priesthood. Then thier offences will at least be limited to adultery, having sex in the manner God intended instead of men substituting a boys exit for an entrance. Peggy is correct these depraved leaders allowed this to occur and someday will have to explain it to God.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 3:25PM
1. You are mistaken---there are a number of married priests within the Church; it is not the common practice within the Latin Rite but does exist.
2. Deacons are generally married and some deacons have been alleged to have committed sexual abuse.
3. Those who committed these crimes VIOLATED their vows of chastity and celibacy---the notion that removing such restrictions will result in a decrease of abuse is pretty silly on its face, moreso because we live in a hypersexualized society.
4. The incidence rate of sexual abuse allegations is generally HIGHER in Christian communities where celibacy is not required, not lower.
See this:
http://www.catholicleague.org/.....ontext.htm
and this:
http://www.reformation.com/
If the goal is to eliminate sexual abuse, chastity is the solution, not the problem. Read the Pauline epistles to see what St Paul thought of it.
mames| 4.23.10 @ 3:46PM
Regarding theological and doctrinal error of the Roman Church. Here are the facts of the Roman church and its pontif. The church was first of all ROMAN, not at all Christian and was used by the Romans as a political tool that enveloped every religion of every people they conquered. The term "pontif" is of ancient origin, not roman or Christian. It was the synthesis point of all religion in the empire. The Pontifus Maximus was head of the roman mystery religions. Tertullian refered to the Pontifus Maximus as "King of Heathendom" as indeed he was. Not until the rise of Christianity had so impacted Constantine did he "Christianize" the empire and make Christianity the state church. This is why so many pagan ideas crept into the church under Roman control. Ideas such as monasticism, veneration of Mary, invention of saints as intercessors, transubstanciation etc. These are hard facts not mere assertions. By the time the 10th century rolled around the Pope ordered the dissolution of all married priests and that they were to be celebate going forward (no heirs to leave their property to). This was a great disservice to the priests and to thier flocks as it is a c0mmand not found in the teachings of Christ or His word.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 4:33PM
Funny, but St Paul had this to say about the Romans:
Romans 1:
7] To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[8] First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
[9] For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
[10] Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
Indeed, the Early Church Fathers recognized Rome as the See free from heresy; founded by not one but two Apostles, first in honor, etc.
It wasn't until 1,500 years after Pentecost that Protestants cursed her in favor of the princes of Europe.
The rest of us put not our faith in princes.
Constantine converted after having a heavenly vision before the climactic battle of his life. Where on Earth do you get your history?
Monasticism began with St Anthony in the East, not in Rome. He went out in the desert as Christ did. Martin Luther couldn't handle it and thus excoriated it when it suited him.
The veneration of Mary is even more prevalent among the Orthodox than in the western Church. With good reason: Scripture does say all generations will call her blessed. Good thing the Catholics and Orthodox are still doing so!
Transubstantiation is straight from Christ's mouth in John 6:
53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
[54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
The Eucharist has been practiced since the early days of the Church, see 2 Cor 11 and Justin Martyr's (early 2nd century) 1st Apology.
The intercession of the saints is nothing more than the faithful recognizing that the saints have eternal life---reread Scripture regarding the Transfiguration and ask yourself what precisely Moses---who had "gone to sleep"---and Elijah---who had been bodily assumed into heaven---are doing there.
Perhaps you have a link to that 10th century Bull?
You might recall that Christ advised more than a few to put aside their possessions and follow him, indeed, to leave their families behind and follow him. Ringing any bells? It's from the Gospel.
Matthew 4 (among other places):
[18] And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
[19] And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
[20] And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
[21] And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
[22] And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.
Don't forget what he told the rich man.
But of course, Christ was eminently practical. How could a man support a wife and family and go forth and baptize all nations in the 1st century A.D.? He could not---they would starve.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 5:57PM
Funny, but the Tertullian passage you referenced is the same where he exhorts:
How many men, therefore, and how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence, who have preferred to be wedded to God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact.
Its title?
"On Exhortation to Chastity"
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0405.htm
The date? ~196 A.D.
That would be over 800 years before Benedict.
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 10:43AM
I am curious to know if you think the same of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Church of the East?
Or if you even know they exist.
Brian| 4.25.10 @ 2:24AM
Are you for real?
We Catholics wrote your bible my friend and the Catholic church's monasticism that you deride was what kept it around for 1600 years. You Protestants are only the result of the invention of the printing press when every individual then decided that he was a theologian.
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 6:42AM
Let's not get carried away. The Church selected the canon of the New Testament, but it did so through an organic winnowing from a large number of books in circulation, choosing those it thought suitable for reading in liturgical services on the basis of the dual criteria of apostolic origin and consistency with the rule of faith.
Since there was no Christian Bible, whence came this rule of faith? From the liturgical worship of the Church itself, from the Church at prayer.
Towards the middle of the fourth century, various local Churches began ratifying a process that was already almost complete, by naming the books they used in worship. From then on, the canon has remained stable.
But, truth be told, there is no one canon of the New Testament. That used by the Latin Church differs from that of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Church of the East, which also differ from each other--but only in minor ways. The Byzantine Churches hold the Apocalypse (Revelations) in an anomalous position: we acknowledge its canonicity, but we do not read it in liturgical services (though our liturgy itself borrows heavily from the imagery of St. John); perhaps our early experience with Montanism and other charismatic sects that relied heavily on the prophesies of the Apocalypse made us leery of it.
Also, for that matter, we do not share the same Old Testament, as all the Eastern Churches use the Septuagint Greek version, which is, after all, the Scriptures cited verbatim more than 90% of the time in the New Testament, while the Latin Church relies on the (much later) Masoretic Hebrew text (by way of Jerome's vulgate translation).
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:49PM
The Orthodox did change their OT canon well after Constantinople, though, didn't they Stuart?
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:50PM
Referring to 381 A.D. above.
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 3:31PM
No, we still use the LXX--always have, always will. The Septuagint is the official Old Testament of all the Byzantine Churches, Orthodox and Catholic. Also, the Byzantine New Testament is the Greek Textus Receptus, while the Latin Church relies on the Western (Greek) text by way of Jerome's Latin translation. It's one reason we don't like using the NAB liturgically (other than the abysmal English)--it often does not agree with our liturgical texts which are derived from Textus Receptus and LXX.
The Syriac Churches, again, Orthodox and Catholic, uses the Peshitta Bible, which in the Old Testament is derived from the Aramaic Proto-Masoretic text, and in the New Testament on Tatian's Diatessaron and its sources.
So, within the Catholic Church, there are at least three different canons of the Old Testament and two of the New Testament.
Nobody ever thought there was much need for absolute uniformity--not that this could ever be enforced in the days before moveable type printing.
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 6:21PM
I really don't know where to begin dismantling this incredibly ill-informed, rambling screed (and since I have to read a lot of post-grad dissertations, I've seem some really ill-informed, rambling screeds in my day), so I will just take them all in order.
1. The term "Catholic Church" (Katholike Ekklesia) was first used by St. Ignatios of Antioch at the end of the first century AD, in the city of Antioch, in what is now Syria, nowhere at all near Rome. He used it to describe those Churches in which the Apostolic Tradition had been passed down without error, in which the Eucharist, understood as the Body and Blood of Christ, united all who partook of it with Christ, as well as with all other believers who likewise partook of the Eucharist.
2. The Pontifex Maximus was originally the head of the Roman College of Pontifices, the leading priests of the pagan Roman civic religion. It had nothing to do with mystery cults, which were Asiatic imports to Rome. By the first century AD, the office had become attached to the person of the Emperor, and remained there until the fifth century, when the Emperor Theodosius II gave it to the Pope, who interpreted it as meaning the head of the episcopal college, the Christian equivalent of the college of pontifices. It was not an important papal title in the first millennium, Most Popes preferred to call themselves "Vicarius Petri" or Vicarius Christi (a title he shared with all other bishops), or (the favorite of Pope Gregory the Great), Servum Servorum Dei (Slave of the Slaves of God).
When Tertullian spoke of the Pontifex Maximus, he was referring to the pagan Emperor of Rome.
Context counts, doofus.
3. Constantine did not "Christianize the Empire", nor did he make Christianity the state religion. The Edict of Milan (312) did nothing more than make Christianity a "religio licita" on the same footing with paganism and Judaism. Christianity did not become the state religion of the Roman Empire until the reign of Theodosius the Great (394).
4. Monasticism is not a pagan idea; it has no parallels in any pagan religion. It does have parallels in Judaism (e.g., the Essenes), and Jesus himself went on a monastic retreat in the desert--as did John the Baptist.
5. Veneration of Mary and the intercession of the saints long predate Constantine. The earlierst intercessory prayers to the Virgin date to the first century AD, and are found throughout the Mediterranean, from Rome to Jerusalem. One ancient prayer inscribed in the catacombs of Rome around the year 176, is still used by the Byzantine Churches today.
6. Belief that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Christ is attested implicitly in the writings of St. Paul, and explicitly in those both Ignatios of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, writing at the end of the first century AD. Transubstantiation refers only to the medieval scholastic explanation of how the Bread and Wine are transformed. The Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, have always affirmed that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, though without recourse to the vocabulary and concepts of scholastic theology.
These are real facts, not assertions.
7. The Western Church held clerical celibacy as an ideal from an early date--from the beginning of the 4th century, at least. This was not universally accepted throughout the Church, and was not rigorously enforced throughout the West. The discipline was finally made mandatory, but only in the Latin Church. It was never imposed on any of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, and the two disciplines continue to exist side by side.
Next time you decide to dispute Church history, please be sure to do your homework first, because I really dislike battles of wits with an unarmed opponent. It's just not sporting.
A.C.Guard| 4.23.10 @ 3:49PM
Peggy Noonan: Shill
mames| 4.23.10 @ 3:58PM
Teflon93
Your facrts are entirely wrong. There is no higher incidence of sexual abuse in Christendom than that inside the Roman church. By sheer numbers of priests versus other pastors it is not possible.
Yes Paul indicates that if you have his gift then by all means remain single but he also admits that the majority do not and in that case they should marry. He does not make celebacy a requirement for the office of The Holy Ministry. The overwhelming majority of priests before the 10th century were in fact married. Here endeth my lesson. :)
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 4:15PM
Here beginnith mine:
1. Incidence rates are rates per population, not raw numbers. Per the John Jay study linked above, there are 50 allegations per year or less in the Catholic Church in America since 1995. That's a very low incidence rate given the very large number of priests and bishops in America.
Pick a denomination and Google "sexual abuse [denomination]" and you should be able to find data on it. Not all have done as the Church has done and done a comprehensive study of it---many sweep it under the rug.
You can find many news accounts of Protestant ministers alleged to have committed sexual abuse here:
www.reformation.com
2. St Paul was echoing Christ:
Matthew 19:
[3] The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
[7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
[8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
[9] And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
[10] His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
[11] But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
[12] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Which, btw, also establishes that Protestants are not following Christ's teaching on divorce.
3. Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. You need to reread your St Augustine (Confessions) if you think it didn't appear until medieval times. ("Lord, make me chaste---but not yet!")
Here endeth this lesson.
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 6:50PM
"Your facrts are entirely wrong."
Oh, look who's talking!
mames| 4.23.10 @ 4:32PM
1022 Pope Benedict ordered all priests not to be married.
Your quote of St Paul says nothing of celbacy for a priest.
Abstinance is only required outside of marriage.
Augustine was a whoremonger before he came to faith. After that he was like any other man, often tempted because of his sinful nature and most often not giving in to it.
Try to stay on topic. Choose your proof texts so that they have some association with the debate. St Paul does not deal with celibacy as a requirement for the ministry.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 4:39PM
Did I miss where you laid out the argument for how less chastity drives less sexual abuse, mames?
That IS the topic!
Where does St Paul embrace divorced or female clergy, common Protestant practices?
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 4:43PM
Also, one presumes you've conceded the point on St Augustine, who was born in 354 A.D., became bishop in 396. A chaste bishop.
How could such a thing be, if 600 years prior to your 10th century date St Augustine could have been unchaste or (better) married, right? He certainly doesn't seem to have relished the thought of chastity!
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 5:45PM
What about the Council of Elvira in 309?
http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/elvira.html
Canon 33:
Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and all other clerics having a position in the ministry, are ordered to abstain completely from their wives and not have children. Whoever, in fact, does this shall be expelled from the dignity of the clerical state.
That's 700 years before Benedict, no?
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 3:39PM
It's not entirely clear whether all the canons attributed to the Council of Elvira in fact date to that council, or were later grafted on to a list of its canons. They may be as late as the early 5th century.
In any event, it is clear that the Western Church saw continence (let us not say celibacy, which can mean different things to different people) as an essential element of sacerdotal ministry (applied to everyone from sub-deacon to bishop). It is also clear that this teaching was not received by the majority of people in the Western Church, for we have records of married priests, bishops and even a pope or two, right down to the sixth and seventh centuries.
From the 7th century onward, both the Western and Eastern Churches selected bishops from among unmarried men--exclusively from monastics in the Eastern Church. The Eastern Church also continued to have a bifurcated priesthood, with married "secular" presbyters serving in the parishes and celibate (in the real sense of the word) monastic priests serving in monasteries and providing men for the episcopate.
In the West, while all bishops were now unmarried, married presbyters remained common, particularly in Germany and the Celtic fringe (Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Brittany). Elsewhere, concubinage was common, because marriage of clerics was prohibited.
When in the 11th century, the German reformist Popes attempted to enforce the ban on married priests, the rationalia given were quite different from those put forward in the fourth century. Instead, they focused on matters of ritual purity, such as the need to abstain from sexual relations for a day before celebrating Mass--but as Western priests were expected to celebrate Mass every day (in contrast to the Eastern Churches, where the Divine Liturgy is generally not celebrated on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays) made sexual relations by presbyters practically impossible (not that this stopped them). There was also an underlying worry about alienation of Church property under a system of germanic common law which did not recognize corporate ownership of property (i.e., the parish was the property of the priest serving there, and if he wanted to give some of the land to his son, there was nothing to stop him).
However, implementation of the ban on married priests took many decades to implement, even under such strong Popes as Gregory VII and Innocent III. It persisted in both Scotland and Wales well into the 13th century, and elsewhere in the West, concubinage took the place of marriage, with the general acceptance of the people. Repeated injunctions against priests cohabiting with women, and the dire penalties imposed for so doing, are evidence the practice was ubiquitous and difficult to eradicate. In fact, it is pretty safe to say that real continence among the majority of priests only became the norm in the Latin Church in the 19th century, and from that perspective, the moral character of the clergy today is probably as good as it has ever been.
Teflon93| 4.24.10 @ 3:56PM
Early Church tradition also has it that the Apostles were continent after Pentecost.
There is a difference between wide and praiseworthy practices and mandatory practices.
In other words, one should not, as Mames did above, presume that the date something became mandatory is the date it was first practiced.
Christians from the very start were renowned for their chastity, in contrast to non-Christians.
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 6:43PM
"Early Church tradition also has it that the Apostles were continent after Pentecost."
Lots of people say so, but I have not been able to find any examples of that early Church tradition, and most of the people who rely on it never present a citation for it.
Also, chastity and continence are not the same. Continence and celibacy are not the same. It is the conflation of these terms which causes a lot of problems in many different areas.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:23PM
I provided a citation above---Tertullian:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0405.htm
"How many men, therefore, and how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence, who have preferred to be wedded to God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact."
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 6:24PM
Except that this is one of Tertullian's Montanist writings. Tertullian was attracted to the Montanists because of their extreme asceticism in comparison with the Churches of Rome and Africa, which he considered to be lax. How he felt about the Montanist penchant for "new prophecy" and how he reconciled his rather low view of women with the Montanist practice of women prophets and ordained presbyters, he does not explain. It could be the Western variants of Montanism did not carry them back from the East.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 9:43AM
True, but the observation in the first sentence is merely a reflection of reality---by Tertullian's time, many who'd accepted holy orders were practicing celibacy.
It does not mean that doing so was mandatory---just that it was a common enough practice for Tertullian to remark upon favorably.
This is a LOT earlier than Benedict, so mames' claim that the practice of celibacy in the Catholic Church dates from the 11th century is simply false.
Stuart Koehl| 4.26.10 @ 1:33PM
Many were, many weren't. We know of married Western bishops from the time of Tertullian, who had children who went on to become priests and bishops in their turn. Simple math shows that these sons were born well after their fathers' ordination, so it seems clear that continence may have been an ideal, but was not universally achieved.
As married Western bishops remained common into the 4th century, and were still noted into the 5th century, and since some of these married bishops are numbered among the saints, it would seem no great scandal attached to it.
Among the married popes whose histories are known: St. Felix III (+492), son of a priest and a married priest himself, who was a widower at the time of his election; Hormosidas I (+523), a married deacon and priest, widowed before his election, and the only Pope anathematized by an ecumenical council; Silverius (+537), a married subdeacon, elected June 536, deposed March 537; Hadrian I (+872), a Cardinal Priest, married for 20 years, with a daughter, both of whom lived with him in the Lateran Palace after his election (his daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered by the brother of anti-pope Athanasius, who also murdered her mother).
What is interesting about Hadrian I is his election comes nearly two and a half centuries after the Council in Trullo, which mandated the election of bishops from the monastic clergy, and which also laid out the conditions under which higher clergy could be married. Supposedly, Rome rejected the Canons of Trullo (though they are found in various Roman collections of canon law) because it ran contrary to its assertion that married clergy had to live in continence with their wives.
History is always more complex and interesting than what they teach of it in school.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 5:20PM
The Catechism:
1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68
1578 No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God.69 Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs of God's call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift.
1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72
1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.
Since non-Catholics don't understand the difference between doctrine and dogma, here is the relevant Catechism passage:
88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.
89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50
90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."52
Priestly celibacy is not a dogma, but a discipline---a practice. Practices can and do change over time, dogma does not.
Trinitarian dogma affords an example. The notion as stated in the Nicene Creed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one is not explicit in Scripture---else the various heresies around the nature of Christ would not have arisen so close to the writing of the Gospels and epistles forming the New Testament. The Church formulated this dogma to protect the faithful from errors being promulgated in various sees and the strife caused by them. Protestants acknowledge the authority of the Church when relying upon Scripture---the canon of which was settled in the Council of Constantinople in 381 and in reciting the Creed (formulated at Nicea in 325). Neither the canon of Scripture nor the Nicene Creed is found within Scripture; both are part of the Tradition of the Church.
Needless to say, Christ is always one with the Father and Holy Spirit; this truth doesn't change over time. It is a dogma; the faithful believe it, the unfaithful do not.
Priestly celibacy is a practice. The faithful can believe in it or not.
In context of this discussion, however, we must see the argument laid out for how priests engaging in more sexual activity would reduce the incidence rate of sexual abuse.
If mames hypothesis were sound, we should have seen a constant high rate of sexual abuse from Pope Benedict's pronouncement in the early 11th century straight on through the present. Yet we don't.
More recently, the sexual abuse incidence rate has dropped 90% since 1982. Priests haven't stopped being celibate. So what explains the decline?
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 7:38PM
"Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. "
This statement has always bothered me, because it misrepresents our Tradition and puts it into a Western context. In fact, a man does not choose between sacerdotal ministry and marriage, he chooses between monasticism and marriage--and the majority of our monastics are not ordained, but simple laymen. There was actually a time in the Christian East when monasticism and ordination were considered incompatible, and most monasteries did not have resident presbyters. Over time, that changed, but the ratio of presbyters and deacons to lay monks remains quite low--in contrast to a number of Western orders, where all full members are ordained.
So, it not a case of priests freely choosing celibacy, it is a matter of monastics choosing ordination--just the opposite of what the statement implies.
It also points to what I see as the irreconcilable problem of mandatory celibacy: the number of true celibates is quite small (unless you just think of celibacy as continence, instead of something more), while the demand for presbyters is quite high. It is quite clear that throughout history, a large number of men ordained to the priesthood did not really have that gift, and dealt with its absence in a variety of ways, not all of them spiritually beneficial.
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 8:22PM
"So, it not a case of priests freely choosing celibacy, it is a matter of monastics choosing ordination--just the opposite of what the statement implies."
To be even more precise, it is a matter of monastics being chosen for ordination, usually by their abbot or spiritual father (Staretz, Geront). A monastic priest was usually directed or even ordered by his superior to accept ordination.
Many did not want it--St. John Chrysostom was not unusual in running away rather accepting ordination, and had, almost literally, to be dragged to the altar for Cheirotonia. Later, in his homilies "On the Priesthood", he wrote that "the wise man will flee from ordination as from the devil", because of the spiritual burden it incurs. He also noted that someone who was eager to be ordained was the last person you should allow at the altar.
He also wrote "I fear that not many bishops will be saved"--largely because they are responsible not only for their own souls, but for the souls of all those entrusted to their care. There is an apocryphal remark attributed to him, that "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops". If he didn't say it, he surely would have agreed with it.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:21PM
You're missing the point, Stuart---mames claimed this practice didn't come around until the 11th century.
It was earlier, much earlier, than Pope Benedict's mandate.
Indeed, we can see it from the epistles with the Apostles, who Tradition maintained were continent after Pentecost. There was a lot of discussion in the Church from the beginning as to whether clergy ought to emulate Christ in celibacy or not.
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 3:50PM
Certainly, clerical celibacy was being promoted as an ideal within the Western Church at a fairly early date--probably in the fourth century at latest. But the ideal was seldom attained anywhere prior to the 13th century. We know that there were married priests in the West, and even married bishops (not to mention a married Pope or two). Recurrent canons and encyclicals demanding celibacy are evidence that prior canons were being ignored.
When the German reform Popes of the 11th century decided to enforce mandatory celibacy, it took almost two centuries for the norm to be recognized throughout the West. Married clergy persisted in parts of Germany and throughout the Celtic fringe. Elsewhere, marriage was replaced by concubinage, and often with the support of the laity.
A number of scholars try to claim that clerical celibacy was of apostolic origins. If it was, then it constitutes an integral aspect of Tradition, and not merely an ecclesiastical discipline. Appeals to various Epistles remain unconvincing, because they are largely inferences from silence. We know Peter had a wife who traveled with him. We have no idea what they did or did not do in bed. We know that Paul himself was unmarried (highly unusual in a Jewish male), and encouraged everyone to remain in the state he had when baptized, in expectation of the imminent return of Christ.
That said, Paul also insisted it was better to marry than to burn, and said that a presbyter and episkopos should be the husband of one wife and a sound manager of his household.
Opponents of clerical celibacy often point to that as requiring a presbyter to be married, but that is also reading more into the text than is there. As Christians believed marriage to be a once-in-a-lifetime sacrament, a presbyter could not remarry, because remarriage would compromise the eternal nature of marriage. But a man who did not marry could still be ordained.
The end of the discussion is the decision of the Holy See that clerical celibacy is merely a discipline; if it was more than that, there could be no dispensation from it. If it was more than that, the Church could not recognize the legitimacy of the Eastern Tradition of married priests--which is not a dispensation from a norm, but something followed by the Eastern Churches--where monasticism began, let us not forget--from its very beginning.
It is interesting that when the Latin Church decided to implement mandatory clerical celibacy in the 11th century, it did not apply this rule to the Italo-Greek Church of Naples and Sicily. This Church, which follows the Byzantine rite, continued to ordain married men to the presbyterate without any interference from the Holy See. The same was true of the Maronite Church, which entered communion with Rome in the 12th century. And, when various elements of different Orthodox Churches entered communion with Rome between 1596 and 1724, clerical celibacy was not demanded of them (quite the opposite--any attempt to interfere with the married presbyterate was considered grounds for nullifying the union).
In all the extended dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches from 1054 to the present day, all sorts of issues have been in contention, all sorts of polemics have been written--but the married priesthood was never one of them. It was accepted as a legitimate Tradition of the Eastern Churches then, and it is now.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 9:47AM
Come, now, Stuart---you're not going to limit yourself to the epistles and Gospels on the question of early Church practice, are you?
Celibacy being difficult, you don't really think it was adopted widely among Christians as a fad, do you?
The best example for celibacy is Christ himself---and the simplest explanation for how celibacy came to be revered in the Christian Church and nowhere else was that Christ was celibate and Christians try to emulate Christ.
We do not judge ideals based on the difficulty in upholding them---shall we abandon marriage as an institution because many do not uphold their vows?
Stuart Koehl| 4.26.10 @ 1:45PM
True celibacy was adopted as a response to the ending of the persecutions, a reaction against the increasing worldliness of the Church. Instead of the red martyrdom of the arena, they chose the white martyrdom of the desert, turning away from the world in order to practice an extreme form of asceticism, the purpose of which was to wage spiritual warfare with the powers of Satan, mastering the passions in order to more closely hear the voice of God. Athanasius' biography of St. Anthony of Egypt, the Life of St. Pachomius, and all the other lives of the Desert Fathers are pretty unanimous on that point.
Though monasticism was wildly popular, monastics (male and female) never accounted for more than 5-6% of the Christian population as a whole, and monastic clergy no more than perhaps 5-10% of the total clergy.
The perspective of the Christian East is all men (and women) choose between two vocations: marriage and monasticism. Each is holy, and neither is inferior to the other, for as St. John Chrysostom wrote, "The nuptial chamber can be as holy as the monk's cell".
Within both of those vocations, there are men who are called out from their communities to serve God as ordained ministers. I think that is an important point often missed these days. It is common to speak of men having a vocation to the priesthood, but this would have puzzled the Fathers, since for them, Holy Orders were a ministry of service to the Church, chosen by the Church and not by their own desires.
As I mentioned, the lives of the Fathers are full of stories of how, upon being told they were to be ordained, these holy men tried desperately to get out of it, to the point of fleeing from the city, and often being brought back by force. Only after the laying on of hands did they resign themselves to their fate.
Chrysostom was extremely suspicious of men who wanted to be priests, because he found they often wanted it for the wrong reasons. He may still have a point today. I would much prefer if, instead of waiting for men to come forth of their own volition, the people in the parishes would identify and push forth those whom they believe to be best suited for the ministry.
mames| 4.23.10 @ 4:32PM
1022 Pope Benedict ordered all priests not to be married.
Your quote of St Paul says nothing of celbacy for a priest.
Abstinance is only required outside of marriage.
Augustine was a whoremonger before he came to faith. After that he was like any other man, often tempted because of his sinful nature and most often not giving in to it.
Try to stay on topic. Choose your proof texts so that they have some association with the debate. St Paul does not deal with celibacy as a requirement for the ministry.
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 3:40PM
Proof texting is for morons.
Maggie| 4.23.10 @ 4:56PM
This problem will always be with us, as long as we give credence to homosexual songwriters by singing their songs during Mass, and thus supporting them financially. According to the obituaries of his mother and brother, the author of HERE I AM, LORD lives with his gay partner.. When I sent a copy of the obits to our parish priest, pleading with him to cease and desist in using these songs, he responded with what I consider the BEDBUG letter. Satan is definitely in the sanctuary.
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 3:43PM
You should reject songs like "Here I am Lord", not because of the moral stature of their composers (who among you will toss the first stone), but because they are vacuous, insipid, lame and generally speaking, really bad music. The problem of liturgical music in the Latin Church is not due to homosexual composers, but to a very flawed understanding of the role of music in liturgy, and, to be brutal, of liturgy in general.
Pingback| 4.23.10 @ 5:16PM
Tory boys bait their hook for Charlie Whelan | Host Rage links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 4.23.10 @ 5:22PM
Believer 4
Just so there is no mistake on where I stand.
Any person, Priest, Civilian, Homosexual Activist, Janitor or Bank Executive that is caught, and proven beyond doubt to have sexual abused any young children should be shot by a firing squad and their testicles hung on London bridge as warning to all.
But the same should happen to anyone who falsely accuses someone of sexual abusing a child.
SarahTX2| 4.23.10 @ 5:50PM
Hi, John Haas, I'm usually so good too. And yet I am not applauding your condescending misrepresentation of supposed reforms in the Catholic Church. Thanks for mentioning Justice Anne M. Burke who had "that woman's touch." You forgot to add in to your discussion what Ms. Burke has had to say since her unfortunate term on the National Review Board. She did not see those reforms you refer to. Sorry you didn't grace us with any of Ms. Burke's quotes upon stepping down from that graceless position. I'm sure you read them. Here's what Ms. Burke published three weeks ago in support of Hans Kung: http://www.uscatholic.org/chur.....use-crisis
Nor did you make mention of the comments made by the head of the National Review Board, Frank Keating. Frank had a man's touch, John. And here's what he had to say about the American Bishops: "To resist grand jury subpoenas, to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away; that is the model of a criminal organization, not my church." I know, I know, you thought I was going to give the quote about the Bishops being mafia, but I think the quote I've supplied here will suffice.
I do have a question for Dr. Shakeshaft who is being quoted left and right by Catholic apologists. How can Dr. Shakeshaft explain the experience in California? When California placed a window allowing victims to sue their abusers, why is it, can Dr. Shakeshaft tell us, that 90% of the resulting lawsuits were against Catholic priests? If abuse in public schools is 100 times that of the Catholic Church, why aren't these thousands of children clamoring to face their abusers in court? Same thing in Delaware. Can you or this Dr. Shakeshaft name one single advocacy group of any distinction for the victims of public school abuse? If there were so many victims in public schools, we would be hearing about it. Or, are you claiming that little children have some inherent in-built need to persecute Catholics?
Although I really enjoyed your anecdote about your family's pedophile dentist, your entire column here is trash, pure Catholic woman-hating trash.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 7:19PM
Public schools being government-run, you no doubt are aware how difficult it can be to recoup from the government.
Not to mention how difficult it can be to get lawyers to take on teacher's unions, their allies in the Democrat Party.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 10:15PM
If Shakeshaft's findings aren't to your liking, how about the Associated Press's?
http://www.deseretnews.com/art.....29,00.html
"The seven-month investigation found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, voluntarily surrendered or limited from 2001 through 2005 following allegations of sexual misconduct.
Young people were the victims in at least 1,801 of the cases, and more than 80 percent of those were students. More than half the educators who were punished by their states also were convicted of crimes related to the misconduct.
The findings draw obvious comparisons to sex abuse scandals in other institutions, among them the Roman Catholic Church. A review by America's Catholic bishops found that about 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors from 1950 through 2002."
So back of the envelope math shows priests were accused of sexual abuse of minors at a mean rate of 88 per year. The allegations against teachers which resulted in severe disciplinary actions ran about 450 per year. This is not apples-to-apples because the John Jay study included all allegations against priests while the AP study had to rely only on those against educators which resulted in disciplinary action, a lower number for sure than total allegations. Even this apples-to-oranges comparison results in numbers 5 times higher for public schools.
Given there are more teachers than priests, AP would need to have all accusations against educators in order to make a fully valid comparison of incidence rates.
Where is the push for comprehensive reporting of allegations, not just disciplinary actions, especially given teachers' unions and school districts' tendency to protect educators from such discipline?
Is protecting kids the goal or not?
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 3:46PM
"Dr. Shakeshaft tell us, that 90% of the resulting lawsuits were against Catholic priests?"
Low hanging fruit. Catholic priests are easy targets as compared, e.g., to public school teachers, who are protected by collective bargaining agreements and provided with competent counsel free of charge. Moreover, civil suits against teachers usually mean civil suits against school systems, and governments have pockets deep enough to outlast most private plaintiffs.
In short, it's much easier to sue the Catholic Church and win, than it is to sue the public schools and win, regardless of the evidence in the case.
Believer4| 4.23.10 @ 6:54PM
Dear Folks:
I want to thank each and every person who stated their opinion.
It took me two years to forgive the priests who abused me…had too so that I could move on with my life. However, I can never forgive (not judge, that’s up to God) the cardinals, bishops and priests who covered up these crimes against little kids.
Fact: the catholic church has paid out over 3 billion dollars, just in the USA, to settle claims of sexual abuse. Do you know what’s included in the 3 billion dollars; obviously pay outs to victims, but also diocesan law firms spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defend the church in fighting victims. Also, therapy for priests.
The church fought for years and dragged victims through the courts. When the church lost they declared VOLUNTARY BANKRUPCY (that’s important) and then settled. They settled because the courts demanded the diocesan “secret” files and there no way the church ever wanted the courts to see these files. And because they settled no priest was ever brought to the “bar of justice”…they’re still out there folks.
Finally, Tim, don’t ever take the law into your own hands. And, SarahTX2, great post.
God Bless
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 8:12PM
Thank you for your courage in coming forward and may God bless you.
That said, I have to take issue with a couple of statements:
I haven't seen any indication as to the amounts spent by diocesan law firms; hundreds of millions seems to be off by an order of magnitude or so. I have never seen an estimate of costs for therapy.
Cases are different and distinct---the legal proceedings are in different jurisdictions and follow different paths. Moreover, each diocese is an independent entity---I believe Connecticut declared bankruptcy but am unaware of others. The Church as a whole and the American Church did not declare bankruptcy.
Moreover, because of the lamented differences in dioceses and bishops' approaches to this problem, we shouldn't put forth that all dioceses handled this the same way. They didn't; some were absolutely awful, some better. The magnitude of the problem varied from diocese to diocese as well.
If the "secret" files included matters dealing with the Confessional one can see why they wouldn't be released. I'd need to see more on them; there are also privacy laws which the Church has to abide by and might impact some of these.
There are many reasons to settle a court case----one very good one is the unlikelihood of getting a fair hearing in a media frenzy, another is the escalating ladder of costs the longer it goes on, the best is swifter resolution for victims. These vary diocese by diocese as well.
As for no priest being convicted, a Google search will turn up plenty. Generally the Church laicizes them first. A number of them have in fact served time, Stephen Kiesle who was in the news last week among them.
PCC| 4.23.10 @ 7:13PM
Celibacy is not the issue; homosexuality is.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Teflon93| 4.23.10 @ 8:37PM
A celibate homosexual does not commit sexual abuse, however. By definition.
It is the combination of loosening requirements for celibacy and loosening discernment for those with homosexual attraction which proved devastating here.
Of course, we also have to be careful to note that there isn't much evidence of female religious committing sexual abuse on females either---not that it never happens, just that the incidence rate of allegations is far lower.
Heterosexual sexual abuse is a crime too, and about 19% of the allegations are of this nature per the John Jay study.
Sexual abuse of prepubescents is a smaller proportion still.
The New York Times would like to see more actively homosexual priests, some others want more actively heterosexual priests, but either case inevitably leads to more sexual abuse, not less.
More chaste priests reduces sexual abuse. May God grant us these!
Pingback| 4.23.10 @ 7:57PM
The American Spectator : Peggy Noonan's Church History | americantoday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Believer4| 4.23.10 @ 8:46PM
Teflon93
For me to discuss this further and answer all your questions would take a book. Which I’ll probably write when this crisis is done. So, email me at rregan001@rochester.rr.com and we can chat.
Take care.
Pingback| 4.24.10 @ 12:29AM
sea world san diego_sea animals_sea world san antonio_sea temperature_sea world orlan links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim*| 4.24.10 @ 8:34AM
Believer4 , Ccn You tell us about the ongoing , rampant and much , much greater Sex Abuse In The American Public School System and what you've done to address it.
Thank You .
" The Federal No Child Left Behind Act, the report by a university-based expert on schoolhouse sexual misconduct Charol Shakeshaft :
To support her contention that many more youngsters have been sexually mistreated by school employees than by priests, Ms. Shakeshaft pointed to research conducted for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and released late last month. That study found that from 1950 to 2002, 10,667 people made allegations that priests or deacons had sexually abused them as minors.
Extrapolating from data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000, Ms. Shakeshaft estimated that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee from 1991 to 2000—a single decade, compared with the roughly five-decade period examined in the study of Catholic priests. "
jd| 4.24.10 @ 10:54AM
Excellent posts by many on this site. After reading all these posts I still come back to the question for all the those attacking the Catholic Church who profess to be standing up for victims of sexual abuse, WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE AGAINST PUBLIC SCHOOLS where more of these incidents have occurred? Just cut to the chase and admit that you want any and all institutions who esteem values of morality extinguished. Stop feigning concern for abuse victims of homosexual assaults because face it, if you were truly concerned you would be attacking the CAUSE of this abuse, which is ACTIVE HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE PRIESTHOOD. Weed out those and you will find less sexual abuses in the Church. Now, when are you hypocrites going to attack the public schools??
Believer4| 4.24.10 @ 11:06AM
Dear Tim:
Why is the sex abuse in public school system worst than any places else? Larger numbers…of course there are. A child is still damage whether it’s a priest, teacher or boyscout leader. I’m an advocate victim/survivor for those abused by anybody; it just so happens that I was abused by a priest.
I’m not Obama…I can’t save the whole world.
The pending legislation in Albany, NY, if passed would help ALL abuse victims.
Why do I have the feeling that you’ll come back with another question like how many angels can dance on a pin.
Take care……
copy cd dvd | 4.24.10 @ 1:42PM
nice post.., i agree with you.
Tim*| 4.25.10 @ 12:16AM
Wrong Believer4 .
The sex abuse in Public Schools continues unaddressed by The Media and it is in greater " Percentages " , as well as dwarfing the numbers of the Catholic Church Sex Abuse problem ,which has been addressed far more than the epidemic of Sex Abuse In America's Public schools.
Secondly ,Wrong again.
I'm another Tim .
John - TMF| 4.24.10 @ 11:45AM
Ultimately the issue of the Latin Rite discipline of priestly celibacy will solve itself. The hierarchy will atrophy to the point where their aren't enough priests to offer consecration and absolution.
The problem is becoming acute in many regions of the country, already. Dispensations for priests saying more than one mass a day are pro forma.
For example: The Diocese of Arlington has single digit numbers of Transitional Deacons. Our parish has lost four priests and one transitional deacon in the past decade. All were due to the burden of the discipline of celibacy (1 - broke up a marriage and ran off with the ex-wife, 1 - left to pursue an academic and social life outside of the priesthood, 1 - (the latest, ordained only 8 months) could not handle the loneliness and stress with little family support, and 1 transitional deacon a month before his ordination, refused... it was reportedly for the love of a woman.
The numbers dwindle. There not enough men willing, and enough families with enough children to forgo the blessings and challenges of the Vocation of Marriage and Parenthood.
Celibacy worked in a world of large families, it fails in a culture of two and three child families.
All the praying, "faith-ing", denigrating of even the most gentle opposition, or dogmatic adherence to the old traditions will stem the erosion.
The issue at hand is how the Catholic Church's hierarchy handled the crisis of individual priests abusing (mostly) adolescent boys, and how best to prevent their recurrence.
The cover-up is obvious (sorry, but it is what it is deny to heart's content). The reasons for it are complex, and fundamentally human. The actions taken were confused, tragically mistaken, and often the blind defense of indefensible actions was abusive in and of itself.
There was, and is, a cooperative feeding frenzy of false accusers, dogmatic apostates, anti-Catholics, and atheists spoiling to advantage themselves. This reality is not a defense, however. The Church as a human institution must find a way to correct the errors, submit the perpetrators for criminal proceedings and it must thoughtfully seek to do the best that it can to prevent such predators from sullying its offices in the future.
The Roman Catholic Church is under a constant withering assault. (Jesus predicted it as the price of faith.) Unfortunately its blind defenders hand the swords of destruction to its attackers.
To those from these threads who have offered passages from the Bible as some sort of justification (and I used the Gospel of John from last Sunday to appeal for humility and self-reflection - I did not use it as reason or argument.) it is prudent to remember that in tossing around snippets of scripture, that the devil tempted Jesus with biblical citation. Take care and understand the context. Note: Paul was a late to the game apostle who might or might not have ever been a direct witness to the ministry of Jesus. His letters are not "gospel". They aren't dicta, or law. They are contemplative and instructive. They were intended to offer support and reason to Gentile (Greek) churches struggling with a new faith as it mixed with and overshadowed the traditions and beliefs of a GrecoRoman pagan intellectual and moral base.
I pray for those here who have been abused, and come forward to testify. You are loved. May your wounds heal and my God shine his light upon you and give you peace.
I am but a man. A layman at that. I am a faithful husband. I struggle to be a good father. That is my vocation.
God's church is not in Rome. It is not in Ephesus. It is not in Jerusalem. God's Church rests in the souls of his children as they meet together in celebration of his bountiful gifts.
Peace be to all of you.
John
Teflon93| 4.24.10 @ 1:11PM
Vocations are UP in America the past decade or so.
Catholics are the largest American religious denomination and the largest Christian denomination worldwide.
The Church is where Christ said it was when he founded it upon St Peter.
The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Christ is no liar.
John - TMF| 4.24.10 @ 8:35PM
(My prior masterful annotated essay was eaten by the inconsistent spam monster, so I will summarize and not give the html links but note the sources at the end... so if it shows up somewhere at some time please forgive the double post.)
Er um... actually No. As a percentage of the total number of Roman Catholics, the number of priests ordained in 2009 declined. There were 472 priests ordained in 2009. In the strictest sense 472 is higher than the 454 of 2005 and the 442 of 2000, but the increase represents a huge decrease in the number of needed ordinations over the same period. In 2000 there were roughly 60million American Catholics, the 2009 numbers are approaching 66million. An absolute increase, yes... but when you add 2 to 2 you get a 100 percent increase; the reality that it the answer is tiny little 4 when you needed hundreds... is significant.
Now if by "vocations" to holy orders or the religious life you are speaking of the Permanent Diaconate... Then there are some serious increases. In 1985 there were a mere 898 PD's versus 58,909 priests. In 2009, there were 16,380 and 40,666 priests. So yes... vocations increased... sure.
That number is stunning because of the Church's complete unwillingness to address why there were 16,380 Permanent Deacons. The facts then beg the question. Why the fall of in priestly vocations, and the stratospheric increase in the number of Permanent Deacons? Wait for it... tah dah!!! Marriage... The vast majority of Permanent Deacons are MARRIED (you have stated so yourself in some other response so no spin please). It is not at all unlikely that most of them would be priests if ordination were to be offered. It is only offered upon the deaths of their spouses, and then only if they return for long exhaustive and redundant training in the Seminary.
Last year there were there were almost 4,000 parishes without a pastor/permanent priest and of those slightly over 500 were being run by a PD, Sister, or Layman.
Your increase is looking like a perilous ordeal of treading water in high seas.
The Church is dying from the head. We are not producing enough priests, and the existing priesthood is rapidly aging. A 2001 Boston College survey noted that the average age of priests was fifty-six (56). With such a low replacement rate, and an increasing number of later vocations, this means that the numbers are quickly approaching an average age of 60.
The source for the numbers is easily available and very accurate: the Frequently Asked Questions section of Georgetown's Cara Report project. (adding the link seems to annoy the spam filter.)
I will leave you with a further stunning fact from the CARA worldwide report: in 2009 there were approximately 1.147 billion Catholics in the world, and a listed 408,024 priests. In 1970, when the world statistics were started, the number was of Catholics was listed at just short of 654million Catholics, served by 419,728 priests. “UP” is not what I would call that number.
The facts speak for themselves. You can argue all you want and pray until your candles melt away, your beads are sand, and your hair falls out. It isn’t going to change reality.
Your humble servant,
Fahvaag
Brian | 4.25.10 @ 2:38AM
You put a lot of energy into that. And your point?
You don't like the rule of celibacy and want married priests who are supposed to get the faithful to heaven while at the same time trying to coach their kid's Little league game?
The problem is that married vocations in other Protestant denominations are down. Big time. The issue in the decline in vocations is secularism and consumerism not celibacy. You see the problem but misidentify its cause.
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 6:52AM
My dear Brian,
I've heard your argument many times, and my only response is it's both stupid and ignorant.
Your Eastern Catholic brethren, to say nothing of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, have had married priests for 1900 years of so. Their service to the Church, their ability as pastors and spiritual fathers, cannot be denied. There is a priest at my parish who is married, and he is both an outstanding spritual and and biological father. I know dozens of married priests, and overall, I would take them as both pastors and fathers over the run of celibate mediocrities I have encountered in the Latin Church.
The Holy See instructs the faithful that all Churches are equal in grace and dignity, but I seldom get much of it from my Latin brothers when it comes to our married priests--a lack of respect that goes all the way back to the arrival of the first Eastern Catholic in this country in the 1890s.
Pope John Paul II, in hid pastoral letter Orientale Lumen, also instructed the Latin faithful to make themselves more familiar with the treasures of the Eastern Churches, and he exhorted us in the Eastern Churches to restore the fullness of our Tradition, a Tradition which includes a married secular clergy who are in every way as fully presbyters of Christ as the unmarried clergy of the Latin Church.
Don't ever imply that they can't measure up.
John - TMF| 4.25.10 @ 9:59AM
Stuart,
That is not to mention the increasing number of Roman Catholic Priests who are married, and have families courtesy of their being ordained in a Protestant denomination, and choosing to convert.
Ten years ago or so my aunt and uncle lived on Kiawah Island, South Carolina. The pastor there was a Roman Catholic priest with full faculties, a lovely wife and several children (who also converted with him and his wife....) . He had been an Episcopalian.
Those numbers are still small, but growing. Your point is well taken, and clear as a bell. I agree with your observation as well.
This is just me now... Priestly Celibacy is a kind of "divorce". It narrows the pool of available candidates for the priesthood, and with that narrowed pool brings about a natural human arrogance that is difficult to ignore; the "implication", if you will, that "I" am "better" than you "BECAUSE" of some rationale that is very human in its nature and very flawed in its execution.
The discipline was imposed in 1129 across the Latin Rite/Church. The reasons can be bandied about, debated, and tortured into nausea. So for roughly 1100 years the Roman church had a married priesthood with almost identical rules to its Eastern Communions (Nicer word -IMHO- than Rite or Church since I can come to your church, experience your mass, and receive the very same Eucharist, as you can in mine.)
The facts, again, speak for themselves. If there is no required celibacy, there is no priest shortage. The Catholic Seminaries would be brimming with young men and men finished with raising their families who are looking to broaden their service to God.
There is no doubt in my mind that it will change. Augustin was a great convert, but his conversion and the mercy of his salvation came at a price. He despised what he had been, and in human fashion recoiled against it with equal fervor in the opposite direction. The seeds that he sewed have grown oddly bitter fruit.
16,000 Deacons wait for a chance to Celebrate Mass, consecrate the Eucharist, and offer absolution to the living and the dying. They are good men of fine character. It is crushingly sad that the Church who offers ordination to married converts, cannot see its error and offer them the same dignity.
It is, after all, as our Catholic brothers have mentioned, a discipline. It is not a dogma, and certainly not Doctrine. Disciplines can and should change as the conditions for them become irrelevant.
Have a great Sunday.
John
Nick| 4.25.10 @ 1:03PM
Mr. Koehl and John-TMF,
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anyone is denigrating married priests.
The Roman Catholic Church decided long ago that married priests should be the exception, not the rule. And I abide by that decision. It takes an exceptional person who can handle the problems of a whole parish, as well as the problems of raising a family.
It is my understanding that the Oriental Catholics don't allow a priest to get married once he has been ordained. Also, that they don't elevate married priests to the office of bishop.
Am I mistaken? Have I confused the Eastern Rite Churches with the Eastern Orthodox? I tend to do that.
John, what about single Catholics? Are we not "caring for God" because we do not have children? Also, we are all called to be saints. Christ called us to "Be therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."
-Matthew 5:48
God Bless!
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 1:37PM
"It is my understanding that the Oriental Catholics don't allow a priest to get married once he has been ordained. Also, that they don't elevate married priests to the office of bishop.
Am I mistaken? Have I confused the Eastern Rite Churches with the Eastern Orthodox? I tend to do that."
Almost all the Oriental Churches follow the canons of the Quinisextunct Council in Trullo (692) which mandated that married men could be ordained to the orders of deacon and presbyter, but that deacons and presbyters could not marry or remarry--that is the practice of the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.
The Quinisextunct Council also mandated that bishops be selected from among the monastic clergy (prior to this, there had been quite a number of married bishops, including, e.g., St. Gregory of Nyssa, himself the son of a married bishop). The reason for this was strictly pragmatic: bishops wielded tremendous power and authority, and had control of immense wealth; it was felt that a bishop with children would find it difficult to resist the temptation to provide for them out of Church property (and since they thought so, you can bet it was happening with some regularity). There was nothing "spiritual" about that ruling.
Though Latin bishops in the U.S. tried to suppress the ordination of married Eastern Catholic priests, with the issuance of the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches in 1990, the so-called "extraordinary norms" were lifted, and we have returned to our ancestral practice.
Because of the Anglican dispensation, there are in fact more married Latin priests in the U.S. than there are married Eastern Catholic ones--yet I still run into people who think that the married priesthood in the Eastern Churches must be suppressed "in order to preserve clerical celibacy in the Latin Church".
If in order to preserve your Tradition you have to squash ours, I'm inclined to think that you have far deeper problems than you know.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:31PM
But you go overboard the other way, Stuart, looking down upon those religious in both West and East who make and keep their vows of celibacy.
Don't let the chip on your shoulder become a stumbling block.
Celibacy is a practice, not a dogma. It has been and is practiced in the East. It has been and is practiced in the West.
The Anglicans will receive a warmer welcome than you think.
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 4:05PM
I don't look down on any who live a life of chastity or celibacy. But I consider celibacy to be more than mere continence--it is a true gift, one which comes rarely to anyone, man or woman. It is not a giving up, but the addition of something more. In place of the personal intimacy of marriage, the true celibacy attains closer intimacy with God; instead of focusing his love on one person, the celibate gives love to the whole of creation.
I have watched a lot of real celibates up close and personal; monastics have been my friends and my spiritual fathers since I joined the Church, and they are demonstrably different from other people in a way that one can only discern from observation. They have a particular stillness, a wholeness and contentedness about them which is not ordinarily found in a man or a woman who, though single and continent, are not really given the gift of celibacy.
I have met, among the many unmarried, non-monastic priests I have met, a handful who to me seemed true celibates. Many others were simply single men. Most of them, no doubt, maintained continence in accordance with the teaching of the Church, but in a lot of them, a felt a loneliness, an emptiness that I don't feel with monastics. And there were, unfortunately, a very small number who just gave me the creeps.
Better discernment may help eliminate those definitely not cut out for life as an unmarried priest, but I don't think it can increase the number of true celibates, and not all true celibates are cut out for the priesthood.
As for the Anglicans, the Latin bishops in this country, at least, have generally been hostile to them and seldom extended the Anglican Use Dispensation in their dioceses. Part of it, I think, is the same penchant for uniformity that caused the bishops to make the Tridentine Rite rare and difficult to attend. Another part has to do with the kind of people these continuing Anglicans are--theologically and liturgically conservative. Most bishops don't want people in their parishes who will call them on innovations in doctrine and liturgy, to say nothing of shortfalls in personal behavior. If the Anglicans and the Tridentines had been truly welcome by the bishops, the Holy See would not have had to go over their heads with extraordinary directives.
John - TMF| 4.25.10 @ 1:42PM
Gently here... Nick, you miss the point.
The illustration is intended to counter the assertion of the implied defect that a husband and father cannot effectively also conduct the responsibilities of Holy Orders.
The eternal struggle between the single (and presumably chaste) life, and married life is as it always will be... or a matter for the last time one accidentally left the seat up, or logged someone off of their session while he picked up a child from a test... Selfish impulse is normal, it passes.
I don't envy anyone the single life, no marriage is hard work. I find, personally, no "gift" in being single. That is just me, though.
23 years of marriage... three kids... several dogs... life is good. Hard sometimes... but good.
God makes us perfect later... by his Grace... We haven't the ability to do it ourselves...
God Bless you, too.
John
john - tmf -again... | 4.25.10 @ 1:45PM
Pardonez moi... Rented fingers...
That was "I don't envy any one the single life. Marriage is hard, good work."
I can't proofread anymore... getting too old...
;-)
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 7:43PM
Let us remember that the married are also called to chastity, which has a deeper meaning than sexual continence. It is a call to wholeness, to the right ordering of the body, the soul and the spirit.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:28PM
So how's vocations in the Easter Church, Stuart?
Should be through the roof!
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 4:20PM
It's spotty at best. In Eastern Europe, since the collapse of communism, there is a veritable springtime for the Church, both Orthodox and Catholic alike. In Ukraine, our seminaries are full, and in the Carpatho-Rusyn Seminary of the Blessed Theodore Romzha, there are 400 men on the waiting list. Most, of course, are married. My wife and I usually support a couple of seminarians with our contributions--tuition and stipend for a full year is just $150, which gives you an idea of the material poverty in which they live. But they are spiritually rich.
Here in the states, the story is quite different, at least for some Eastern Catholic jurisdictions. The Ruthenians, rent with liturgical conflicts (one reason I am no longer Ruthenian) and a confusion of identity, refuse to enroll married men into the seminary priesthood program. I believe they have one, maybe two candidates for the priesthood there, now. There were a couple of married men who were promised admission to the presbyterate (one of them had been an instructor at the seminary for several years), but after being slow-rolled for years, they transferred to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and were promptly ordained.
The Ukrainians and Melkites do ordain married men, and are in much better shape than the Ruthenians. The Melkite parish to which I now belong has no fewer than three priests --two archimandrites (senior monastic priests) and one married priest who came out of the parish through the orders of Reader, Subdeacon, and Deacon.
We presently have a Protodeacon and three deacons, a sub-deacon and a reader--all from within the parish, which has roughly 150 families (making it a very large parish by our standards).
The Orthodox are a mixed bag. The Greeks seem to be holding their own, as does the OCA; both have highly regarded seminaries which seem to turn out enough pastors to meet their needs. The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese should be considered a success story. Back in the late 1970s, it began attracting Evangelical converts, who were received en masse in the 1980s. Today, the AOC has grown by about 75%, with roughly half of its members and more than 2/3 of the clergy being converts. They have a very active outreach program, convert zeal and that Evangelical organizational skill that the Orthodox tend to lack (hey, we're not into organized religion, that's why we're Orthodox). On the down side, there has been a lot of friction between the Arabic-speaking, ethnic, cradle Orthodox and the English-speaking American converts. But I think they will work it out.
In short, married priests is not a panacea for anything--not sex abuse, not clergy shortage. It also makes a lot of demands that advocates for married priests in the Latin Church do not understand and probably are not able to meet. Married clergy is embedded in our way of life; it's not embedded in yours. Be careful what you wish for.
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 4:24PM
I should also mention that in Eastern Europe, the monasteries are also full. Monasticism has a great attraction for spiritually starved young people, both male and female (there's no difference between a monk and a nun in Eastern monasticism--both follow the same rule).
Which brings up another point: in the Eastern Churches, the married clergy and monasticism are kept in dynamic tension. Both are needed for the equilibrium of the Church. If married priests are the pastors of local flocks, monks provide their spiritual fathers and mothers. Without a robust monasticism, married clergy tends towards worldliness; without married clergy, monasticism tends to excessive rigorism. You need both.
John - TMF| 4.25.10 @ 4:45PM
Just before I head off to mass..
Oh I advocate great care... There are 17,000 or so Deacons who are the first among the potential candidates. They who have raised their families and are now "empty nesters" could be considered first.
There is much to be learned, and much to consider. Nothing done is done without consequence or effect.
Any vocation is a burden that requires great discernment, careful consideration, and education.
Yes, it would change the Church. I pray for the better. But there is little to commend the current trajectory, either.
Peace... off to Mass... as my father used to say... Jing-jing band and all...
Stuart, you are truly amazing. Thanks for being there.
Regards,
John
John - TMF| 4.25.10 @ 11:46AM
As a parent, I see God everyday. I heard Him and felt His presence and joy as each of my children uttered their first cries. I saw Him in eyes of my girlfriend as I surprised her with a ring, and I knew His happiness as I watched her walk up the aisle dressed in silk and carrying roses.
I knew His hand was helping mine as I acted across the years to raise, love, discipline, protect, and teach my children. I begged his peace and forgiveness for my failings.
At some point, we as a Church (not just the hierarchy will begin to understand that God WANTS us to BE HUMAN. He did not make us to be Angels. He did not make us to be saints in the human misunderstanding. He made us to live, to choose, to grow, to sometimes fail and to succeed. He wants us to love Him, but has given us a choice. (His greatest gift.)
When we as a Church learn to live in the Kingdom of Man then we will truly live, and then pass into the Kingdom of God, through the narrow door...
A former priest (who was supposed to officiate my wife's and my wedding - and left with tears running down his face explaining to us that he could no longer do us the honor.) offered to me a thought when I met him years later. As he looked at my children, then very young and precious... "They are what it is all about, and they are the most difficult and rewarding work that God has ever given us. Caring for them is caring for God."
Please, do not be the servant who buries the talent in fear of his master's retribution for losing it.
I am afraid that is what the Church has done with Holy Orders. It has placed the wealth entrusted to it in a hole and covered it, in fear and trepidation.
God understands. He is at that baseball game you allude to...
I will pray for a Renaissance of the Church. It will be a glorious rebirth at that.
Cheers,
John
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:26PM
I do stats for a living.
This is a great example of confounded variables.
There was a lot more going on in the Church in the late 60s and 70s---you will need to explain how celibacy drove sexual abuse and a vocations decline in the 70s but not before when the celibacy rule goes back thousands of years.
I suggest you read up on "The Spirit of Vatican II" to find the answer.
John - TMF| 4.25.10 @ 3:28PM
1. No... numbers do not lie (statistics and statisticians do, however... often and with great fervor...)
FACT: We do not have enough priests to minister to the growing number of Catholics in this nation, and across the world. The numbers in absolute terms without extracting weird comparative percentages are undeniable.
FACT: A quarter of a century ago there were less than 1,000 permanent Deacons. Now there are nearly 17,000. AND during that period of time we have fewer priests. HumM?... nothing here... move along... just statistical aberration. Don't mind the elephant in the parlor on the way, either.
2. There was much going on in the church in the 1960's and 1970's some of it wonderful, some of it not so good. In case you missed it, lots of the offending priests came not from the crop of priests in that period, but from those in the Seminaries in the 1950's, and early 1960's. Before the "Liberalization" occurred.
REALITY: Why did the Church, with the deep seeded knowledge that opening the priesthood to homosexuals would be problematic at best, still do so during the period that you detest so much?
I suggest you go back to those numbers. Add that to the increasing number of one, two, and three child families, and you might get a small inkling as to what was the problem. Families were no longer willing to sacrifice the possibility of grandchildren to encourage their sons to become priests. (Face it, in the large family of the past 100 years, the Church actively encouraged the "sacrifice" of one or more children to various holy orders. Many Seminaries were High Schools. The priest that I mentioned was ordained even before he was allowed to hear confessions and offer absolution. He was sent to the Seminary by his family at age 13.
I am 51. I was born into the old rite, and grew up through the Liturgical and Theological thrashing of Vatican II. Despite some liturgical short comings, of which include some pretty vapid music, it has been a tonic to the faithful.
BTW -- The assertion of the "Latin Protestants" that had the church maintained the old forms that it wouldn't have lost so many of the faithful is a prime example of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc reasoning. It lost so many people from the pews, because in general most people have become less religious as their need for spirituality has been fulfilled by pop culture and pagan mysticism.
All "hippie" masses, and liturgical interpretations aside, I prefer to see the church struggle to find the "right" path than to merely issue forth blind assertions, and issue threats of eternal damnation (for which it is not empowered, anyway.)
It is a living church built on a foundation. If it does not grow and breathe, it is unlikely to be more than a rock in the field.
All of what you site, everything that you have brought to the table over this discussion has been browbeating, negative, corrective and judgmental. You seek to "go back" to a time before, as if it pristine and perfect. It most assuredly was not.
The church is the work of man. The Church is the creation of God. We must deal with the former, using the strength and Divine Grace of the Latter.
Faith is a living thing. Imagine the feeling of the hug that you received from your child, parent, wife upon your return from a long journey. That unbridled love and joy is a tiny communion with God.
May the joy and peace of God be with you.
John
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 4:24PM
People without stats lie more fervently, John, being unmoored from measurable reality. The surest sign of such is when they dismiss data out of hand, as you have done.
The number of Catholics is growing per the CARA stats---8.85% from 2000 to 2009, while priestly ordinations grew 6.79% over the same period.
Meanwhile, priests retiring resulted in an 11% drop over the same period in the total number of priests.
It is the combination of strong growth in the number of U.S. Catholics, slightly smaller but still significant growth in ordinations, with a strong reduction in clerical ranks due to retirements which drives the current vocations crisis.
This crisis isn't equally distributed, btw. Dioceses in the south are growing rapidly while those in the Northeast are in steep decline. I'll let you hazard hypotheses as to why that might be.
Meanwhile, this CARA graph should be of interest to you:
http://cara.georgetown.edu/mattend.jpg
This is what I mean when I say we have a Baby Boomer problem.
Despite the tendency of people to attend Mass more frequently as they get older, 38% of Boomers rarely or never attend Mass, as opposed to 32% of Gen X and 33% of Millennials.
Cross-check this with the ordination years of those priests accused of sexual abuse in the John Jay data and you'll find something interesting: it's largely a Baby Boomer problem there too.
Which is why I posit that we're reaping what "The Spirit of Vatican II" sowed.
You are correct that parents---Boomer parents in particular---put obstacles in the way of the discernment of their children for the priesthood. It is of a piece with the selfishness which marked and continues to mark so many Baby Boomers, who first wanted career, then wanted grandchildren. We must be thankful for those Boomers who bucked this trend for the priests we have today.
I for one am grateful for our deacons---your mileage clearly varies.
As for the "turning back the clock" nonsense Boomers spout whenever they wish to avoid responsibility for the disastrous consequences of their ideas, I converted in 2007. But of course you're just trying to turn the clock back to the 70s, a natural reaction to the Church moving beyond the disasters of the past which the Boomer obsession with fads wrought.
It is also typical of your generation to drip acid and condescension but absolve yourselves of the same when you sign off "May the joy and peace of God be with you."
The Southern equivalent would be, "Bless your HEART."
Faith is a living thing indeed---which is why we must not put it in princes, even though their speeches make us feel good momentarily.
As for myself, I am hoping my son will be called to the priesthood and my daughter to the sisterhood. Perhaps were my generation more numerous the vocations crisis would have an inevitable resolution over time.
As you have noted, however, your generation put paid to that....
John - TMF| 4.25.10 @ 7:23PM
1. I condescend to no one. I offer genuine wishes of peace and God's love to everyone. Period. You taking it the way that you did speaks of something else entirely.
2. The "boomer" generation does have its problems. I am not a boomer, but a tweener (my parents were too young for WWII) however I got a full measure of the change in the church during that time. Simple social survival means smaller families are less likely to desire the loss of the only human eternity that they are offered... To give up one's only son is a feat for saints... it also halts the name, and in the genetic sense your neck of the gene pool.
As to the hollow charge of turning back the clock. There are some things best left in the past. Call names... enter into accusations with dripping disdain all you want. Anachronism rarely works in either direction, and memories are often more sanguine than when the actual events occurred.
I would leave you with a biblical admonition in regard to self-important piety, but I am afraid it would be lost, since you seem to have dismissed my most simple and sincere best wishes for God's Peace to be on you.
I will try again, anyway. Peace and God's Joy be with you.
-- John
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 8:23PM
Thankfully in a thread people can simply read your comments and get the flavor, John. To whit:
"I would leave you with a biblical admonition in regard to self-important piety, but I am afraid it would be lost, since you seem to have dismissed my most simple and sincere best wishes for God's Peace to be on you.
I will try again, anyway. Peace and God's Joy be with you. "
You accuse me of self-important piety, then claim it would be lost on me, I having had the gall to dismiss your prior expression of your sincere goodwill, following as it did your earlier snide remarks (how dare I back up my arguments with evidence? with facts? Why, everyone who does so LIES!)
It's transparent, especially since folks can read the thread and judge for themselves.
Anyway:
1. At 51 you were born in '59 or '60, right? That's generally considered to be late Boomer, Gen X starting from '65 or '68 in most accounts. Of course, Boomer is a state of mind. Smaller families are not an accident of nature---people chose to have fewer children, in no small part because they chose to ignore Catholic and mainline Protestant teaching on contraception. Protestant teaching on contraception did change; Catholic didn't, although a number of "Spirit of Vatican II" clergy elected to stop teaching it. "Humanae Vitae" is more prescient with each passing year as a result. Our kids are not ours, but God's and their own. This merely reinforces the point I was making about Boomer selfishness. If God graces our son and daughter with the call to His service, and they answer that call, my wife and I will wholeheartedly support them. As my wife says, "They will make more Christians as sons and daughters of the Church than they will providing us with grandchildren." My surname may well be rarer than yours but should it "die out" in the service of the Lord it could die no better death. It was given me, I gave it to my wife and children, and should my children decide to give it to the Church, it is their right to do so. By the way, at the rate we're contracepting and aborting there is no guarantee of any surname surviving. That's a legacy too.
There is a strong reaction coming against the Boomers and they are entering the unenviable position they placed their parents in when they rejected out of hand what they passed on to them. The difference this time is that the Boomers haven't passed much on to us---nothing of tangible value. This is the consequence of a mindless worship of self typical of too many of the Boomer generation. Children of divorced parents aren't blessed with many family traditions, after all, and that's a big Boomer legacy.
The one saving grace is that there were so many Boomers that those who did not play to type are a large cohort. Thank God for them and we must hope their children carry the torch others dropped into the gutter.
The reckoning is coming---we already see it in the Church; we shall seen it soon as the bill finally comes in in the form of the enormous national debt, the erosion of American values, and the destruction of the family.
Who can blame any Generation Xer or Millennial for yearning for more permanent things, given what ephemeral and valueless trinkets the Boomers have provided, in Church, in State, and in Home?
Thankfully, the timeless teaching of the Church abides still, which is why the young are gravitating toward her.
God be with you, brother.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:34PM
Notice above I didnt' say "vocations are up since 1970"---liberals taking advantage of Vatican II scandalized the faithful and drove vocations down long before the sexual abuse scandal hit the papers in the 80s.
Vocations are still low but on the upswing as the Baby Boomers fade and with it their influence.
It is remarkable that there is any glimmer at all given the relentless media assault on the Church and on priests. Thankfully, Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa have proven a powerful draw to my generation and the next.
Mark| 4.24.10 @ 12:24PM
To ALL those who think the church is just being plastered with allegations from years ago, think again, POLICIES HAVE CHANGED PRACTICES HAVE NOT:
This week you should educate yourself about some recent realities, Google the following:
"Brazilian Priest caught on tape having sex with altar boy". The priest has been abusing at least 4 altar boys for the last 4 years....he is 82, do you think he just started doing this? How is it no one knew of his sexual crimes...another victim filmed the abuse as the priest and another young victim were going at it in his rectory bedroom.
How about Googling "Group wants Pope to review diocese head's role in transferring priest". This one even has documents showing the Bishop signed an affidavit to the bishop of Orlando, (they even lie to each other) misleading him about an abusive priests past. The NJ Bishop stated that he had reviewed his file personally and that he spoke with others who worked with this priest...ensuring he was fit for ministry, later admitting in a deposition he did neither. Turns out the priest had a very dangerous and troubled past of stalking woman and making severely inappropriate advances to many woman, his file even contained police reports, complaints from deacons and pastors were he had been assigned...yet his transfer was allowed, stating it was for reasons of health. That same priest later broke into a woman's house, ripped off her clothes and was later convicted on at least 5 different serious counts. After his conviction just a few years ago, he was allowed to change his name to Father Walter Fisher and is still a priest of the Newark NJ Archdiocese TODAY...check him out on the sex offender registry in Florida. This never would have happened if the Bishop did what he swore he did.
I could go on all day with very recent cases...it is shocking and scandalous, the whole point here is not to tear down our church...but too make it better. Only when the whole truth has been revealed will it be set free, the church is NOT a Vast institution run by powerful men...IT IS the faithful in the pews. Our Church has been corrupted to the core by those who thirst for power over others, power over the "faithful", those who follow and dare not question. How healthy is that? Is this what we teach our children in the real world? I certainly hope not, certainly the colonists didn't think this way, or we would all be British.
Some will never get it...unwilling to acknowledge the profound betrayal of an institution we were taught is our moral authority. Yes it is like pulling the rug out from under someone...but the church can and will survive ONLY WHEN MEN RELINQUISH THE NEED FOR ABSOLUTE POWER AND CONTROL.
God help our Church and our Faith...Catholics demand more from our church leaders!
Or you can read about the recent case of Father Michael Fugee: Google; "Archdiocese Removes Priest from Hospital in Newark after Learning of Molestation History" By Jeff Diamant, Star-Ledger
October 16, 2009
Teflon93| 4.24.10 @ 1:09PM
90% reduction in sexual abuse allegations between 1982 and 1995, stabilized at 50 or fewer allegations per year.
That is PRACTICE, not simply POLICY.
Brian| 4.25.10 @ 2:44AM
I can't imagine that an intelligent person lets Google substitute for his intellect.
In a church of 1.2 billion members and a hyped up media obsessed with this issue you will find statistical aberrations but that is all that it is. Simply put: the Catholic church is the safest place for a child to be today. That is true despite all of the hysterical headlines.
There were 295,000 claims of sex abuse in the public schools between 1990 and 2000 and now that is a story worth looking into.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:17PM
To bear out Brian's point, can you guess the number of sexual abuse allegations involving minors in the Catholic Church across America for all of last year?
Six.
Mark| 4.25.10 @ 6:28PM
There were more than 6 in just 1 diocese alone...where are you getting your information from? Tea Leaves, perhaps it is a dream.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 6:32PM
From this week's Catholic News & Herald. I'll post a link when I find it online.
Meanwhile, where's yours?
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 7:02PM
Here's the original article, p 14 (right):
http://www.charlottediocese.or.....anager/CNH Docs/CN_Com_Issue_4_23.pdf
Here's the report:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/ocyp/a...../9_CH4.pdf
And here's the money paragraph:
"Of the 398 new allegations reported in 2009, six allegations (2 percent), involved children under the age of 18 in 2009. The remaining 392 allegations were made by adults who are alleging abuse when they were minors. By comparison, ten allegations in 2008 (2 percent of all new allegations received in 2008), four allegations in 2007 (less than 1 percent of all new allegations received in 2007), 14 allegations in 2006
(2 percent of all new allegations received in 2006), nine allegations in 2005 (1 percent of all new allegations received in 2005), and 22 allegations in 2004 (2 percent of new allegations received in 2004) involved children under the age of 18 in each of those years."
The John Jay study places incidents in the year in which they first occurred, not in the year they were first reported, for an accurate picture of the incidence rate of sexual abuse.
The left wing media, caring not one whit for accuracy, breathlessly reports allegations of abuse from the 1970s and 1980s as though it had occurred today.
It is true that these numbers may increase as time goes by---it is the nature of the crime that reporting is often delayed and even the best efforts to encourage swift reporting founder on the victims' reluctance to come forward.
Still, 6 cases is not 700+, as was the case in 1982. The number for 2009 could increase by an order of magnitude due to lag in reporting and still be a 90% reduction from 1982.
Pingback| 4.24.10 @ 12:53PM
Lookup Criminal History At Public Records Search | Personal Injury … | Public County links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 4.24.10 @ 2:01PM
Believer 4,
To comment on your suggested question, of how many angels can dance on a pin?
First of all It takes a "Pin Head" to suggest that question. So we should wait for another "Pin Head" to Answer it.
Believer4| 4.24.10 @ 2:16PM
Tim
I thought that you wanted to have a serious discussion...I was wrong.
"The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people." - G.K. Chesterton
Ciao
Boria| 4.24.10 @ 3:35PM
Peggy Noonan is off her meds. She has been on the wrong side of the argument since she discovered that Conservatives and Tea Partiers were not the sophisticates/effetes she is used to meeting in Bethesda's tea salons... She is so out of it that fly-over country is just an annoyance to "live/fly through." She wrote speeches for RR as if she was domesticating him.... She does not even understand the appeal of Sarah Palin. Norman Podhoretz understands Conservatism better than she ever will. Next thing we will learn is that she is a Catholic who supports abortion! Cheers
Boria| 4.24.10 @ 3:41PM
The Catholic Church screwed up in the 70's when it lowered its standards for priests. It is paying the price now. The Pope and his cohort will right the ship but the cost in credibility (and law suits) will be high. The next crisis lurking is the pseudo celibacy of its Third World clergy, to include bishops. When a church favors volume over quality, it ends up suffering in both areas! [Disclosure Statement: I'm not Catholic,only catholic...] Cheers!
Teflon93| 4.24.10 @ 4:05PM
I don't take issue with your main point but do with your "Third World clergy" comment.
Christ did call us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the imprisoned---our salvation depends upon it (Matthew 25).
Our clergy from the poorer nations are some of our very best---and quite often risk their lives in the service of God. Rotating them into our American parishes has been an unmitigated blessing, not least of which because they do not as a rule embrace the falsehoods of the Left and remind us of what orthodox Church teaching is.
There is no shortage of Protestant communities discovering this---the Pentecostals in particular are becoming very familiar with Africa.
Whenever somebody complains about our "foreign" priests that is usually simple envy for the lack of global appeal their community has. As more evangelicals evangelize, I suspect this too will change.
The Methodist church near my home now offers services in Spanish. When the Methodists are becoming more global, you know something's afoot.
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 7:54PM
In the Eastern Catholic Churches, we have been welcoming priests from our ancestral lands (well, our Churches' ancestral lands--I'm Jewish-German-Italian-Romanian, myself), and I believe they bring a tremendous gift to us, especially those from Eastern Europe, who underwent tremendous persecution under the Communists, and whose lives bear witness to faith in Christ. They also come from lands where material poverty has made them poor in spirit, a trait with which we here, because of our material wealth, do not have in abundance.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:36PM
Couldn't agree more, Stuart---John Paul II's pontificate continues to bear fruit in that regard. Hopefully if the next Pontiff happens to be of African descent---as he very well may be----we may see continued flowering from our brothers and sisters of that continent as well.
But the Holy Spirit moves as it will.
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 4:28PM
Liberals tend to hate African priests and bishops. The attitude of the oh-so-progressive Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong was quite instructive--he's all for civil rights and social justice here in the States, but when it comes to theologically conservative African bishops he sings another song--"They are recent converts, you know, and hold to a very simplistic form of Christianity"--you know, the type found in the Gospels and the Creed and the ancient liturgies. He all but called them ignorant jungle bunnies one generation down from the trees. But that would be "un-nuanced".
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 4:50PM
Liberals retain a lot of the plantation mentality and social Darwinism leftover from progressivism, but I suspect their real objection to African clergy has to do with the fact that they have not bought the "sexual revolution" the liberals keep selling.
Stuart Koehl| 4.25.10 @ 6:39PM
Well, um. . . yes. It's always about the sex.
Boria| 4.24.10 @ 5:05PM
Teflon93: I should have been clearer. It's not Protestant (of any stripe) missions in the Third World; it's not the clergy born in the Third World; it's the Catholic clergy born and residing in the Third World that is infested with "pseudo celibate" priests and bishops, that I was referring to.
As it is made up of sinners, any church has its share of bad apples; the Catholic Church chose to close its eyes to the obvious for too many years.
Cheers!
Stuart Koehl| 4.24.10 @ 7:56PM
There is nothing really unusual about this--it is, in fact, the historical norm, and until the 19th century or so, you could have said the same thing about almost any Catholic country in Europe (with the possible exception of Ireland). It was still true in Italy and Spain well into the 20th century.
"A priest is a man whom everyone calls 'Father', except for his children, who must call him 'Uncle'".--Old Italian proverb.
Tim*| 4.25.10 @ 9:55AM
" As the National Catholic Register’s reporter Wayne Laugesen points out, the federal report said 422,000 California public-school students would be victims (of Sex Abuse ) before graduation — a number that dwarfs the state’s entire Catholic-school enrollment of 143,000. "
" In the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent. "
" According to a 2000 report to the Baptist General Convention in Texas, “The incidence of sexual abuse by clergy has reached ‘horrific proportions.’” It noted that in studies done in the 1980s, 12 percent of ministers had “engaged in sexual intercourse with members” and nearly 40 percent had “acknowledged sexually inappropriate behavior.”
" According to a report in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, in the last year, Brooklyn’s State Supreme Court has issued an increasing number of subpoenas to members of the Jewish Orthodox community in relation to child sexual abuse cases. Until recently, most of these cases were handled within the community.
According to the Kings County DA’s office, 30 members of this community in Brooklyn have been prosecuted for child sexual abuse."
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:39PM
It is true that sinners are everywhere---there is no one who is not a sinner walking the Earth today---but you'll need to be clearer still:
I don't see the distinction between "clergy born in the Third World" and "Catholic clergy born and residing in the Third World".
Are you actually claiming that only the Catholic clergy are "pseudo-celibate" sinners?
Pingback| 4.24.10 @ 9:06PM
real estate education wyoming – Valeria Krause | Educational Wyoming links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
phone 2010 | 4.24.10 @ 9:27PM
Thank you for the beautiful article
^_^
Phone2010|
iPhone 4G|
Pingback| 4.24.10 @ 11:36PM
Current Events | Tips on Choosing Baseball Uniforms links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Brian| 4.25.10 @ 2:51AM
Here's a good blog devoted to covering the media lynch mob against the church:
http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/
Mark| 4.25.10 @ 6:40PM
Here is even a better web site devoted to the truth of the scandal...Look up any clergy member who has been PUBLICLY identified or credibly accused and you should find them listed here, by last name or diocese..along with related media coverage...THE TRUTH EXPOSED
http://www.bishop-accountability.org
ROBERT | 4.25.10 @ 8:19AM
A Politically Correct blog. How disgusting. And this on a presumably conservative website. The overwelming disease of "Child" sexual abuse arises from the Homosexual sexual assault of males, that is adolescent or teenage boys, not "Children." Why is it that writers are so terrified of telling the plain truth. This writer like most of them who have addressed "Child" abuse should develop some guts.
Truth to Power| 4.25.10 @ 1:48PM
Nice distinction. We should hang those perverts too. Adults in positions of trust should pay a heavy price for sexually abusing our teenage children. There are adults who prey on these vulnerable children and try to play games with the law. We should stop playing games. We could write laws that make distinctions between a 19 year old boyfriend and a teacher. We need to stop providing cover for those like Robert who attempt to make this disgusting situation seem a little more palatable.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 2:46PM
If you want to speak truth to power, it would help to know what the truth is.
Per the John Jay study, 81% of the sexual abuse allegations in the Catholic Church in America between 1950 and 2002 were homosexual in nature, specifically involving male clergy and male victims. Less than 20% involved prepubescents.
Robert accurately described the situation---it is largely a homosexual male/teenaged male victim scenario.
You can't address the problem without hitting the biggest bar on the Pareto chart.
Fortunately, the Church has done this, as evidenced by the 90% decline in allegations from 1982 to 1995 and continued 1950s-level rate of allegations today, most recent being just 6 allegations in 2009.
Listening to those who want to see more active homosexuals among the clerical ranks---as The New York Times and liberal Catholics do---would be an absolute disaster and reverse this strongly positive trend.
So why would anyone believe they have the interests of children at heart, rather than a political agenda?
Truth to Power| 4.25.10 @ 6:38PM
Nice distinction still. I don't think that the Church's culpability is improved because these perverted priests preyed mainly upon teenage boys instead of prepubescent children. Shame on those who saw this going on and looked the other way. Shame on those who try to trivialize the damage done.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 6:45PM
And shame on those who put a fig leaf of concern for children over their bigotry---no shortage of them out there. Or in here.
Meanwhile, being accurate about the facts isn't trivializing anything. Allegations should be investigated, perpetrators should be punished.
Stringing up the vast majority of priests who have not been accused of, much less committed, this heinous crime is a grave injustice.
Even if it makes some people happy because they erroneously believe their own communities to be immune to the crime---and to the witch hunt they seek to start over it.
Margie| 4.25.10 @ 10:01PM
God Himself will be the Judge of those who you call bigots, not you, Mr. Slippery.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 8:05AM
Yes, He will, Margie---repent!
But the dictionary also factors in:
"bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. "
Given how often you and Doctor Bigot have been refuted by the Catechism as to what the Church teaches, refuted by factual data regarding your calumnies against her, refuted by Scripture as to the truth of her doctrines and the nature of her being, and refuted logically through the exposure of the fallacies to which you resort, you have amply demonstrated yourselves to be "utterly intolerant" of the Catholic Church.
Case closed.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 11:22AM
Actually, Mr. Slippery,
You would be the definition of bigot~~ an anti-Christian bigot who cannot tolerate genuine Christians, only Catholics. Though it is a favorite word of yours to use on anyone who dares to question your Religion, the perversion of the Priests, it actually describes you!
Jesus is Lord~ not you. And you don't get to define nor judge Christians.
As high and mighty as you may sound, you're nothing but an anti-Christian bigot yourself.
Case closed."
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 11:23AM
[in voice of John Cleese, as in Monty Python's Holy Grail]
"OH NOOOOOO!!! I've been refuted by the Catechism! I've been refuted by the Catechism! Oooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!"
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 3:43PM
I Thank God I am "refuted by the Catechism!" LOL.
I laugh in its face.
Do you laugh in Christ's face by your false teachings? That there is no "regeneration from above, as taught by Christ?
Jesus is Lord! He is my King and my Saviour!
Repent Mr. Slippery One, for it is written: "If one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God." Jn. 3:3.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:05AM
Indeed, if one does not eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Lord, he has no life within him (John 6:53).
And recall what St Paul said about not approaching the Eucharist unworthily---don't eat and drink your own damnation, Margie!
Jacob| 4.26.10 @ 8:22AM
And God will judge you as well Miss Margie!
Jacob| 4.26.10 @ 8:24AM
And me too! (I think all the witch hunts in this country are keeping us from getting to the heart of out biggest problems.)
Believer4| 4.25.10 @ 6:13PM
Sally and Jon from The Washington Post, write: Is the news media being fair to the pope? Is the media biased against the Catholic Church or its hierarchy? How would you advise the pope?
Dear Sally and Jon:
The bias in the media is not against the Catholic Church. That is little more than face-saving defensiveness. The bias is against the abuse of children and young people by priests. The bias is against a systematic cover-up on every level of the Catholic hierarchy. The bias is against saying how deeply this abuse is regretted on one hand and on the other promoting Cardinal Bernard Law, one of the most guilty prelates in America, to a position in the Vatican where he will no longer have to answer questions under oath. The bias is against the way Bishop Geoffrey Robinson of Australia was treated by the hierarchy of his own church after his report on clergy abuse in that country was so overt and honest, that it did not serve their cover-up needs.
It is not an anti-Catholic bias but a universal revulsion against this behavior across the world that finds expression in media coverage. There is also no rejoicing among other Christian groups, since this behavior in the Roman Catholic Church diminishes all Christians and hurts the cause for which all Christians work.
For this Church to pretend that they are somehow the victims of an anti-Catholic bias in the media is simply one more aspect of their unwillingness to see the depth of the problem.
John Shelby Spong
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 6:41PM
Except this bias predates the sexual abuse scandal. As we have seen time and again, the left wing media is very reluctant to cover the ongoing scandal of sexual abuse in the public schools, which affects far more children.
Last week's revelations about USA Swimming hardly resulted in a media frenzy either.
The current left wing media bias against the Catholic Church is due to her opposition to the left wing agenda:
- Abortion
- Contraception
- Euthanasia
- Homosexual "rights"
- Pornography
There is a reason why the media is attempting to tie the Pope into an alleged conspiracy to coverup.
Indeed, if a trial lawyer who'd made more than $100 million suing the porn industry had released documentation to the press tying porn figures to organized crime, we wouldn't see 1/1000th the coverage we have of this.
And yet that is what happened here---the lawyer who's made a fortune off of settlements and is currently suing The Vatican is on a media blitz, one the left wing media in this country is all too eager to support.
Feel free to link to positive portrayals of the Catholic Church in the left wing media. I'm sure not seeing any.
And that's bias, plain and simple.
Tim*| 4.26.10 @ 10:01AM
Actually Believer 4 , Shelby Spong is a bit of a Nutbag , sorta like yourself.
" However, while his scholarship is questionable, the majority of his 'scholarly' arguments and claims are laughable. For example, his proposal that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, his expectations that Paul was homosexual, and that the resurrection of Jesus was never meant to be understood as a bodily resurrection. However he reads into the New Testament selectively and with clear and deep presuppositions (which he delights in admitting, but doesn't seem to do anything with). An example of this is when Spong argues for Paul's homosexuality by claiming that Paul was struggling with his sexual identity, that the passages in which Paul struggles with his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor 17:7-10) is an indication of Paul's homosexual urges. However, looking at Spong's life experiences, there are numerous accounts of Spong encountering homosexual clergyman who suppressed their homosexuality and called it their "thorn in the flesh". Spong reads more into the text, than from the text. Sadly, in terms of Spong's academic work, I agree with Gerard O' Collins, that his "work simply does not belong to the world of international scholarship."
This is where you expose yourself , and where AS readers fall of your sled.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 11:39AM
Yes, Spong is a pervert.
Yet Tim* the "good Catholic" is a filthy mouthed liar. Here are some of his posts to his Christian sister~ me! )Although I'm not quite sure Catholics consider those Christians outside of the Catholic Church to be Christians, judging by "Teflon's" posts).
Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 6:49PM
"Now Margie ,You Slandering Slut !
My ilk is Tea Party Rebel ,while Your Ilk Margie ,is Israeli Firster NeoConservative Fanatic ,who attempts to slander anyone ,who dares to question The Foreign Nation of Israel's Agenda ans Uunited States National Interests in The ME.
Watch your Scummy Slandering Mouth ,Maniewoman."
And more posts by the good "Catholic" Tim*~
Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 6:53PM
"Gee Margie, Our Tea Party America First Agenda Trumps Your Israel Firster Agenda, Fascist Sweetie . "
Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 8:38PM
"Now Fanatical Neoconservative Israel Firster Margie ,are you disputing that America First trumps Israel First ?
You're Up Nutbag !"
Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 9:00PM
"That's My Point Crazy Lady.
See A Therapist."
Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 9:52PM
"Uh Oh ! Look what the cat dragged back in.
Sorry Margie,We,Tea Party Rebels don't cotton to gettin' your Israel Firster Agenda Browbeaten into us.
Shove Off Zany Lady."
Is this what you tolerate as good Catholics? This type of behavior? As long as someone's not a Catholic, just a lowly Christian, you allow each other to slander and stomp upon your fellow Christian?
And you guys speak of intolerant? Bigotry and hatred?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 11:47AM
Another opportunity to correct Margie as to the teaching of the Church:
816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:
- a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280
- conversion of heart as the faithful "try to live holier lives according to the Gospel";281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ's gift which causes divisions;
- prayer in common, because "change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;"'282
- fraternal knowledge of each other;283
- ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;284
- dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285
- collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 "Human service" is the idiomatic phrase.
822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 11:55AM
The Slippery One lives up to his slippery name! As predictable~ doesn't deal an ioata with all that I just presented! Why? Because the Catholics stick together like members of a huge cult~ one of the biggest~ and will defend each other to the hilt~ no matter perverted Priests, or filthy mouthed liars. It doesn't matter!
"Depart, depart, go out thence, touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of her, purify yourselves, you who bear the vessels of the LORD." Is. 52:11.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 12:03PM
Correcting your lies about the Church takes priority over exposing your hypocrisy, Margie.
Ultimately, your hypocrisy only does disservice to your cause, while your lies might mislead others.
You will notice that Catholics recognize as brothers and sisters all who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Were YOU so baptized?
And do you consider Catholics to be Christians?
If not, kindly share your criteria and provide specific links as to where said criteria come from.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 12:29PM
Sorry Slippery One~
The only liar around here is you. Projecting again are we?
By the way, anyone know the melting temp. of Teflon? Apt name.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 12:45PM
Well, Margie, why don't you provide facts and evidence in contradiction to my posts?
I've asked you for such several times, and while you're ignoring such requests is not as egregious as Doctor Bigot's, it is still noteworthy.
But refuting the Church ought to be like shooting fish in a barrel for you , right, Margie?
No need to rely on ad hominems---make your arguments and provide EVIDENCE in support of them.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 12:51PM
This from the King of ad hominems!
My evidence? Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world~ and that has to include me!
My facts? He saved my soul from death, He brought me up from the miry bog and set my feet upon a rock. (Ps. 40:2.)
Can you say the same? Or is all you are about doctrine and calling others that are not Catholic, bigots? Hmm?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 1:23PM
Ahh, so you consider Muslims, Jews, and Hindus among others to be Christians, Margie? They are part of the whole world, after all.
The Church teaches rather differently:
811 "This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic."256 These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other,257 indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.
812 Only faith can recognize that the Church possesses these properties from her divine source. But their historical manifestations are signs that also speak clearly to human reason. As the First Vatican Council noted, the "Church herself, with her marvelous propagation, eminent holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in everything good, her catholic unity and invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness of her divine mission."258
I. THE CHURCH IS ONE
"The sacred mystery of the Church's unity" (UR 2)
813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."259 The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."260 The Church is one because of her "soul": "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church's unity."261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:
What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."262
814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264
815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.266
But we see this in the Gospels:
John 6:
51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
[52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
[53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
[54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Matthew 25:
31] When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
[32] And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
[33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Matthew 18:
[15] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
[16] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
[18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
[19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 16:
[15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
[16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
[20] For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Acts 2:
[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
[40] And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
[41] Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
[42] And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
[43] And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
[44] And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
[45] And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
[46] And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
[47] Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Mark 16:
[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Which is why the Church calls all those baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Christians, yet realizes one must remain Christian to the end---thus the exhortations to unity and to the cardinal virtues in the various epistles.
The way is narrow, you see, and Christians are required to take up the Cross and follow Christ.
Which is a bit different than your man-made theology posited above, Margie, itself an echo of Luther's yearning to be free of the Cross of his concupiscence. "Sin boldly but believe more boldly still", etc.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 1:50PM
Do you obfuscate for a living? Don't answer that. Don't misrepresent what I said oh haughty, slippery one. I did not say Muslims et al are Christians.
But God tells us those who will be saved, and it is NOT through doctrine, but through Christ Himself and the receiving and believing of Him~
"For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Jn. 3:16.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 2:11PM
Unless of course you would try and deny "whoever" comes to Him. Whether Muslim, Jewish, or whatever Religion they claim. THAT would be bigotry!
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me; and him who comes to Me I will not cast out." Jn. 6:37.
That's what my God says, and I choose to believe what He says, directly.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:18PM
Last I saw, Muslims were part of the world, Margie.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 4:59PM
So~ Do you place yourself above God? Are you actually saying that a Muslim cannot come to Christ? If so, you are hard hearted and do not represent the Truth.
I will go with what God says, that "whoever" comes to Him He will not cast out. Are you calling God a liar?
I would not want to be in your shoes!
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 2:17PM
"Which is a bit different than your man-made theology posited above, Margie.."
You call Christ's death and resurrection man-made theology? How very sad!
(My evidence? Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world~ and that has to include me!
My facts? He saved my soul from death, He brought me up from the miry bog and set my feet upon a rock. (Ps. 40:2.))
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:21PM
It might help if you read my posts as you ought to read Scripture, Margie---from beginning to end.
Look right above the line you quoted for what it might refer to:
"The way is narrow, you see, and Christians are required to take up the Cross and follow Christ. "
And I see you've discarded all the Scripture posted above that, so I'm not surprised you don't realize I was refencing Scripture in the passage above and invalidating the false doctrine of "once saved, always saved" at the same time.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 4:55PM
You are disgustingly slimy. Liar! I "discarded" nothing. You, however discard Scripture to suit your false doctrine.
You cannot take up your cross without first humbling yourself before it, and doing what Jesus said in John 3:3.
Get born anew yet? Or are you still holding out on Him?
Give up your hatred of Christians (and therefore Christ), and repent!
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 7:50PM
My, you are a hoot, Margie!
I was born anew with my baptism, adopted into the family of God, as Scripture indicates.
The new birth is just the beginning, of course---one must persevere, as Christ and the Apostles note, as we are judged at the end.
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 3:50PM
Repent AND be baptized is the call, Mr. T. How have you repented since you claim I am a dishonest "born again type?" You judge me as not a Christian yet you have repented and been born of God's Spirit?
I think not. You earlier denied that the new birth was separate from being baptized, as if there was no such thing, and now you say you've been born anew!
I am against false teaching, and if you reject me as a Christian, that tells me you are not!
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:07AM
No, you are simply a liar, Margie.
As I've said many times now, you are a Christian if you have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit---precisely as Christ commanded the apostles to go forth and do in all nations.
Have you been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Margie?
Yes or no.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 12:00PM
Let's review Margie's Greatest Anti-Catholic Hits while we're at it:
Why, here's her most recent post:
"You would be the definition of bigot~~ an anti-Christian bigot who cannot tolerate genuine Christians, only Catholics. Though it is a favorite word of yours to use on anyone who dares to question your Religion, the perversion of the Priests, it actually describes you!
Jesus is Lord~ not you. And you don't get to define nor judge Christians.
As high and mighty as you may sound, you're nothing but an anti-Christian bigot yourself.
Case closed."
My goodness, try to take a breath between making an accusation and then refuting it through your own poor example, Margie!
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 12:26PM
LOL~ MY poor example! Mr. Slippery~ that's all you do is call anyone and everyone who questions a bigot.
I thought I'd apply it where it really belongs.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 12:33PM
Ahh, but I don't.
I correctly label those such as yourself who:
1. Persist in lying about the teachings of the Church despite being informed as to it from the authorititative documents of it
2. Refuse to back up their slanders with facts and evidence, thereby admitting they have none
This meets the dictionary's standard of one who is "utterly intolerant of a creed"---ie., a bigot.
This does NOT mean "anyone who questions."
Believer4, for example, questions the Church. I do not believe Believer4 to be a bigot as they do not discount facts and evidence out of hand, as you do.
But you are not seeking answers, are you, Margie?
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 12:38PM
I found my Answer. His Name is Jesus. I need nothing more.
He is my Judge, my Savior, my Friend. Everyone who does the same is my Brother, my Sister, and my friend. Whatever their Religion.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 12:49PM
And where is the specific evidence for your beliefs, Margie?
I'm particularly interested in evidence contradicting the Apostles' view of the unity of the Church.
No need to provide glittering generalities--Christ tends toward specifics.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 12:55PM
My evidence is in the Resurrection of Christ.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.." 1 Pe. 1:3
Have you been born anew?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 1:53PM
Yes, but perhaps you should read further into Peter:
1 Peter 1:
[5] Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
[6] Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
[7] That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
[8] Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
[9] Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
[10] Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
[11] Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
[12] Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
[13] Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
[14] As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
[15] But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
[16] Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
[17] And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
[18] Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
[19] But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
[20] Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
[21] Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
[22] Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
[24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
[25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
So much for "once saved, always saved."
But there's more:
1 Peter 3:
18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
[19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
[20] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
[21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
[22] Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
2 Peter 1:
[8] For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[9] But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
[10] Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
[11] For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 2:
1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
[2] And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
[3] And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
[4] For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
[5] And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
[6] And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
[7] And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
[8] (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
[9] The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
[10] But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
[11] Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
[12] But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
[13] And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
[14] Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
[15] Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
[16] But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
[17] These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
[18] For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
[19] While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
[20] For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
[21] For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
[22] But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
2 Peter 3:
[14] Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
[17] Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
[18] But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Not for nothing are St Peter's counted among "the Catholic epistles."
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 2:00PM
I said not a blessed thing about "once saved, always saved." So there you go again, misrepresenting what I said. And thanks for the Bible verses, very encouraging to read, aren't they?
Have you been born anew?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:23PM
Perhaps you missed this above:
"Yes, but perhaps you should read further into Peter:"
Baptism makes us a new creation. I seem to recall reading that somewhere....
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:24PM
Do you believe you can lose your salvation having been "born anew", Margie?
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 4:50PM
Liar. Baptism does not make anyone a new creation.
Read your Bible instead of your phony catechism.
"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." Jn. 3:5 & 6.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 7:57PM
I wouldn't call St Paul a liar, Margie:
2 Cor 5:
[17] Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
1 Cor 12:
[12] For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
[13] For by one Spirit 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.
As noted above, there is one baptism, of water & spirit, as Christ taught, as Scripture teaches, as the Early Church practiced, and as the Catholic and Orthodox to this day practice, along with those Protestants of the Anglican tradition.
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 3:57PM
You continue to lie! Will you ever stop? I think not. I didn't call Paul a liar~ I called YOU a liar.
Yes I am the one agreeing with Scripture. And since you now suddenly seem to agree with it~ you cannot reject me any longer as a Christian because the Bible says, and you quoted it~ there is one Spirit, one baptism, to which I have been, by God's great mercy and Grace, been given. He called me, and gave me His Spirit and I was baptized, full immersion, 35 years ago. So, Mr. T.~ I am a member of the Church, Christ's body that is~ according to the Scripture, whether you like it or not.
When you become a real Brother in the Lord, by His Spirit~ you will accept me as your Sister in Christ.
Till then~
I bid thee farewell.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:10AM
Margie, you will note that St Paul directly contradicts your claim here:
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 4:50PM
Liar. Baptism does not make anyone a new creation.
2 Cor 5:
[17] Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
1 Cor 12:
[12] For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
[13] For by one Spirit 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.
Note that it is baptism which brings us into the body of Christ, as St Paul says, as the early Church practiced, as Catholics and Orthodox and most Protestants practice today.
Do not make St Paul a liar, Margie.
Mark| 4.25.10 @ 6:52PM
Teflon93...you keep repeating this report of only 6 new cases in this country all of last year. It appears you left off several zeros. Where on earth could you get such misinformation. I know of 1 diocese alone which had more than six new allegations.
All you have to do is pick up the paper...or perhaps go to:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTracker/
this site alone tracks just about every article related to clergy abuse and you will find countless new charges were made last year , yes in this country.
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 7:07PM
I posted it above, Mark, and I left off no zeroes.
Incidence rate refers to the year in which the abuse first occurred, not when the abuse was first reported---there being a lag of years or even decades between the two sometimes.
I repeat:
""Of the 398 new allegations reported in 2009, six allegations (2 percent), involved children under the age of 18 in 2009. The remaining 392 allegations were made by adults who are alleging abuse when they were minors."
Teflon93| 4.25.10 @ 7:36PM
Figure 5 of the linked report shows what I mean.
Of the 392 allegations made in 2009, the most (79) were for abuse which occurred/began 1975-79. 93% of them were for abuse which occurred/began before 1995, 81% before 1985. The pattern is strikingly similar to that of the John Jay study.
Jacob| 4.26.10 @ 8:33AM
That shut Mark right up didn't it.
Teflon you're a very courageous defender of truth! I'm sure you've been warned about the possibilities of your intelligence inflating your ego. So I'll just let you know that you're doing an excellent job of refuting these people who don't even seem to admit to themselves that anti-Catholic hatred is at least partially fueling their rampant over attention to the problem of child sexual abuse in the Holy Church.
If Swimming USA was the eternal enemy of the culture of death the way the Church is, you'd be hearing a lot more about their problems.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 9:18AM
Thanks, Jacob---you're too kind.
It's not an ego thing---I've got the far easier part of the argument given the inherent contradictions of the opposing arguments from various quarters.
Dissident Catholics have to rail against sexual abuse and coverups on the one hand while stepping around the elephant in the room---that both are attributable to following the advice and listening to the influence of dissident Catholics after Vatican II.
Liberals have to attack the Church for being "too indifferent to sexual abuse victims" while advocating the very conditions which made such abuse possible---more active homosexuals in the clerical ranks, no celibacy requirement, and less direct influence from The Vatican.
Conservative anti-Catholics have to attack the Church as the Whore of Babylon knowing all the while they're making common cause with the left wing media, liberals, and secularists. Moreover the Church is far and away the leading proponent of the sexual ethics held dear by many evangelicals and fundamentalists so attacking her cannot but undermine the pro-life and related movements.
Left Wing Media have to call attention to the sexual abuse scandal but cannot cast too much light upon the actual incidents, lest people realize that the vast majority involve homosexual clergy and teenaged boys, thus undermining the media's cherished embrace of "homosexual rights".
It takes genius to make such arguments as the various enemies of the Church must make due to these inherent contradictions. It requires none to defend the Church---merely access to the facts and an eye for the contradictions in the arguments forwarded by the opposition.
The big challenge for Catholics as I see it is that we must constantly follow the truth and seek to do justice. Thus we admit the evil that has been wrought in this scandal, abhor the crimes committed, despise the fact that the Church was initially slow to respond and that some clerics actively worked to sweep it uder the rug, and always acknowledge the great harm done to the victims. The fact that anti-Catholics of various stripes use the scandal as a weapon against the Church does not mean that victims of sexual abuse are enemies of the Church, in other words. Nor does the fact that some false claims are made mean that most allegations are false. To believe otherwise is to risk a reversal of the injustice perpetrated against priests by anti-Catholics today---taking the criminal actions of a tiny minority and smearing the innocent and noble majority (96% or more) with them. We must not be unjust.
As for Swimming USA, I have to wonder what prompted the coverage to surface at this time. It has received only a small fraction of the ongoing coverage of the Church sexual abuse scandal, but given the dearth of coverage of sexual abuse in public schools I have to wonder who in the Left Wing Media the head of Swimming USA pissed off.
Pingback| 4.25.10 @ 9:12PM
AZ Immigration Bill and Racial Profiling | Conservative Heritage Times links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
John3| 4.25.10 @ 10:50PM
The sexual abuse by Catholic clergy is the result of the sinful acts of clergy members of the church. In real terms, the Catholic Church has never condoned such actions. SIN is the rootcause of these acts--not the church. Sin, which is evil, is propagated by Satan. And Satan, who causes such sins lies by pointing a finger to the Church. Satan is a liar and the father of lies. Do not believe the father of lies.
John3| 4.25.10 @ 10:59PM
The Church will always be persecuted. And the devil will use everything to do this. It will be in the form of lies: calling things that are really evil (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, etc) into something good (women's right to choose, assisted suicide laws, etc.). Let us see for ourselves the evil this country supports: 50,000,000 abortions a year. The scales of God's justice will tip soon: God cannot bless this country if there is no sign of repentance for such bloodshed. You can demonize the church using these scandals (and the church does agree that these scandals should stop!) but do not let these things blind you from the all the evil things that continue to occur in our country in the name of equality, tolerance, compassion and human rights. These words used to mean many lofty ideals. Now they are weapons of mass destruction of American freedom and way of life.
todd sheen| 4.26.10 @ 3:16AM
this post is very informational and i couldn't agree more and also, peggy is a good person, good indeed.
Todd
kingsmill| 4.26.10 @ 9:25AM
I learned all I need to know about Peggy when she was caught bashing Palin with Chuck Todd on MSNBC (she and Chuckie thought the mike was off).
Chuckie and Peggy were bemoaning the fact that a RINO like Kay Bailey Hutchinson was left behind while Palin thrived.
Peggy is more concerned with her Manhattan social status than conservatism. Her recent column on the RC church was a thinly veiled attempt to keep her in good graces with her pals in the elite media. She's a fraud.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 9:51AM
I predict Noonan will fall in love with Mormonism if Mitt Romney expresses any interest in having her aboard as a speechwriter.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 12:05PM
Mormonism is about as reality-based as Catholicism.
They have Joseph Smith and "the Prophets"...You guys have 200+ "Popes" (including some murderers, thieves, rapists, pillagers, and plunderers...All infallible, of course).
Like you guys, Mormons have successfully spread false doctrines.
You should be buddies.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 12:20PM
We have apostolic succession, as do the Orthodox.
Apostolic succession is a sign of Christ's Church---yours stops at 1520 at the very earliest.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 12:59PM
Condom93:
I know all about your false doctrine of "Apostolic succession".
It's a sham.
And so are you.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 1:02PM
PLEASE comment on the 12-year old Pope, the insane Popes, the Popes who were Borgias and Medicis...
Were they "infallible", too?
If not, didn't that break your precious "Apostolic succession"??
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm????
Your walls were breached long ago.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 1:41PM
You still haven't a clue as to what apostolic succession means, Doctor Bigot.
Post the Scriptural reference setting the age limits for clergy.
Where are they?
Your very poor opinion of the Holy Spirit is duly noted.
After all, turning a bunch of fishermen, tax collectors, and other Levantine ne'er-do-wells into the most effective teachers and spokesmen the world has ever seen is clearly beyond the power of the third person of the Trinity.
Did you ever state definitively your belief in the Trinity, Doctor Bigot. I can't recall....
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 1:51PM
Doctor Wrong,
The Church doesn't teach the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does, moron. Only when he declares a doctrine on faith and morals that the Church Universal must believe.
Here is what Vatican I taught:
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
It has only been done once since Vatican I defined it, by Pope Pius XII on the dogma of Mary's bodily assumption into Heaven.
Your knowledge of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches consists of copying and pasting from anti-Catholic bigots.
I ask again, when EXACTLY did this "breach" occur?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:39PM
Still no answer, huh,Nick?
Pingback| 4.26.10 @ 10:21AM
4 month old baby_babies 5 months_4 months babies » Fan falls about 14 feet during Cub links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Catholic Robot| 4.26.10 @ 11:33AM
Peter was a Pope [buzz-clik]
Mary is God's Mom [buzz-clik]
Don't eat meat on Fridays [buzz-clik]
Don't read the Bible; all we need to know has been prepared for us in the Catechism [buzz-clik]
The communion wafer REALLY DOES become the actual body of Christ inside your mouth [buzz-clik]
We DO NOT worship Mary. We venerate her. [buzz-clik]
Our practices have no relation to pre-Christian pagan rituals. [buzz-clik]
Mary was ALWAYS a virgin [buzz-clik]
Benedict DID NOT know [buzz-clik]
The Church is the REAL victim [buzz-clik]
Benedict DID NOT know [buzz-clik]
The Church is the REAL victim [buzz-clik]
Benedict DID NOT know [buzz-clik]
The Church is the REAL victim [buzz-clik]
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
[buzz-clik]
Hi! [buzz-clik]
Say 3 "Hail Mary's", 3 "Our Fathers", and have a nice day!
[buzz-clik]
Catholic Robot| 4.26.10 @ 11:34AM
Peter was a Pope [buzz-clik]
Mary is God's Mom [buzz-clik]
Don't eat meat on Fridays [buzz-clik]
Don't read the Bible; all we need to know has been prepared for us in the Catechism [buzz-clik]
The communion wafer REALLY DOES become the actual body of Christ inside your mouth [buzz-clik]
We DO NOT worship Mary. We venerate her. [buzz-clik]
Our practices have no relation to pre-Christian pagan rituals. [buzz-clik]
Mary was ALWAYS a virgin [buzz-clik]
Benedict DID NOT know [buzz-clik]
The Church is the REAL victim [buzz-clik]
Benedict DID NOT know [buzz-clik]
The Church is the REAL victim [buzz-clik]
Benedict DID NOT know [buzz-clik]
The Church is the REAL victim [buzz-clik]
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
[buzz-clik]
Hi! [buzz-clik]
Say 3 "Hail Mary's", 3 "Our Fathers", and have a nice day!
[buzz-clik]
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 12:04PM
Doctor Bigot, is that you?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 12:06PM
Nope. But I echo those sentiments.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 12:12PM
BTW, Condom93...How was your weekend?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 12:25PM
Margie, are you there?
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 12:34PM
I didn't write that, but I also agree with it, as it is the truth.
"Depart, depart, go out thence, touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of her, purify yourselves, you who bear the vessels of the LORD." Is. 52:11.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 12:51PM
Thank you---just wanted you to confirm that your "concerns" about Tim's ad hominems were not real and that anti-Catholics stick together.
You project a lot, Margie.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 12:54PM
As a good Catholic, ya' might wanna' be careful about using phrases like "stick together"...
The implications are kinda' gross.
In fact, that's where the whole problem started.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 12:59PM
LOL. So you at least admit to the fact that they were ad hominems. Progress! But you do not denounce them, do you?
What was that I said about sticking together?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 1:26PM
They were ad hominems and unfortunate ones, Margie.
My point is that you hardly have standing to complain given every post of yours is riddled with ad hominems.
Still, we must avoid the near occasion of sin. Tim would be better to avoid responding to you for this reason.
You do engage in hypocrisy by embracing Doctor Bigot's various slanders, though, but look after your own salvation with fear and trembling, Margie.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 1:41PM
You lie. Nearly every post of mine are NOT riddled with ad hominems. They are filled with lots of truth, though.
And~ truth is not slander. But you engage in slander every single time you call Dr. Right a bigot.
I will look after my own salvation with fear and trembling. I hope you do the same.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:25PM
Yes, you defend your posts against ad hominems by starting out with an ad hominem.
You bring me great joy by being self-refuting, Margie!
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 4:45PM
Your a liar, oh Slippery One.
Get born anew yet?
"Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you are born anew, you cannot see the Kingdom of God." Jn. 3:3.
When will you quit with your own bigotry and lying, and do God's will?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 12:58PM
Don't let the Pro-Catholic Mutual Admiration Society on this forum get to you, Margie.
When they're not masquerading as faux-scholars, these guys like to pretend that they care soooo much about sexually abused children.
In fact, the opposite is true.
They have one concern, and one concern only" Protecting the reputation of "Holy Mother Church".
They're probably Catholic priests.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 1:06PM
I generally avoid such. They do not even upset me. I am exposing the hypocrisy of some of them. The arrogance is quite a spectacle. Yet they don't even see how pitiable they truly are: "For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing; not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. Rev. 3:17.
"..holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people." 2 Tim. 3:5.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 1:17PM
Careful Margie: ACTUAL Biblical quotes make them nervous; they're nit used to it.
BTW...Notice how they like to gang-up? When they don't have the numbers, they flee like the cowards they are.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 1:37PM
Ha!
I've single-handedly posted more Scripture than you've read!
You are a gift to the Church, Doctor Bigot---Lord grant us enemies such as these!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 2:03PM
Condom93:
Beating your chest to prove your "manliness" is kinda' sad, especially when the scripture you post proves me right.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 1:17PM
Careful Margie: ACTUAL Biblical quotes make them nervous; they're not used to it.
BTW...Notice how they like to gang-up? When they don't have the numbers, they flee like the cowards they are.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 1:37PM
"The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion." Pro. 28:1.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:26PM
Why, thank you Margie!
"Bold as a lion"---you are too kind.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 4:43PM
No. You are bold, yes. But not for the Truth.
Get born anew yet?
"Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you are born anew you cannot see the Kingdom of God." Jn. 3:3.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:38PM
I was born again through baptism, as I've now told you multiple times.
Moreover, I am born anew every time I step out of the Confessional and each time I receive the Lord through the Eucharist.
When Christ says "Verily, verily", Margie, you really ought to listen to him. John 6:
53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
[54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
[58] This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Indeed, if you want to see the OT symbol of the Eucharist in clear relief, look up what happened when the Jews in the desert tired of manna and demanded flesh to eat.
This is no doubt what those who left after the Bread of Life Discourse had fresh in mind.
Have you partaken of the Eucharist, Margie?
Did you make sure not to approach it unworthily, as St Paul warned you in 1 Corinthians 11?
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 5:03PM
Were you immersed, or sprinkled?
Sprinkling is NOT baptism. If the latter, you have been deceived.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 1:27PM
Since we are only "faux scholars" in your estimation, Doctor Bigot, we should be easy to refute with facts and evidence.
But you will gladly pay us Tuesday for a hamburger today, I'm sure.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 1:42PM
Condom93:
Playing the "evidence" game is one of your favorite ploys, especially since you NEVER offer any real evidence of your own.
So let's play! Have the stones?
Please provide specific, clear scriptural examples of:
1. Peter as "Pope" (NOT the "...upon this rock..." quote; I already proved you wrong on that one)
2. The structure, power, and centralized nature of the Catholic church.
3. Mary as God's mother. (NOT as Jesus' mother...GOD's mother. And let's not play the "Trinity" card here - that's the coward's way out).
4. Apostolic succession.
5. The College of Cardinals
6. Transubstantiation (NOT N.T. references to the last supper; ACTUAL proof of this false doctrine in scripture)
7. Reliance on non-scriptural sources for issues of faith.
8. The Rosary (NOT prayers offered during the Rosary; the ritual itself, including the l'il beads)
9. The need for a Priestly intercessor.
10. Referring to Priests as "Father".
REMEMBER: BE SPECIFIC! Chapter and verse!
I will judge the accuracy of your answers.
A failure to respond will be seen by all as a tacit admission that you're a fraud.
C'mon, Condom93! Get busy!
Ready...Set...GO!
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 2:08PM
Perhaps you missed my earlier response when you ran away and hid under your bed in the earlier thread.
It is here:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....-at-the-ne
2/3 down the page, look for Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 8:22PM
While you reacquaint yourself with it, why not answer the question I and others have asked you many times:
Provide Scriptural evidence for sola scriptura. Since we who have read it realize that the New Testament uses "Scripture" exclusively in reference to the Old Testament, you'll need to keep that in mind while you look.
So where is it?
I posted John 21 earlier, you might want to look at the last lines of it for a hint.
Meanwhile, let's note you could not provide any Scriptural evidence FOR your various claims, calumnies, and slanders, despite claiming Scripture to be your sole guide rather than the manmade tradition of the Reformation-era theologians you follow.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 2:29PM
Duly noted:
You're a fraud.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 2:38PM
I think we've been down this road before. I proved you wrong then, and I'll do it now.
In an attempt to justify traditions as being of equal or higher authority than Scripture, an appeal is often made to the very last verse in John’s gospel,
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
—John 21:25
Of course, there were many deeds and sayings of the Lord not recorded in Scripture. Nonetheless, Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority, when Holy God did not give it, is futile. The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true.
Another attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states,
“…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
—2 Peter 3:15-16
HEY! These lame arguments sound REALLY familiar! That's because they're the same ones you use!
Now THAT'S FUNNY!
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 2:56PM
A re-post from above:
Doctor Wrong,
The Church doesn't teach the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does, moron. Only when he declares a doctrine on faith and morals that the Church Universal must believe.
Here is what Vatican I taught:
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
It has only been done once since Vatican I defined it, by Pope Pius XII on the dogma of Mary's bodily assumption into Heaven.
Your knowledge of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches consists of copying and pasting from anti-Catholic bigots.
I ask again, when EXACTLY did this "breach" occur?
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 2:58PM
Oops!
Disregard, wrong response.
teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:27PM
He won't answer, Nick. He can't.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 3:49PM
What does "binding and loosing" mean, Doctor Bigot.
I'm beginning to doubt you've even read the Bible.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 3:46PM
On Doctor Bigot's grab bag of practices he claims have no Scriptural justification:
Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 8:22PM
Doctor Bigot having been corrected many times now, in other threads as well as this one, hopes repetition takes the sting out of his unflagging errancy.
1. Dollars didn't exist until the Dutch coined them several hundred years ago. By Doctor Bigot's "Scriptural" standard, the dollars his little Sunday club pulls in make their worship unScriptural.
2. The epistle to the Romans demonstrates amply why Rome was favored among the Early Church. It was for their faith and the lack of heresies emerging from them. Were you at all conversant with the Early Church Fathers---38 volumes worth of material---you would know this. Instead, you're ignorant and thus make foolish statements.
3. The College of Cardinals is the body which elects the Vicar of Christ on Earth. The proceedings are to be found in Acts with St Peter governing over the election of Mathias to replace Judas. As Doctor Bigot would know had he ever read Acts.
4. The Cutesie Pie Creed must be the baby food Doctor Bigot eats now that he cannot digest Catholic Truth. The Nicene Creed, on the other hand, is the product of one of the first seven ecumenical councils. Doctor Bigot occasionally claims to believe in the Holy Trinity, apparently ignorant of the fact that this dogma was formulated in Council in the 4th century in response to various heresies regarding the nature of Christ.
5. There have always been unmarried priests, as anyone who cares to review the Gospels is aware. Church Tradition holds that St Peter had been married prior to his becoming an Apostle. Christ himself was unmarried. Beyond the issue of who had and had not married, St Paul in particular urges celibacy in the epistles attributed to him. The Church views priestly celibacy as a discipline, not a dogma, and has in various times and places allowed for married priests. Indeed, as Stuart will point out, Eastern Catholics---in full communion with Rome---have married priests. Anglicans now entering the Church will be allowed to retain married clergy.
6. The primary example for sisters is of course Mary, mother of the Lord. The development of the various orders began with St Anthony and continued throughout the Middle Ages. Of course, women dedicated to religious orders have been with us since time began.
7. The prayers of the Rosary, as seen in a previous thread, are all Scriptural. The Hail Mary is a summary of the Annunciation, where the archangel Gabriel informs Mary she is to become Theotokos---a Greek word Doctor Bigot is not fond of because it means "God-bearer" and thus explains why the Church calls Mary "the mother of God". The Our Father is the Lord's Prayer. The beads themselves are used to count. One can use one's fingers, a studded ring, or anything with 10 elements to count. The Rosary is not a required discipline and is not part of the Order of the Mass.
8. Catholics don't pray to idols---strictly forbidden. The veneration of images---particularly common with the Eastern Catholics and our Orthodox brethren---is no different than treasuring a picture of one's grandparents:
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
Of course, anyone who appreciates Michelangelo's Pieta or Sistine Chapel realizes as much.
9. Already addressed---the words of the Anunciation are "Theotokos"---"God-bearer". Mary gave birth to Jesus, who is one with the Father. Christ's conception was through the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Trinity. Mary is simultaneously Daughter, Wife, and Mother of God----Daughter of the Father, Wife of the Holy Spirit, Mother of the Son. Christ loved his mother and took pains even to see to her well-being while in his agonies on the Cross. You'd never know that from Doctor Bigot's contempt for her.
You've been requested many times, Doctor Bigot, to provide pre-Reformation evidence for the false doctrine of "sola scriptura"---you have failed to do so.
Moreover, you have been asked to account for what makes up the canon of the Bible from the Bible---a necessary predicate for sola scriptura.
In addition, you have been asked to explain precisely how New Testament Scripture is defined within the New Testament, given at the time of the events recounted it hadn't even been written yet. Thus when Christ or the Apostles invoke Scripture, it is always Old Testament Scripture.
The answer is simple if inconvenient for you:
Christ came to found his Church, not to write a book.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 3:48PM
On Doctor Bigot's claim that the Church lacks authority:
Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 2:45PM
Should you ever bother to read the next verse, Doctor Bigot, you'll see:
Matthew 16:
[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Now let's see the Scripture reference where Christ takes away this binding and loosing authority.
Where is it?
Catholic Robot| 4.26.10 @ 12:51PM
I-wrote-it. [buzz-clik]
I-stand-by-every-word. [buzz-clik]
I-am-a good-Catholic-robot. [buzz-clik]
I-believe-what-I-am-told. [buzz-clik]
Father-Murphy-knows-best. [buzz-clik]
He-told-me-so-when-he-put-his-hands-in-my-underpants. [buzz-clik]
The-Church-is-the-REAL-victim. [buzz-clik]
ERROR
ERROR
[logic systems offline]
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 1:23PM
COOL MOMENTS IN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION:
The "Cadaver Synod":
The Cadaver Synod (also called the Cadaver Trial or, in Latin, the Synodus Horrenda) is the name commonly given to the posthumous ecclesiastical trial of Catholic Pope Formosus, held in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January of 897.
Before the proceedings the body of Formosus was exhumed and, according to some sources, seated on a throne while his successor, Pope Stephen VII read the charges against him (of which Formosus was found guilty) and conducted the trial. The Cadaver Synod is remembered as one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of the medieval papacy.
NEAT-O! Arguing with dead bodies!
Boy, that Pope Stephen VII sure was a smart one! Good thing they chose him!!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 1:27PM
COOL MOMENTS IN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION:
The "Council of Sutri":
The Council of Sutri (or Synod of Sutri) was called by Pope Gregory VI at the behest of Henry III. King of the Germans and opened on December 20, 1046, in the hilltown of Sutri, at the edge of the Duchy of Rome. This is not listed by the Catholic Church as an ecumenical council.
The council was called to resolve the disorder over the papacy. A faction in the church encouraged Henry III to intervene, both to resolve the conflict and to receive his crown from the pope in an official ceremony. In the autumn of 1046 Henry III, already King of the Germans, crossed the Alps at the head of a large army and accompanied by a brilliant retinue of the secular and ecclesiastical princes of the empire, all of whom were his sworn vassals. Henry had two intentions, to be crowned Holy Roman emperor by the pope at Rome and, in order that the pontiff concerned have an unassailable title—one that would not cast doubts upon his conferred imperial title— to establish order in the Duchy of Rome.
Rome was in a state of warfare between noble factions, each of whom had a candidate they regarded as pope. A pope presided at St. Peter's, another at the Lateran and a third at Sta Maria Maggiore. Two of them, Benedict IX, a scion of the counts of Tusculum, and Sylvester III of the Crescenzi clan, represented rival factions of the Roman nobility. The position of the third, Gregory VI, was peculiar in that he had purchased the title in good faith from Benedict IX two years previously. [1] Each claimant had a number of supporters in the Roman church and held a portion of the city.
Henry was met by Gregory at Piacenza and was received with honor. It was decided that a synod should meet at Sutri, some 40 km north of Rome, well beyond the city's factional violence. Before the assembly Gregory testified that he had, "in all good faith and simplicity", purchased the papacy from Pope Benedict IX in 1044. After the departure of Benedict, the Bishop of Sabina had also declared himself pope, as Sylvester III. In 1045 Benedict, not having received his pay-off, returned to Rome and renewed his claim to the papacy.
The council summoned the three pontiffs, and both Sylvester and Gregory attended. The claims of all three popes were quickly dismissed. Sylvester was stripped of his sacerdotal rank and exiled to a monastery. Gregory resigned (apparently his words were:"I, Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, do hereby adjudge myself to be removed from the pontificate of the Holy Roman Church, because of the enormous error which by simoniacal impurity has crept into and vitiated my election."), and the council ended on December 23. A form of the council was repeated in Rome the following day to oversee the dismissal of Benedict. The papacy was declared sede vacante.
On December 24-25 Henry turned first to the powerful Adalbert, Archbishop of Bremen, who refused the dangerous honor. Henry's next choice was his personal confessor, Suidger, Bishop of his recently created see of Bamberg. Suidger became the new pope, taking the title Clement II but insisting on retaining his Bamberg see, a source of financial support beyond the reach of Roman factions. He was immediately enthroned, on Christmas Day. His first pontifical act was to place the imperial crown upon his benefactor and the queen consort, Agnes, daughter of William V, Duke of Aquitaine. The new emperor received from the Romans and the pope the title and diadem of a Roman Patricius, a dignity with antecedents in the Late Empire, which since the tenth century had been assumed to confer the right to nominate the pontiff. Within a few decades the Gregorian Reforms would call this custom into question.
Benedict would again renew his claim to the papacy in 1047, when Clement II died.
WHAT?!?!? Politics??? Power-grabs??? Medieval intrigue??? Interfering with Papal selection?!?!?!
NO WAY!!!! They're the "Vicars of Christ"!!
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 1:36PM
Ahh, so now Doctor Bigot's a sedevacantist!
Since he was very poorly catechized, we shall continue to educate him:
1555 "Amongst those various offices which have been exercised in the Church from the earliest times the chief place, according to the witness of tradition, is held by the function of those who, through their appointment to the dignity and responsibility of bishop, and in virtue consequently of the unbroken succession going back to the beginning, are regarded as transmitters of the apostolic line."34
1556 To fulfill their exalted mission, "the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and by the imposition of hands they passed on to their auxiliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration."35
1557 The Second Vatican Council "teaches . . . that the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by episcopal consecration, that fullness namely which, both in the liturgical tradition of the Church and the language of the Fathers of the Church, is called the high priesthood, the acme (summa) of the sacred ministry."36
1558 "Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and ruling. . . . In fact . . . by the imposition of hands and through the words of the consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given, and a sacred character is impressed in such wise that bishops, in an eminent and visible manner, take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as his representative (in Eius persona agant)."37 "By virtue, therefore, of the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, bishops have been constituted true and authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors."38
1559 "One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college."39 The character and collegial nature of the episcopal order are evidenced among other ways by the Church's ancient practice which calls for several bishops to participate in the consecration of a new bishop.40 In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom.
1560 As Christ's vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: "Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."41
1561 The above considerations explain why the Eucharist celebrated by the bishop has a quite special significance as an expression of the Church gathered around the altar, with the one who represents Christ, the Good Shepherd and Head of his Church, presiding.42
The previous Pope being dead upon giving up his office, apostolic succession is not guaranteed by the Pope naming a successor, as was done in the various princely kingdoms of Europe---when it was peacefully done at all---but through the bishops.
This is why the Church recognizes the Holy Orders of the Orthodox as being valid, even though they do not acknowledge the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on Earth.
In other words, the Pope is in apostolic succession by virtue of being a bishop prior to Pope, indeed, is Pope by virtue of being the Bishop of Rome.
My goodness, Doctor Bigot---did you learn anything about the faith before you abandoned it?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 1:48PM
The Emperor TRULY has no clothes.
You don't even realize that your response to every critique of the Catholic Church is basically:
"The Church told me so".
Your lengthy tome says NOTHING about the "Council of Sutri", or about competitive claims to "the throne" (and their obvious un-Holy nature).
That's because you CAN'T address that. To do so, you'd realize that your faith is a sham.
Posting REALLY long cut-n-paste jobs that you haven't actually read is not indicative of knowledge...Except of basic computer functions.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 2:18PM
Okay, let's go slowly as Doctor Bigot is very slow on the uptake.
1. Apostolic succession is passed on through the bishops.
2. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.
3. The Orthodox Church has valid apostolic succession as Orthodox bishops trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles. This is recognized by the Church.
4. The Catholic Church has apostolic succession for the same reason.
5. The various Protestant communities do not have apostolic succession. This is obviously true for many in that they do not have bishops. For others, they were not ordained by bishops who themselves were in the line of apostolic succession.
6. The question of pope vs. antipope is not one of apostolic succession---it is a question as to who is the valid Bishop of Rome, not as to who is a valid bishop.
Thus, even Doctor Bigot's headline is erroneous. As we've come to expect.
Of course, Doctor Bigot also doesn't understand papal infallibility, so I'd better post the Church's teaching on the subject:
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 2:50PM
As I suspected: ZERO scriptural justification.
Let's say that again: ZERO.
Why? 'Cuz it can't be done.
And once again...Using Catholic Doctrine to prove...Catholic Doctrine! The intellectual equivalent of "Because I say so".
So we have proven for all to see, that you're a fraud.
THANKS!!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 2:52PM
...BTW...If the Pope is "infallible", then how do you explain 3 or more people all claiming to be "the one true Pope", all with their supporters both within and without the Church? Were they ALL infallible?
How about when one Pope retracts the edicts of another Pope? How can they both be "infallible"?
Hmmmmmmmmmm...????
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 2:59PM
A re-post from above:
Doctor Wrong,
The Church doesn't teach the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does, moron. Only when he declares a doctrine on faith and morals that the Church Universal must believe.
Here is what Vatican I taught:
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
It has only been done once since Vatican I defined it, by Pope Pius XII on the dogma of Mary's bodily assumption into Heaven.
Your knowledge of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches consists of copying and pasting from anti-Catholic bigots.
I ask again, when EXACTLY did this "breach" occur?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:20PM
I guess that "Faith and Morals" clause doesn't include anything about what to do when one of your priests gets caught with his hand in a little boys pants..??
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 3:41PM
Once again, since Doctor Bigot is not so with it:
1. Apostolic succession impacts who is a valid bishop, not who is a valid Bishop of Rome.
2. Therefore, apostolic succession is only broken if a Bishop of Rome were NOT consecrated as a bishop by someone who himself was a bishop in the line of apostolic succession.
It's really not that hard, Doctor Right.
I have addressed Scripture elsewhere. You have also forgotten St Paul's urging regarding how the faithful might tell who was preaching false doctrines:
1 Cor 3:
5] Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1 Cor 11:
[1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1 Cor 12:
23] And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
[24] For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
[25] That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
[26] And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
[27] Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
[28] And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Also:
Jude 1:
3] Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
[4] For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
[5] I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
[6] And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
And you'd best heed St Paul lest you profane the Eucharist again, Doctor Bigot:
1 Cor 10:
[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
[17] For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
[18] Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the alter?
[19] What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
[20] But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
[21] Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
1 Cor 11:
[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
[24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
[26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
[27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
[30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
But it is more Scripture I fear than you can bear.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 2:58PM
Since the "various Protestant communities" don't recognize the false doctrine of Apostolic succession, do you think that it bothers them that they don't have it??
I don't think you're very deep, intellectually speaking. You fail to recognize the utterly illogic nature of the statements you post.
You assume, without any serious intellectual exploration, that Catholicism is the ONE, true Christian faith. To back that up, you use nothing but Catholic Doctrine as a proof source (NOTE: In an actual debate, this would fail as a tactic, if it wasn't disallowed by the moderator).
You have no grasp as to why non-Catholics don't recognize (nor care a whit for) Cathechism # 889-892.
You're kinda' funny...
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 3:16PM
You will recall that the Nicene Creed---to which many but not all Protestant communities subscribe---and which was formulated at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D, nearly three centuries after Pentecost---says the following:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Note the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church".
You really ought to look up the history of it and try to comprehend what "apostolic" means.
You then might understand better what the epistles' call for unity means.
Here's a reminder:
2 Peter 2:
[1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
[2] And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
[3] And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
Apostolic succession is a guard against these false prophets.
Matthew 16:
17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
When was this binding and loosing authority removed, Doctor Bigot? Another question you cannot answer.
Luke 10:
1] After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
[2] Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.
[3] Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
[4] Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
[5] And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.
[6] And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
[7] And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
[8] And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
[9] And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
[10] But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
[11] Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
[12] But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
[13] Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
[14] But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.
[15] And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.
[16] He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
[17] And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
These seventy were those whom the Lord "appointed"---those whom he gave holy orders.
Luke 22:
[29] And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
[30] That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[31] And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
[32] But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
God gave Christ his Kingdom, Christ gives it to the apostles. When did he take it away, Doctor Bigot?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:27PM
Once again...Quoting Catholic doctrine ("The Nicene Creed") to justify Catholic doctrine.
"Apostolic succession is a guard against these false prophets."
That's amusing, especially since Apostolic Succession IS a false doctrine taught by false Prophets (the Popes).
Your quote on Peter, which I knew you would use (you have NOTHING else) DOES NOT justify the Papacy. Oh, wait...That comes from "Apostilic Succession"! No...Wait! That's NOT scripturally justified, either!
D'OH!!!
Yes. Jesus sent his disciples out into the world. Duh. That DOES NOT justify the (false) Catholic Doctrine of "Holy Orders".
You're really flailing...
So the Kingdom is ONLY for the Apostles?? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, or how this quote justifies the existence and structure of the Catholic Church.
You're as predictable as the sunrise...
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 3:56PM
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Hey, Doctor Bigot---guess how many Protestants recite the Nicene Creed each Sunday?
They take it on the same authority you take the Bible.
Remember Martin Luther?
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
But then he was echoing St Augustine, a far better Christian than you or I shall be:
"For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
But of course St Augustine knew his epistles---for how in a preliterate world could the faithful KNOW they were being taught the Gospel but on the authority of the Church?
Thanks to Pope Innoncent I, who settled the canon of Scripture in 405 A.D. (approving the work of a prior ecumenical council), we know definitively what comprises the Bible.
Of course, Doctor Bigot's copy is adulterated, courtesy of Pope Martin Luther.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 1:32PM
COOL MOMENTS IN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION:
Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – c.1056), born Theophylactus of Tusculum, was Pope on three occasions between 1032 and 1048. One of the youngest popes, he was the only man to have been Pope on more than one occasion and the only man ever to have sold the papacy.
Benedict was born in Rome as Theophylactus, the son of Alberic III, Count of Tusculum, and the nephew of Pope Benedict VIII (1012–1024) and Pope John XIX (1024–1032). His father obtained the Papal chair for him, granting it to his son in October 1032.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia[1] and other sources, Benedict IX was around 18 to 20 years old when made pontiff, although some sources claim 11 or 12.[2] He reportedly led an extremely dissolute life, and also allegedly had few qualifications for the papacy other than connections with a socially powerful family, although in terms of theology and the ordinary activities of the Church he was entirely orthodox. St. Peter Damian described him as "feasting on immorality" and "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest" in the Liber Gomorrhianus. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls him "a disgrace to the Chair of Peter."
But...But...But...How could a Pope be...a disgrace????
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 2:08PM
Doctor Wrong,
Because he is a man, dope!
He is tempted, and sins, like all men. Show me were Pope Benedict IX taught any error, Doc.
That is what the Pope is protected from doing, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 2:26PM
Your argument is nonsensical.
WHAT is the Pope protected from doing "by the power of the Holy Spirit"? Sinning?
But you just said "He is tempted and sins, like all men."
So which is it?
See what happens when you twist scripture?
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 2:45PM
Doctor Wrong,
I didn't know English was your second language. But, I should've figured it out by now, based on your asinine statements.
The Pope is protected from teaching errors by the power of the Holy Spirit.
He sins like all men do. That is why he goes to confession.
May I send you the Catechism of the Catholic Church so that you may understand what the Church actually teaches, and not make such a fool of yourself?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:01PM
I suppose that you don't realize that the "sacrament" of Confession, as practiced by the Catholic Church, is also a false doctrine?
Christ is our intercessor; we DON'T need to tell our sins to a Priest. We DON'T need a Priest to obtain forgiveness for sins.
If I cared a whit what the Catechism said, I suppose I'd still be a Catholic.
As far as making a fool of one's self goes...You probably don't have a good grasp of irony, either...Right?
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 3:05PM
Doctor Wrong,
Nice try to change the subject.
Again, what errors did Pope Benedict IX teach?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:14PM
He was 11 years old when he first became Pope.
Is an 11-year old "infallible"..?
He was Pope 3 times.
If he was infallible, why was he removed from office, put back in, removed from office, and put back in...Again?
Infallible, or a political pawn in a medival power struggle?
Please...do grow up.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 3:19PM
I'm sorry, Scriptural reference for the age at which one might become an apostle?
Where is it, Doctor Bigot?
You also still do not understand---despite the clear teaching of the Church I posted---that the charism of infallibility attaches to the office, not the man?
Did you not understand why God punished Moses for striking the rock as he did?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:40PM
I'm sorry, Scriptural reference for the any apostle who was not a grown man?
Hmmmmmmmm...?????
Oh, it "attaches to the office". How cute. That enables you to claim infallibility, while simultaneously providing a convenient excuse when that Pope turns out to be a creep, right?
That might play with the un-curious Catholic masses, but it doesn't go much farther.
Nice try. But, like most Catholic Doctrine, utterly illogical. And dumb.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:00PM
Scripture for the ages of the apostles, Doctor Bigot? Where is it?
Funny, but every Scriptural reference I ask you for you cannot provide.
Including the Scriptural reference which establishes sola scriptura.
Not surprising given your complete unfamiliarity with the Bible.
When you do decide to crack it, why don't you read up on how the priesthood worked? You might discover that God invests offices, not men, and takes away power from men from time to time.
Start with a children's Bible if it's easier for you.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 4:06PM
Doctor Wrong,
What ERRORS did Pope Benedict IX teach in faith and morals?
That is what papal infallibility is, Einstein. Why can't you comprehend this simple fact?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:29PM
Isn't it obvious, Nick?
bigot- a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:15PM
If a Pope was "protected from teaching errors by the power of the Holy Spirit", then he COULD NOT be a Pope.
Why?
Simple. Because he'd realize that Catholicism itself IS a theological error...And he'd resign.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 3:19PM
We'll add "circular reasoning" to the list of things you do not comprehend, Doctor Bigot.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 3:20PM
My 12 year old nephew can rationalize better than that!
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:01PM
The man is so blinded by bigotry he talks himself into the ground.
But highly entertaining for the rest of us, so not all bad.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 4:24PM
Criticism = Bigotry?
Do grow up, little boys. When you become men, you need to put away childish ideas...
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:30PM
No:
bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your bigotry, Doctor. It reinforces my point nicely.
Carry on!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:42PM
Oh, I see. So...You're bigot??
And I'm not intolerant of differing creeds, beliefs, and opinions...Only the obviously dumb ones...Like Catholicism.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:32PM
Thank you for admitting you're a bigot, Doctor Bigot.
Although I must admit no one's surprised.
As for me, you'll have to be more specific as to what I'm bigoted against.
Seeing as how you refuse to be specific about the theology to which you subscribe or the community to which you belong---lest it be "criticized".
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 1:51PM
Doctor Right: Catholic Church doctrine is false!
Teflon93: NO it isn't!
Doctor Right: Prove it!
Teflon93: Look right here, in my l'il "Catholic Dogma" guidebook...It says, on page 1456-section 6: "Our doctrine is NOT false".
So there! Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyaaaaaaaaah-Nya!!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 2:05PM
Calling Teflon93!
Calling-out Teflon93!!
Yoo-Hoo!! We're waiting for your brillinat scriptural-based justification of Catholic doctrine!!!
Over here!!!!
(Now where did he go? Is he skinny-dipping with Father Flanagan again???)
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 2:15PM
Doctor Wrong,
Would you show me where the word Trinity appears in scripture?
Or where in the gospels, or the epistles, the doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly taught, Doc?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 2:22PM
Nick:
As a good Catholic, you're used to finding things in scripoture that ain't there, and overlooking )or ignoring) things that are. It's not your fault; it's how you're taught.
Matthew 3:16-17 "And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.’"
Matthew 28:18-20 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’"
Then again, there's always this one:
1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
You dun 'bin schooled.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 2:39PM
Doctor Wrong,
I don't see the word "Trinity" in those Scripture quotes.
I believe I asked for explicit teachings, not hints and interpretations. Do you even know when the word "Trinity" was first used?
Where does it say that there are three Persons in one God? And that they are eternal? The 1 John quote says the "three are one." The doctrine of the Trinity says the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, but one God.
I asked you this question a couple of weeks ago. Did it take you that long to find these Scripture verses? Or did you ask one of your fellow anti-Catholic bigots?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:05PM
If you can't interpret the CLEAR meaning of 1 John 5:7, then you need a basic course in reading for comprehension.
If you think that the lack of the English word "Trinity" invalidates that concept in 1 John 5:7, then you're a fool.
You ARE a good Catholic, though:
You see things in scripture that DON'T exist.
You FAIL to see things in scripture that are obvious.
Keep beating those windmills, Don Quixote!
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 3:18PM
Doctor Wrong,
English comprehension? You were the one who couldn't understand my post from above.
"Trinity" comes from the Latin "trinitas", translation of the Greek "trias", professor.
I didn't claim it "invalidates" the "concept", dope. But, you just admitted that this is an interpretation, not a specific teaching of Scripture.
You will not find the teaching that God consists of three distinct Persons in One. So, why do you follow it?
There were many heresies over this doctrine.
Then again, you wouldn't know anything about early Christain history, would you?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:32PM
Let's see if I understand your juvenille logic:
We should never "interpret" scripture? Is thgat what you're saying?
SO when Jesus spoke in parables, we shouldn't interpret that? We should accept it "as is"?
You've lost all credibility...
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:42PM
"You will not find the teaching that God consists of three distinct Persons in One. So, why do you follow it?"
Ummm...1 JOHN 5:7.
Can you read????
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:11PM
Context, please:
[6] This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
[8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
[9] If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
[10] He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
[11] And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
Ah, the Johannine Comma.
Lots of problems with that one, not least of which being it doesn't appear in the Greek texts before about the 11th century and none of the Greek Fathers quoted it when it would have been a handy way to battle anti-Trinitarian heresies:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html
Notice also that the "agree in one" in the next verse is a different context than that of the Creed---"one in being".
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 4:21PM
NICE cut-n-paste job!
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:31PM
Which is how a bigot responds when confronted with facts and evidence inconvenient for their bias.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 4:26PM
Scripture, please!
John 10:30
" I and the Father are one."
Since no one would argue that the Father and the Holy Spirit are NOT "one", I hope this is clear enough for you.
But go ahead...Check out what it says in your Catechism first!
LOL!
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:33PM
Instead, why don't you post the Scriptural evidence that the Father and Holy Spirit are one?
Christ does promise to send the Holy Spirit, does he not? Hmmm...that's not so clear a Trinitarian formula....
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:30PM
Waiting on Doctor Bigot.
Again.
You'd think he'd have these Scripture references handy.
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 10:57AM
He sends it, because he has it. Because He, the Spirit, and the Father are one.
Do you deny this?
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 12:15PM
Doctor Wrong,
Teflon93 asked for SCRIPTURAL evidence.
Are you claiming to be a writer of Scripture now?
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 3:45PM
There are over 6 billion people on the planet.
Was it Christ's plan to have over 6 billion personal interpretations of His Word? I don't think so.
You've claimed the only authority that you need is God's Word, in the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity isn't in the Bible, explicitly. It is only alluded to. Not spelled out like baptism and transubstantiation are.
It was codified later. By the Catholic Church.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 4:15PM
"It [the doctrine of the Trinity] was codified later."
I know how hard it is for you to understand English, Doc.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 4:30PM
You speak of "codification". How very Catholic of you!
Again...Hate to break it to you...But God doesn't wait for Catholic Dogma to become official before he acts.
The tripartite nature of God-Christ-Holy Spirit existed long before the Catholic Church decided to address it.
But that's the conceit that lies at the heart of Catholicism: The idea that they ARE the one, tre Christian Church, when in fact, they're not even close.
PLEASE...bring more! I love DESTROYING you pathetic examples.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:33PM
Really, Doctor Bigot?
Then why didn't the New Testament appear at Pentecost?
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 10:55AM
You are so tied-up in legalism that you're utterly lost...
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 5:42PM
Doctor Wrong,
"But God doesn't wait for Catholic Dogma to become official before he acts.
The tripartite nature of God-Christ-Holy Spirit existed long before the Catholic Church decided to address it."
No kidding, really?
God is eternal, therefore He also existed before Scripture.
God's Truths have been REVEALED. Over many centuries. And after Christ's Ascension, His Truths were still being revealed. As Pentecost clearly shows. All revelation ended with the Apostles.
The doctrine of the Trinity was simply explaining a revealed truth. It happened after the Apostles.
So, yes, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, EXISTED, before the Catholic Church codified the Trinity in language the average person could understand. (That, apparently, leaves you out, Doc.)
But, you will not find the Trinity clearly stated in Genesis, Joshua, Kings, or the Psalms. Only alluded to. Does this also DESTROY the "example" of Scripture, Doc?
The doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Scriptures, Doc. Why do you believe in it?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 4:16PM
"Was it Christ's plan to have over 6 billion personal interpretations of His Word? I don't think so."
Nor do I.
I did NOT say "personal" interpretation.
There is the correct interpretation; then there is the wrong interpretation.
For example, in the quote "It is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle", a common misinterpretation is that rich CANNOT enter heaven; this would be incorrect.
The proper interpretation is that it is hard for "the rich" to enter Heaven because they are so blessed with material gain that they often fail to see the need for God's word...Until too late.
So we agree! Splendid! Now we're getting somewhere!
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:36PM
Unfortunately, Doctor Bigot has just injected a totally different dimension onto Scripture---INTERPRETATION.
Unfortunately, he then displays great foolishness by presuming large numbers of people think "harder" is synonymous with "impossible."
The Apostles had something to say about how one knows one is getting a true interpretation, Doctor Bigot---why not look at the Scripture I posted above and see if you can find it?
Plus go take a look at what the Ethiopian said to St Stephen.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:15PM
One of your other tricks is to post long, unending reams of scripture and Chatty Cattee-Chism and hope that no one actually takes the time to read it.
Well, I did. And NONE of it answers the questions I posed to you. NONE of it.
You're unable to answer the questions.
You're a fraud.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 9:12PM
Another Doctor Bigot lie exposed!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:11PM
To justify Catholic Doctrine, you use...Catholic Doctrine.
You're a fraud.
And now everyone knows it.
Reply to this
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 3:31PM
Doctor Wrong,
You're down to just flat out lying now?
Teflon93 has posted more Scripture to prove his points than anyone else on these threads.
When you can't argue the law, argue the facts. When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When you can't argue either, make-up your own facts!
Reply to this
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:34PM
No, school-boy, he hasn't. Condom93 prefers to post Catholic Doctrine in order to justify Catholic Doctrine.
So I don't post Scripture, but I post unending reams of it.
A/Not A.
Both coexist in the fractured, contradictory logic of Doctor Bigot.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 4:47PM
Doctor Wrong,
Who decides which interpretation is "right" and which one is "wrong?" You?
This is why there are 30,000 Christain denominations in this country.
Where did you get this authority to define what Scripture means? Are you "infallible?"
What if you're wrong? Should I bet my soul on YOUR interpretation of Scripture?
And, who are you depending on for that interpretation? Not yourself, you've proven that you are ignorant of God's Word.
Unless you can read ancient Greek and Hebrew, and have done years of research; you are depending on what other men have to say about Scripture, as much as I am, Doc.
And even if you had done all that, you would still have to have faith that the Catholic Church preserved the original writtings of the Apostles and the disciples Mark and Luke. And that their writtings were copied without error for 15 centuries, until the KJV came along.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 5:11PM
You have made yourself your own pope, Doc.
You get to decide what "right" and "wrong."
You should take heed of the last words of the Book of Judges:
"The children of Israel also returned by their tribes, and families, to their dwellings. In those days there was no king in Israel: but every one did that which seemed right to himself."
As you start to read I Samuel, you will see it didn't take long for Israel to stop listening to the Lord God, after they did what they thought was "right" in there own eyes.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 5:32PM
Nick,
May I kindly present you with the following~
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Pe. 1:20 & 21.
How do we understand it, then? You have to be born of God's Spirit:
"Unless one is born anew.." John 3:3.
"God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and Truth." Jn. 4:24.
God bless.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 6:16PM
Margie,
Yes, I agree with these quotes, of course. The Father calls ALL men to come to Him.
The Word of God must be taught with authority. It is not self-explanatory. God taught the Israelites. Christ taught the Apostles. The Apostles taught their disciples and successors, and so on.
The New Testament was written over 1900 years ago, well after Christ's Ascension. There were no recorders or video cameras. We take it on faith that the Truth was preserved down to our own time.
But, why should we?
Men are fallible. Christ must have protected the Church from the evils that almost immediately started attacking it. Satan didn't sit on the sidelines.
If you read the writtings of the Early Church Fathers, you will see that the Enemy was already attacking their teachings, before Saint John had died. They were the Gnostics, who claimed to have secret knowledge of Christ.
Read Saint Polycarp, Saint Ireneaus, and Saint Ignatius. Also, Eusebius' "Church History."
God Bless!
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 1:47PM
Nick,
Reading the early Christians writings are well and good. I've been reading them for the past 36 years. Have you ever perused Martyrs Mirror? How about Josephus' account of the History of the Jews.
The issue is~ The Bible says that "Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Pe. 1:21.
You cannot trust the teachings though, by anyone who denies the new birth in John 3. Without being regenerated from above by the Holy Spirit, you are still in darkness, according to the Bible.
You shouldn't take your stand on anyone's words that don't line up with Scripture.
Especially any man's words that tell you one is not a Christian unless they are a Catholic. This is simply the doctrine of demons.
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 1:03PM
Margie,
No, I have never heard of "Martyrs Mirror." But, I have read some, not all, of Josephus.
The Catholic Church does not teach that you have to be "Catholic" to be Christian. In fact, their are few that the Church does not consider Christian. If a church has the sacraments of baptism and marriage, and believes in the Trinity, the Catholic Church recognizes it as Christian. There might be some more criteria that I'm not aware of, so don't take my word on this point.
But, all the mainline Protestant denominations are considered Christian. Mormans, Jehovah's Witness, Salvation Army, and some others are not considered Christian because they lack one of the basic criterion I listed above.
We consider you Christain, because you have the basics of the Faith. We just believe you are missing out on the fullness of the Faith. Like going to a restaurant, and only getting part of the menu.
It is Catholic teaching that Baptism washes away the stain of original sin on our souls. The water is the outward, physical sign, or symbol, of the inward, super-natural reality of what happens to the soul, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Thus, we are born again, of water and spirit. This does not mean I am protected from rejecting God and His Love. We all have free will, and we all sin. Even after baptism.
Christians are separated from non-Christians because of baptism. Our souls are different than the unbaptized. Our souls have been washed by the Holy Spirit, and the stain of original sin removed.
We still suffer from the consequences of the Fall of our first parents, with our inclination to sin. That is why Christ became man, suffered, died, resurrected, and established His Church on earth. So that we would be able to overcome sin in this life, and death in the next.
At least this is what the Catholic Church teaches.
I know you don't believe this, Margie. I just thought I would share.
Say hi to Victor.
God Bless!
Doictor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:22PM
You've actually made a very good and very valid point, and for that I commend you.
You SHOULD NOT take my word for it. You SHOULD NOT "bet your soul" on my interpretation of scripture.
You owe it to yourself to read it, thoroughly, and compare your own interpretation to that said by learned scholars on the subject, and then draw your own conclusions.
No, I can't read Greek, either modern or ancient, or Aramaic, or Latin, or even medieval Russian.
But I don't rely on the Catholic Church for my interpretations. Sorry, but I don't trust them. There are scores of non-Catholic scholars, scholars of merit, who have reliably and accurately translated the scriptures into English.
I depend on God for the truth. Not men. And certainly not men who claim, without scriptural justification, to be God's anointed intercessor(s) on earth.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 7:15PM
Doctor Wrong,
I always make good points. I use the arguments of Catholic theologians much smarter than I.
"You owe it to yourself to read it, thoroughly, and compare your own interpretation to that said by learned scholars on the subject, and then draw your own conclusions."
I have, and I do.
So, we are back to 6 billion people deciding what Scripture "really" means. Not Christ's plan. You admitted as much.
That means there has to be an AUTHORITY to teach the Truth.
"I depend on God for the truth. Not men."
But, you just wrote that you trust "non-Catholic scholars." So, which is it? God or men?
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 10:54AM
"That means there has to be an AUTHORITY to teach the Truth."
Wow. You REALLY are a perfect Catholic-drone who wants to be led around by the nose.
Nothing that I said is conradictory.
I trust the scholars; that doesn't mean I don't question there conclusions. I don't depend on them, though.
In between my ears rests a thing called "a brain". God gave it to us so we could think, and distinguish right from wrong, truth from lies, etc.
I think you have one, too (a brain, that is). You might want to get reacquainted with it...
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:24PM
I define what scripture means by what it says; nothing more, and nothing less.
I claim no "authority" to do so, other than free will.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 7:22PM
Doctor Wrong,
Did you already forget what you wrote above:
"The proper interpretation is [...]."
This is a declaritive statement. For it to be true, it must have AUTHORITY.
The only authority you offered is......yourself! By simply declaring it "proper." Or, do you have some other authority to which you would like to appeal?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:29PM
What was it the Ethiopian said, Nick?
What did St Paul warn about dissension and schism?
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 7:54PM
Teflon93,
I belive Philip asked the Ethiopian, "Do you think that you understand what you read?"
And the Ethiopian responded thus: " And how can I, unless some man show me?"
-Acts 8: 30-31
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 8:19PM
You are correct:
[29] Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
[30] And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
[31] And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Indeed, you uncovered an error on my part---in another post I mentioned Stephen, but it was Philip.
And of course St Paul in his 1st letter to the Corinthians warned that there ought be no dissensions among them, that the Body of Christ is ONE, etc.
Inconveniently enough for Doctor Bigot.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 9:15PM
Ahh, good, so you believe the Eucharist to be the actual blood and flesh of Christ, as Scripture says:
53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
[54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Excellent, Doctor Bigot---you're finally making progress!
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 2:44PM
My, are you dishonest, Doctor Bigot.
I have answered you repeatedly in this and past threads. Why don't you absorb that rather than pretend deceptively that you have received no response?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:11PM
You've answered NOTHING.
To justify Catholic Doctrine, you use...Catholic Doctrine.
You're a fraud.
And now everyone knows it.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 3:31PM
Doctor Wrong,
You're down to just flat out lying now?
Teflon93 has posted more Scripture to prove his points than anyone else on these threads.
When you can't argue the law, argue the facts. When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When you can't argue either, make-up your own facts!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:34PM
No, school-boy, he hasn't. Condom93 prefers to post Catholic Doctrine in order to justify Catholic Doctrine.
His methods are as transparent as glass. I've predicted practically every one of his lame responses, and shredded them accordingly.
But I must admit...He's way more qualified to debate than you are.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 3:47PM
How long have you been on crack?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:38PM
In the Lexicon Docturus Bigotus, "shredded" means "ignored, denied, ran away from."
Where's that Scriptural evidence for sola scriptura, Doctor Bigot?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:11PM
In a book called "The Bible".
You might want to try reading it.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:28PM
It's in the Bible?
Chapter and verse?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:36PM
You've answered NOTHING.
To justify Catholic Doctrine, you use...Catholic Doctrine.
You're a fraud.
And now everyone knows it.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:12PM
Where's that Scriptural evidence for sola scriptura, Doctor Bigot?
I've been waiting WEEKS.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:13PM
Where's the scriptural evidence for extra-scriptural?
Hmmmmmmmmm..????
Is that in your l'il Catee-chism??
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 6:21PM
Doctor Wrong,
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the [TRADITIONS], which you have learned, whether by [WORD] or by our epistle."
-2 Thessalonians 2:15
Why aren't you following the Scriptures, Doc?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:28PM
He says "learned"...Past tense.
Catholic traditions were formulated after this...So they were never "learned" by the people to whom Paul is speaking.
Why aren't YOU following the scriptures?
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 7:07PM
Doctor Wrong,
Catholic Traditions ARE those traditions.
What does "tense" have to do with anything, dope?
Saint Paul handed down TRADITIONS to the churches he set up. Those bishops handed down those TRADITIONS to the next generation.
You would know this, if you ever bothered to read the Early Church Fathers.
These TRADITONS were SPOKEN as well as written, as Saint Paul clearly states. That means there are TRADITIONS that we should HOLD to, that were not written down.
Get it?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:28PM
Traditions such as the Eucharist, Doctor Bigot?
1 corinthians 11:
[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
[24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
[26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
[27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
[30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
By the way, St Paul wasn't at the Last Supper.
So when and how did he receive it?
kingsmill| 4.26.10 @ 2:54PM
Dr Anti-Catholic's entire bag of cliches is culled from the Jack T. Chick line of anti-Catholic comic books.
Doctor Wrong wouldn't even have a Bible to selectively quote unless the Roman Catholic Church hadn't decided what were the canonical books at the Council of Carthage by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in 397AD.
Without the RC Church the Doctor would be slamming his perceived enemies using the heretical Gnostic Gospels. How ironic.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:09PM
Let me see if your (lack of) logic holds up:
Paul wrote "Romans".
But if the Catholic Church hadn't decided that "Romans" was "canon", then Paul would NOT have written "Romans"..??? "Romans" would NOT have existed..??
Yeah...That makes sense.
I LOVE how Catholics try and give themselves credit for things that had absolutely NOTHING to do with them, and hope that no one notices.
OK...Now onto your other idiotic statement.
You think that without the "RC Church", we'd all be reading the Gnostic gospels?
That without Catholic wisdom (from the same guys who like to fondle little boys) that we wouldn't be able to recognize falsehoods..??
Now that's interesting...And wholly stupid.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 3:27PM
Doctor Wrong,
You sure like to write about fondling little boys, don't you?
I'm starting to think "thou dost protest too much!" You're projecting, aren't you?
How long have you been a pervert, Doc?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:29PM
Nick...Ya' got me! I'm actually a Catholic Priest!
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 3:33PM
You're too stupid to be a Catholic priest!
But, you could easily be a publik skool teacher.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 3:35PM
My momma always told me that stupid is as stupid does.
Then again, she also said life is like a box a' chocolates. I still don't get that one...
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 3:49PM
Are you Forrest Gore?
"Mama always said life was like a lock box."
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 4:10PM
No. I do not worship trees.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 4:12PM
No, if you're diddling little boys, you're worshiping Satan.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:07PM
I know...That's why the catholic Church is rotten to the core.
Some of their clergy are sick, degenerate perverts.
Some of their clergy are covering-up - repeatedly - for the sick, degenerate perverts.
And the hierarchy - at the HIGHEST levels - has been involved in the cover-ups.
If you cover for one...Just one sick freak of a Priest - then you are as guilty as he is. Maybe someone should tell that to Mr. Ratzinger?
There are a LOT of Popes in hell.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 6:26PM
Who's covering for you, Doc?
Do they also deserve to go to hell?
You have the authority to decide what is right and wrong, and also proclaim who is in hell?
There is only one person who can delude someone that bad.
Could.....it......be.........SATAN!
(does the Church Lady dance)
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:38PM
I'm sorry, but...WHAT?!?!?
I claim no particular "authority" vis-a-vis right and wrong, but that doesn't mean that I don't know the difference between right and wrong! That's idiotic.
Let's play a game: You tell me if it's right, or wrong!
1. Rape.
2. Helping an old lady cross the street safely.
Now, regarding # 1...If the rapist-in-question is unrepentant, does he go to heaven, or hell?
See? It's easy. You're NOT "proclaiming" anything. You're exercising common sense.
Hope that helps!
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 7:00PM
Doctor Wrong,
You PROCLAIMED which interpretation of Scripture was "right" and which one was "wrong." Did you forget already?
You then PROCLAIMED that "a LOT of Popes [are] in hell." How would you know if they were unrepentant or not?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:13PM
What sticks in your craw, Doctor Bigot, is that St Paul's praise of the church at Rome undermines your "whore of Babylon" calumny.
How could he praise THEM? Of all people?
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 4:33PM
Teflon93,
The other thing sticking in his craw, is that Doc spent the entire weekend studying every anti-Catholic website and book he could find, only to be decimated yet again!
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:39PM
He's got the impossible job, Nick.
Ours is very simple.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:10PM
I think you've confused "simple" with "simpleton".
The two of you are perfect little Catholic doofuses. You know NOTHING other than what was drummed into you in CCD.
You intellectually vapid and utterly incurious...And I've cleaned your clocks repeatedly.
But your little circle-jerk admiration society is amusing...Is that something Father Flanagan taught you? The circle-jerk..?
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 6:43PM
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz! WRONG!
I was raised in the Catholic Church of the '70s (born in '67), when the "spirit" of Vatican II was doing its damage.
I was taught very few of the Church's doctrines, or WHY She taught them.
By the time I was in my early twenties, I was barely a Catholic. No, I take that back, I wasn't a Catholic. I picked which teachings to believe and barely attended Mass. I was my own pope.
Thanks to the prayers of my family, especially my parents, I slowly came back to Mother Church. I had a lot of learning to do.
I basically started with humbly submitting to the Magisterium, even if I disagreed at the time. It was revealed to me that if Christ went through what He did to set up His Church, He would have made sure that all generations could trust that His teachings were preserved.
I pray and hope you come back home someday, Doc. I truly do. Christ will welcome you back with open arms.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:23PM
Sorry, Doctor Bigot---I didn't attend CCD.
Please keep up the "Father Flanagan" series and your twisted little fantasies. It ensures that any Christian inclined to give any little credence to your utterances abandons such inclination.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:25PM
Actually, I didn't...Prepare, I mean. I could do this in my sleep
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:24PM
All right, then, where's that chapter-and-verse proclaiming sola scriptura?
Since you maintain you do only what Scripture says, Doctor Bigot, the command to do so must surely come from Scripture itself.
Chapter-and-verse.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:25PM
Actually, I didn't...Prepare, I mean. I could do this in my sleep
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:04PM
Of course Paul praised the Lord's Church...Why wouldn't he?
And why would that bother me? Especially since this has NOTHING to do with the apostate Catholic Church...Which Paul never belonged too, anyway.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 6:55PM
Doctor Wrong,
Still waiting to find out EXACTLY when this apostacy happened. Dates please.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:44PM
Really, Doctor Bigot?
Ok, I'll bite:
Since the Catholic Church was founded at Pentecost in 33 A.D., and St Paul's apostolate coincided with this, and all of these communities St Paul planted---including the See of Rome which you despise so much---were part of the Catholic Church (many now among the Orthodox in the East), kindly do explain to us what Church St Paul was part of only to have the Catholic Church sweep in at some undetermined point and triumph over the man we still revere as a saint among saints?
Oh, and for this one, we'll need to see the documentary evidence from the Early Church Fathers.
Since they were there and apparently unaware of such a development.
kingsmill| 4.26.10 @ 6:52PM
You're as dumb as dirt.
You'd be crawling around on all fours (oh sorry you're still doing that) unless the monks of the Middle Ages had preserved the patrimony of Christianity and spread it to whatever hole you and yours crawled out of.
Thank God they did, I like a good laugh at buffoonery.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 4:08PM
"Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Jn 3:3.
"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38.
Get born anew yet? And then baptized? No Religion required. No pride allowed. Humbleness required.
Catholic Robot| 4.26.10 @ 4:11PM
Baptized?-We-teach-sprinkling. [buzz-clik]
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 5:35PM
Yes, I know. But this verse proves that baptism was meant for adults, as Peter is admonishing the adults. Proving that it is a conscious decision, to be done after one repents.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:01PM
"Baptism" is also supposed to be a full immersion in water.
The word Baptism comes from the Greek word "baptizo", which means "immersion".
Catholics have somehow overlooked this fact, as well as the fact that there is NO example in scripture of infant Baptism.
Infant Baptism is neither scriptural, nor is it justified.
If you die as an adult who was sprinkled as an infant, then you have NOT been Baptized.
Catholics twist themselves into metaphotical knots on this one...But they never have an answer.
I'll stick to what scripture says, not Father Flanagan, the drunken pervert.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:20PM
Where precisely in Scripture does it say "if you die as an adult who was sprinkled as an infant, then you have NOT been baptized."?
Chapter and verse please---we don't need your manmade tradition here.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 8:00PM
Must I ALWAYS explain the obvious?
If someone gives you a hamburger, do you insist on calling it a hot-dog?
Once more, with feeling:
1. In the Bible, all who are Baptized are adults.
2. In the Bible, they all make the choice to be baptized.
3. In the Bible, when people are baptized, it is through IMMERSION into water.
Now follow this. 'cuz it's simple logic (admittedly not your strongest thing...):
1. Catholics baptize infants, which is not justified by scripture. Babies are innocent; they are not cursed by "original sin", which is made-up Catholic crapola.
2. Catolics do NOT immerse; they sprinkle.
So...Keep following along now:
If you die as an adult who was sprinkled as an infant, you HAVE NOT been baptized. Period.
It doesn't have to say that in so many words; it's OBVIOUS...Except, of course, to you.
Now: Scriptural justificaton for infant Baptism!
GO!
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 8:07PM
1. Wrong---we are not told everyone who was baptized was an adult. Provide chapter and verse. Include the entire household St Paul baptized---names and ages. Scripture ONLY, Doctor Bigot.
2. Baptism is through water. Provide chapter and verse---Scripture ONLY---dictating baptism must be done through full immersion in water only.
Then provide chapter and verse--Scripture only---for your statement "If you die as an adult who was sprinkled as an indant, you HAVE NOT been baptized. Period."
Chapter and verse, Doctor Bigot.
Where is it?
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 11:30AM
EVERY instance of Baptism in the New Testament is of an adult, in water - EVERY ONE.
You want Chapter and Verse? Fine: THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Your trick is to ask people to prove a negative; it's tired and pathetic. You know you've lost the argument.
Let's play your game: Cite the Chapter and Verse that DISPROVES the fact that the Catholic Church is NOT apostate!
Go on, genius! Let's see it!
Oh? Can't find it? Welll that proves it! The Catholic Church is apostate!!
You really are a dope...
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 12:24PM
Doctor Wrong,
"EVERY instance of Baptism in the New Testament is of an adult, in water - EVERY ONE. "
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz! WRONG!
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say who was baptized and who wasn't. Teflon93 has shown this to you numerous times.
It does say that whole households were baptized. It is statistically improbable that these households had no children.
And Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize the "whole world", not the "whole world, except children."
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 2:03PM
"Nowhere in the New Testament does it say who was baptized and who wasn't."
WHAT???????????
I'm sorry, but you are utterly ignorant of scripture.
The most obvious example that comes to mind is that of the Ethiopian Eunuch who, upon receiving the Good News, asked to be baptized immediately. He was immersed. He was an adult.
Children, especially infants, DON'T NEED to be baptized, because they are innocent,. despite the absurd, man-made Catholic concept of "original sin".
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 2:59PM
Doctor Wrong,
Oops! My mistake. I meant to write, "Nowhere in the New Testament does it say HOW OLD the baptized were required to be."
"The most obvious example that comes to mind [...]."
Comes to mind? Ha-ha! It only "comes to mind" because Teflon93 brought it up.
There is no formula in the Scriptures for how baptisms were to be performed, except "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit"; nor how old someone was to be. There is no prohibition against baptizing infants and children.
Again, pope Bigot is PROCLAIMING that children "DON'T NEED to be baptized." Where is that in Scripture, Doc? Does full immersion have special magical powers that pouring water over the head doesn't? Are you making these proclamations "ex cathedra?"
Infant baptism is another one of those TRADITIONS handed down by MOUTH in the early Church. Everything was not written down, like the doctrine of the Trinitarian nature of God.
What does the Bible say about embryonic stem cell research, Doc? How about invitro-fertilization?
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 2:03PM
"Nowhere in the New Testament does it say who was baptized and who wasn't."
WHAT???????????
I'm sorry, but you are utterly ignorant of scripture.
The most obvious example that comes to mind is that of the Ethiopian Eunuch who, upon receiving the Good News, asked to be baptized immediately. He was immersed. He was an adult.
Children, especially infants, DON'T NEED to be baptized, because they are innocent,. despite the absurd, man-made Catholic concept of "original sin".
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 11:32AM
Where precisely in Scripture does it say "that sprinkling of infants is acceptable as Baptism??
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???
C'mon, tough guy!
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 12:26PM
Where in Scripture does it prohibit infant baptism, Doc?
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 1:59PM
Since you're none too bright, I'll explain it again:
There are NO examples of infant Baptism in scripture.
Therefore, to claim it's okey-dokey, as Catholics do, is nonsensical.
If it's in scripture, it's there for a reason. The contrary is also true.
If you believe in the validity of infant baptism, you have NO scriptural justification to do so.
It's fascinating how Satan infiltrated and destroyed the Catholic Church by making its follwers believe the opposite of truth. He's convinced you all that you don't need to be Baptised by immersion as adults...Despite the examples from scripture. As a result, you have NOT been Baptized per scripture, and you have NOT been forgiven for your sins.
Your soul is thus in jeopardy.
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 3:04PM
Doctor Wrong,
"If it's in scripture, it's there for a reason. The contrary is also true."
Bzzzzzzzzzzzz! WRONG!
More circular reasoning.
What does Scripture say about abortion? Is it right, or wrong, to have one?
What about invitro-fertilization? Or embryonic stem-cell research?
Every moral question is NOT in Scripture, Doc.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 12:35PM
Doctor Bigot, you have yet to produce Scripture to back up your spurious claim that "if you were sprinkled as a baby you were not baptized PERIOD."
Chapter and verse.
On a related note, I'm still waiting for you to provide the chapter and verse for where Christ took away the binding-and-loosing authority given St Peter in Matthew 16:19.
Where is it?
Unless you can produce it, you'll have to admit it was not taken away.
Then we can get onto what binding and loosing authority means.
Oh, by the way, I provided a lot of infant baptism links above. It was practiced from the earliest times in the Church, and St Augustine notes it is apostolic in origin.
Let's see, Doctor Bigot or St Augustine, who to believe....?
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 1:36PM
That's right, Dr. Right. Jesus Himself was fully immersed in water when He was baptized. And did He not say we ought to follow in His example?
Yet the Catholics teach otherwise.
Also~ The Bible tells us to "Repent, and be baptized.." How can a child repent? No, they cannot. It is obviously referring to the adults. Repent! And be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!" Acts 2:38.
Yet they persist in a false teaching.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:12AM
He was baptized in the River Jordan.
Were you?
If not, why not?
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:53PM
You keep missing the verses around what you quote, Margie---no Bible Bingo, please:
[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
"And to your children."
We also see St Paul baptizing an entire household.
Households in those days consisted of lots of children, you know.
Moreover, who was it that said,"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Does this sound like a man who wanted to see children damned? After all, childhood mortality rates were unbelievably high in the 1st century....
But if you have the chapter and verse where Christ commands, "Do not baptize children", by all means provide it.
Meanwhile, perhaps you can tell me, Margie, when Christ revoked the binding and loosing authority given to St Peter and the apostles.
Since that would also have to have been taken away for the Church to lack the authority to go and baptize all nations---which included lots of kids.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 8:04PM
Since you might be as ignorant of the Early Church Fathers as Doctor Bigot, Margie, I'd better provide some evidence from them:
Origen: "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]).
St Augustine: "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
Of course, the Council of Carthage in the third century opposed waiting even 8 days after birth to baptize newborns.
If only they'd known 1,300 years later infant baptism would make certain men uncomfortable....
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 4:42PM
I'm sorry, I missed the Scriptural reference which says "no religion required."
But then, you missed all the stuff about judgment in Matthew 25, the Eucharist in John 6, etc.
Read those and get back to me.
You like to play Bible Bingo, Margie, but you must account for ALL of Scripture, not just the bits you like.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 5:15PM
So when are you going to quit the lying and get born anew? When are you going to quit the hatred towards your fellow Christians and do God's will?
"You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal Life; and it is they that bear witness to Me.." Jn. 5:39.
Have you humbled yourself yet and done Romans 10:8-13? If not, why not? And when will you?
"But what does it say? The Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach) because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The Scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows His riches upon all who call upon Him. For, "every one who calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved."
See that? He bestows His riches upon ALL that call upon Him. Have you? If you haven't~ you have no place accusing anyone of not being a Christian, no less a bigot!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 5:57PM
Margie,
Don't waste you time throwing your pearls at swine; let me do that. I enjoy it.
teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:17PM
Sorry, Margie, but Scripture says a lot more than you think it does. And ALL of it matters.
We must reject sin, not just for one altar call, but always:
Romans 6:
[1] What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
[2] God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
[6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
[7] For he that is dead is freed from sin.
[8] Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
[9] Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
[10] For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
[11] Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
[12] Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
[13] Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
[14] For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
[15] What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
[16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
[17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
[18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
[19] I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
[20] For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
[21] What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
[22] But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
We must fight the good fight per Ephesians 6:
11] Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
[12] For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
[13] Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
[14] Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
[15] And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
[16] Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
[17] And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
We must be born of the water and spirit through baptism, per John 3:5:
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(Note that in the Greek this is ONE birth, not two; the KJV translation can mislead in this regard).
We must receive the gift of sanctifying grace per Galatians 3:27:
[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
We must be adopted by the Father per Romans 8:
15] For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
[16] The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
[17] And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
(Which is why from the earliest days the Church has taught baptismal regeneration. )
Indeed, as that ubiquitous St Peter remarks in Acts 22:
[16] And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
It is a real washing, not a mere symbol, as those embarrassed by it maintain---St Peter notes the parallel between the saving waters of baptism and the damning waters of the Flood in 1 Peter 3:
[16] And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
St Paul was baptized in Acts 9:
18] And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Some try to downplay water baptism and twist this verse instead to some sort of invisible baptism; unfortunately for them St Paul makes no mention of any such thing in Romans 6 or Colossians 2 when reminding his audience of their own baptisms by water. The practice of the early Church being water baptism, history and tradition avail this interpretation naught.
This is how we are born anew.
But to be saved, we must persevere until the end, for we will be judged.
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 9:59PM
Now I KNOW you are a complete and utter fraud! I have my Greek Bible right here. John 3:5 says "Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, if not one is generated of water and of Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God."
You lie!
This verse shows that there is a water birth (flesh) and a Spirit birth.
I always choose God's own words, spoken by the Holy Spirit (.."because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Pe. 1:21.) -Than by what a haughty liar has to say!
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 8:34AM
The Greek is "water-and-spirit", not "of water and of spirit."
"ex udatov kai pneumatov"
"of water and spirit"
Not two births, but one.
http://net.bible.org/verse.php.....mp;verse=5
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 9:08AM
But don't take my word for it---how about the Early Church Fathers, who after all spoke the Greek of Scripture fluently and had direct apostolic tradition to call upon in clarifying such things?
Gregory of Nazianzus (late 4th century) - "We are a compound of both body and soul. The one part is visible, the other invisible. In the same way, our cleansing also is twofold, that is, by water and the Spirit. The one is received visibly in the body, the other concurs with it invisibly and apart from the body.... [On Holy Baptism, Oration 40.8]
Theodore of Mopsuestia (late 4th century) - "Since Nicodemus had asked, 'Can one enter again into the mother's womb and be born?' our Lord explained that this occurs through both water and Spirit. He said water because the action takes place in water, Spirit because the Spirit exercises his power through the water. This is called the Spirit of adoption, not water, because we receive new birth through his power." [Commentary on John 2.3.4-5]
Justin Martyr (2nd century) - "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true...[these] are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our savior Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "No one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born again."" [First Apology 61]
John Chrysostom (4th century) - "Why then is water needed?....In baptism, the pledges of our covenant with God are fulfilled: burial and death, resurrection and life. And these all take place at once." [Homilies on the Gospel of John 25.2]
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 10:12AM
And since Margie continues her very uncharitable ways by calling me a liar twice above, I would like the name of her Greek Bible and the confirmation that hers reads:
"ex udatov kai ex pneumatov"
"of water and of Spirit"
As she claims it does above.
Provide the reference, Margie---we can look it up ourselves.
Margie| 4.27.10 @ 1:08PM
Anyone can look it up online, genius. And you are a liar and a fraud!
The name of my Bible isn't the issue but it is the best you could probably find. You would walk all over it with your despicable filthy attitude, but for anyone who is truly interested, it is called The Interlinear Bible~ Hebrew English Greek. Coded with Strong's Concordance Numbers. J.P. Green, Sr. Sovereign Grace Publishers.
How a supposed person who claims to be SO knowledgeable and high and mighty above the rest of us could possibly NOT know that John 3:5 says "born of water and the Spirit" and then tries to make me out to be the fraud is absolutely mind baffling. But you have proven what a fraud you are!
No wonder you lurk here and seem to thrive on bashing everyone that comes near you~especially other Christians, but even your Catholic friends you were weird towards.
You don't fool me nor any real Christians who can see you for what you are!
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 1:28PM
Margie, congratulations on another information-free ad hominem!
You have at least admitted backhandedly that "of water and of Spirit" is a poor translation. You have yet to acknowledge the teaching of the Greek Fathers that baptism of water and Spirit is concurrent---they are not separate events.
Margie| 4.27.10 @ 1:36PM
You sir, are a liar! And you falsify the Bible.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 2:18PM
I quote Scripture.
You just don't like the fact that there's more to it than the handful of verses you've read.
Margie| 4.27.10 @ 1:46PM
And you "congratulate" people for ad hominems? You rejoice? Why would you do that?
"Love...it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right." 1 Cor. 13:6.
If you were a real Christian, you would not rejoice if I were in the wrong. You are a sick man.
And when someone lies outright, to call them on it is not an "ad hominem attack." It is taking a stand for the Faith I have in Christ.
You want to twist the Bible to suit yourself, but you are wrong, and you need to repent of it. You use the words of the "early fathers" but you ignore Christ's own words?
I seriously would not want to be in your shoes!
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 2:22PM
I haven't congratulated anyone for ad hominems. In fact I chastized Tim for his---unlike your admiration for Doctor Bigot's various disgusting slanders.
Far from ignoring Christ's own words---which you do with your false interpretation of John 6, noted now many times---I quote them.
You have also kicked the saints of the Church to the side for your own interpretation!
Margie, you really need to stop proclaiming yourself an apostle---listen to those who down the centuries have been eminently faithful to the Church Christ founded, to whom he gave the keys to heaven and binding and loosing authority!
Or keep on with the ad hominems while hypocritically maintaining you abhor them. It's transparent; my goodness, do you really think yourself a saint? You need to read of their lives and understand what being a TRUE Christian means!
Margie| 4.27.10 @ 3:33PM
For anyone who has an honest mind about them, and is one of His, they can see who is the liar here.
His sheep hear His voice, and He knows His own. Jn. 10.
You have no say in the matter.
Margie| 4.27.10 @ 1:33PM
You just added the "Not two births but one." THAT is not in there! Do you know what God says about adding to His words?
Outrageous!
This is because you are a false teacher. I will stand by Christ's words, not yours!
The Bible~ Jesus Himself tells of the New Birth~being born of the Spirit, and that the water birth, as you can see for yourselves in the verses below, is referring to our physical birth. And He tells us we all must also be regenerated from above, by His Spirit.
From the Greek~
"Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, if one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God."
Nicodemus said to Him, "How is a man able to be generated, being old? Not he is able to enter into his Mother's womb a second time and be generated?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly I say to you, if not one is generated of water and of Spirit, he is not able to enter into the Kingdom of God."
"That having been generated out of the flesh is flesh, and that having been generated out of the Spirit is Spirit."
"Do not wonder because I said to you, you must be generated from above."
"The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you do hear His voice; but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone who has been generated from the Spirit."
"Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How these things are able to occur?"
"Jesus answered and said to him, are you the teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things?"
"Truly, truly, that which we know, we speak; and that which we have seen we testify. And you do not receive our testimony."
"If I told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you Heavenly things?"
~John 3:3-12.
It sounds to me like you are a Nicodemus, and still in the dark.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 2:25PM
Knowing that there are many dishonest "born again" types such as yourself, Margie, I simply pointed out that you cannot read John 3:5 and claim that the rebirth of the water and the spirit happen at different times---a necessary component for the false doctrine you espouse, one not found in the early Church (which is why I provided evidence from the Early Church Fathers). They spoke Greek fluently, Margie, and they were steeped in the history and apostolic tradition of the Church. They know better than you do!
Margie| 4.27.10 @ 3:30PM
You are a liar! Christ's own words, which I posted, explain CLEARLY and PERFECTLY that there is a water birth (the flesh) and a Spiritual regeneration that must take place in order to enter Heaven. You are blatantly misrepresenting the Bible. You are perverted. And yet you call me "dishonest!"
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 2:56PM
You have forgotten what was posted above---did you bother to read it, Margie?
Theodore of Mopsuestia (late 4th century) - "Since Nicodemus had asked, 'Can one enter again into the mother's womb and be born?' our Lord explained that this occurs through both water and Spirit. He said water because the action takes place in water, Spirit because the Spirit exercises his power through the water. This is called the Spirit of adoption, not water, because we receive new birth through his power." [Commentary on John 2.3.4-5]
Notice it is through both water and spirit---the renewal happens concurrently. At baptism.
We are born of our mothers. We are reborn of the Father---adopted by him through the act of baptism.
This---in addition to Christ's warning not to hinder the children in coming to him---is why the early Church practiced infant baptism from Pentecost on. Indeed, it is why they denounced as heresy in the 3rd century the notion that one should wait as few as 8 days to baptize.
Given the terrible infant mortality rate through most of human history, we can understand the wisdom in this.
The Reformers, exalting nothing so much as their own opinions (although contrary to one another in so many things), decided to ignore Scripture and tradition and replaced baptism with confirmation. They did so because they could not undo their own baptisms.
In the Church, baptism normally happens in infancy---we are adopted by God, born anew as God's children---confirmation occurs later. We of course still have some adults who get baptized---they were not baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as infants.
Baptism is a one-time deal. There's no Scripture for repeat baptisms.
Margie| 4.27.10 @ 3:27PM
False teaching, and you persist in it. You are NOT quoting the Bible, but "early fathers," and even that you twist and add to to suit your own desires.
I will go by Christ's OWN words. You refuse to do so at your own peril.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 4:22PM
But you don't listen to Christ's own words, Margie---you ignore the bread of life discourse, you ignore the foundation of the Church, and you ignore the binding and loosing authority given it.
That binding and loosing authority, by the way, is why we should look to the Early Church Fathers.
You and Doctor Bigot claim to follow apostolic tradition, and yet espouse beliefs not seen before the Reformation.
I understand why you despise the Early Church Fathers---they rebuke you---but as for me, I follow Christ and honor those whom Christ has appointed, for:
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
You seem to believe that the gates of hell DID prevail---that between Pentecost and the advent of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or whichever schismatic you embrace the Bride of Christ disappeared.
She did not.
Founded at Pentecost and still thriving today---the Catholic Church.
Accept no substitutes.
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 2:02PM
JESUS is LORD! Accept no false teachings!
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:15AM
Yes, as Matthew 16:19 says:
[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Note that Christ wasn't giving this authority to anyone reading Scripture (the New Testament not having been written), but to St Peter and later to the Apostles as a group.
This is once again why apostolic succession is important.
And why your community's lack of apostolic succession leaves no doubt as to the falsehood of your teachings.
Christ didn't give you the authority---as I have asked repeatedly, and you have repeatedly ignored, nowhere in Scripture does he take that authority away from those to whom he gave it.
But you ignore Scripture.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:34PM
"...but you must account for ALL of Scripture, not just the bits you like. "
BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!!
Comin from a staunch Catholic, that's FUNNY!!
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 7:18PM
Looks like you've got a LOT more reading to do, Doctor Bigot!
By the way, have you found where Scripture proclaims sola scriptura yet?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:54PM
Condom93:
Have you found where scripture justifies "extra-scriptura", yet???
You know...Fake, made-up stuff like...Well, like practically everything that Catholics do?
Hmmmmmm..????
I asked you for that a while ago, you pathetic apologist for child-molestation.
I'm still waiting.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 8:14PM
Ah, so Doctor Bigot DOES indeed hold to a manmade, extra Scriptural tradition---"sola scriptura". It appears nowhere before 1520.
For good reason.
It didn't exist.
Indeed, as we have seen, it couldn't have.
The New Testament wasn't composed until the late 1st century, well after Pentecost. Moreover, it wasn't compiled until late 4th century.
Had Christ intended for Scripture to be the sole guide, he left nearly 4 centuries' worth of Christians high and dry.
Even worse, the lack of a printing press until lovely Catholic Johannes Gutenberg invented one meant that Bibles were rare and expensive items.
And who could read it, given the terrible illiteracy rates?
Sola scriptura didn't exist until the 16th century because it couldn't exist---too few could read, too few could get ahold of an actual copy of the Bible for it too.
Which is why Christ founded his Church and didn't write a book.
Thank you, Doctor Bigot, for once again proving the Church's teaching correct.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 8:22PM
And notice how Doctor Bigot lied above:
Teflon93: Where's that Scriptural evidence for sola scriptura, Doctor Bigot?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 6:11PM
In a book called "The Bible".
But now he's admitted it ISN'T in the Bible.
Just another lie from Doctor Bigot.
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 8:56PM
Teflon93,
"And who could read it, given the terrible illiteracy rates?"
This is they key for me.
To reject the Catholic Church, one has to believe that Christ didn't want 95-99% of Christians to know His Truth for over 1800 years. Until schooling became more widespread.
This, on top of letting Satan take over His Church, but at the same time preserving certain writtings, while letting others be lost.
Just doesn't make sense to me.
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 1:54PM
Christ has ALWAYS wanted His people to know the truth.
Why has the Catholic Church stood in the way??
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 10:49AM
You're truly a moron.
We've had this argument before; I explained it perfectly, but your brain can't accept the truth since it wasn't taught to you by a pervert priest.
There is NO justification for believing any man-made doctrine "Christian" doctrine that's not in the Bible. In fact, the Bible is QUITE clear on this.
Therefore, anyone with a brain who is a Christian understands that we are guided ONLY by scripture.
You like to play little games and pretend you're clever. You're not. You're a moron. You're a pathetic apologists for child molestation. You're a PERFECT Catholic drone.
You're utterly unable to debate on facts. You MUST resort to sad little tricks, and then celebrate your genius with the other members of your Mutual Masturbation Society (Nick, Stuart, etc).
ONLY scripture has ALWAYS existed. Period.
Christ NEVER left anyone "high and dry" for 4 centuries; SCRIPTURE was enough (and now you'll play little games about "The Canon", etc...The books of the New Testament were not a secret, so stop pretending they were until some pervert Priest and his budds decided they were "canon").
I've asked you before, and I'll ask again:
Provide scriptural justification for extra-scriptural doctrines.
Do it, smart-ass! Let's see your brilliance on full dispaly.
(HINT: You can't! And you KNOW IT! That's why you always duck the question, coward!)
BTW...If the Catholic Church in the middle ages was SO Holy, and cared so much about the flock, why were there such terrible illiteracy rates? Why didn't they teach people to read??
ANSWER: They wanted people illiterate! They DID NOT want them to read the Bible for themselves, lest they have independent thoughts. Anyone with a brain who thoroughly reads the Bible realizes that Catholicism is a lie.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 11:40AM
Your ignorance of history continues to astound. Perhaps you might learn some and make less a full of yourself, Doctor Bigot. Start by looking up Johannes Gutenberg----including his religion.
I just want to dispense with the most laughable portion of the above---"Scripture has ALWAYS existed".
Okay. I would like to see a citation to the Gospel of John from, oh, 323 B.C. Provide it, please.
While you're at it, I want to see a citation from Genesis from 7847 B.C.
But you may want to do your historical research first.
Especially with regard to when writing was invented.
You are God's gift to the Catholic Church, Doctor Bigot!
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 11:54AM
I'll also take away Doctor Bigot's toys.
St Paul in 1 Cor 11:
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
The New Testament having not been written or compiled, what precisely did St Paul deliver?
Oral tradition.
Luke 1:
[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Theophilus had already been instructed; the purpose of Luke's Gospel was merely to set down in writing what Theophilus had already been taught through oral tradition.
Since writing is merely the written record of an oral tradition, and a partial one at that.
John 21:
[25] And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Note that John isn't saying that all had been written, nor that all would have been written, encompassing the oral tradition received by the Apostles, but that the world itself would not contain them if they were. Since the New Testament is only a couple of dozen books, it clearly cannot contain everything.
Which is why Christ founded a Church---he didn't write a book.
The only Scriptural evidence of Christ writing is the account of the adultress, and there he drew with a stick. We are not told what he wrote if anything.
1 Thessalonians 3:
[9] For what thanks can we render to God again for you, for all the joy wherewith we joy for your sakes before our God;
[10] Night and day praying exceedingly that we might see your face, and might perfect that which is lacking in your faith?
Why did St Paul simply not include it in his epistle?
If the written word were sufficient, why was it necessary for him to undertake a hazardous journey to "perfect your faith"?
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 12:31PM
Let's hear from the Early Church Fathers, closer to Christ's time by far than we are, and fluent in Greek to boot:
Gregory of Nyssa (4th century): "But it may be that the Evangelist means this in his profound wisdom: that we are to learn the majesty of the Son of God not by the miracles alone that he did in the flesh. For these are little compared with the greatness of his other work....For since God has made all things in wisdom and to his wisdom there is no limit...the world that is bounded by limits of its own cannot contain within itself the account of infinited wisdom." [Answer to Eunomius' Second Book]
God's too big for a book.
Cyril of Alexandria (5th century) - "Very great, then, says the apostle, will be the number of the miracles that God has done, and altogether without number will be the list of his deeds be seen to be. And out of many thousands have these that are recorded been taken, as not being inadequate to profit to the uttermost those who read them. And let no one who is of teachable spirit and loves instruction, John implies, blame the one who wrote this book because he has not recorded the rest. For it "the things" that he did "had been written"--every one, without any omission--then such an immeasurable number of the books would have filled the world...For it is open to everyone to observe that a thousand miracles were performed by the power of our Savior. The preachers of the Gospel, however, have recorded the more remarkable of them, in all probability. They recorded what could best be confirmed by their hearers in incorruptible faith and those that would provide instruction in morality and doctrine. They did this so that, conspicuous for the orthodoxy of their faith and glorified by many works that result in righteousness, they might meet at the very gates of the city above. And, being joined to the church of the firstborn in the faith, they might at length attain to the kingdom of heaven in Christ. [Commentary on the Gospel of John, 12.1]
Ahh, the importance of being joined to that church of the firstborn in the faith!
No, Scripture does not and could not record everything. The living experience of the apostles, the tradition of the Church, the daily encounter with Christ we have, the sacraments---Christianity is so much more than reading the account of the birth of the Church.
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 1:49PM
You're an ass, and everyone can see it (probably your wife, too).
I NEVER said "scripture has always existed".
You're purposefully misquoting me.
You have NOTHING to contribute but Catholic propaganda.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 2:13PM
"Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 10:49AM
ONLY scripture has ALWAYS existed. Period. "
Yes, you did say it. Indeed, you gave it its own little paragraph for emphasis.
But you have a tendency to say things and when called on the carpet deny you said them. When anybody need only scroll up to see them.
Not very bright, Doctor Bigot.
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 3:10PM
Teflon93,
I think the good Doctor is suffering from alzheimers.
Just another reason why he needs our prayers. I am really starting to pity him.
God Bless!
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 3:17PM
He's got them---I'll be praying for him again at Mass on Sunday.
I am also heartened in a way---invincible ignorance may well protect him; we always must be concerned when a brother rejects the truth he inherited to strike out, prodigal-like, on his own. I don't think he understands the Church well enough to know what he rejected.
This is why continual reform of catechesis within the Church is required----after all, the Truth the Church stewards is the birthright of all of us, as our the sacraments instituted by Christ to light the narrow way.
I am a late convert myself---for that reason, and for the reason that his parents are faithful Catholics, I am hopeful the prodigal shall eventually return.
We'll keep a light on.
God bless you, Nick!
Nick| 4.26.10 @ 5:46PM
Doctor Wrong,
Just in case you missed this rebuttal, from above, I'll re-post it:
"But God doesn't wait for Catholic Dogma to become official before he acts.
The tripartite nature of God-Christ-Holy Spirit existed long before the Catholic Church decided to address it."
No kidding, really?
God is eternal, therefore He also existed before Scripture.
God's Truths have been REVEALED. Over many centuries. And after Christ's Ascension, His Truths were still being revealed. As Pentecost clearly shows. All revelation ended with the Apostles.
The doctrine of the Trinity was simply explaining a revealed truth. It happened after the Apostles.
So, yes, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, EXISTED, before the Catholic Church codified the Trinity in language the average person could understand. (That, apparently, leaves you out, Doc.)
But, you will not find the Trinity clearly stated in Genesis, Joshua, Kings, or the Psalms. Only alluded to. Does this also DESTROY the "example" of Scripture, Doc?
The doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Scriptures, Doc. Why do you believe in it?
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 5:55PM
You're as dense as as friggin' 2x4, and about half as bright.
Your post completely validated EXACTLY what I've been saying...But you're so hung-up on the word "Trinity" that you can't even see it.
However...Again...1 John 5:7.
Read it. Learn it.
Now thank me very much!
Bellarmine| 4.26.10 @ 7:07PM
Doctor Antichrist , you must yearn for the good ol' days of 1924 when your brethren Anti-Catholics swarmed into South Bend, Ind to teach them apostates at Notre Dame a thing or two or about the Bible.
Fortunately, a can of whoop ass was opened up and your ancestors headed back to their dunghills with their tails between their legs.
You're nearly as dumb as a Paisleylite from Belfast.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:47PM
Never been to Indiana...But I do dislike Notre Dame football...Intensely.
Oh, BTW...I'm NOT a Protestant.
Bellarmine| 4.26.10 @ 8:32PM
I wasn't alluding to Protestants at ND , it was the lads in the robes I meant.
Bellarmine| 4.26.10 @ 8:32PM
I wasn't alluding to Protestants at ND , it was the lads in the robes I meant.
kingsmill| 4.26.10 @ 7:26PM
Doctor Hater:
What are you stupid? or do you just like exhibiting stupidity on blogs?
The true Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, weeded out the Gnostic and other heretical writings that morons like you would have become fanatical over.
Otherwise in your invincibly ignorant state you would not even have known that you were saved.
Get down on your knees and give a prayer of thanks to those Irish monks who preserved scripture for the likes of you.
Who do you think Luther and the other reformers based their revolt on? The Church Fathers, dolt.
Put down the snake for a minute and educate yourself.
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:50PM
Queensmill:
The TRUE Church is Christ's Church. This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
And don't be hatin' on my snake!
Doctor Right| 4.26.10 @ 7:51PM
Queensmill:
The only thing I could thank those Irish drunks for is Guinness...
kingsmill| 4.26.10 @ 8:30PM
You wouldn't know how to pour a pint of Guinness unless a Papist did it for ya...
darragh| 4.26.10 @ 9:03PM
Christ, forgive us and heal us. I believe in the Church You left us, for all its faults. I believe in and love You, who are beyond the faults and arguments of the temporal world. Forgive us all and take care of the children.
I see You and I see your afllen at Mass.
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 10:48AM
I see Doctor Wrong has run out of lies to cut-n-paste from HowToBashCatholics.com.
I've heard better arguments from Mormons. And they know how to be respectful.
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 12:46PM
Doctor Wrong wrote:
"Provide scriptural justification for extra-scriptural doctrines."
We did, yesterday. Do you have alzheimers? From above: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the [TRADITIONS], which you have learned, whether by [WORD] or by our epistle."
-2 Thessalonians 2:15
"Do it, [expletive deleted]! Let's see your brilliance on full dispaly."
You're some practioner of Christian virtues, aren't you Doc? Especially Christ's command to "love thy neighbor."
"BTW...If the Catholic Church in the middle ages was SO Holy, and cared so much about the flock, why were there such terrible illiteracy rates? Why didn't they teach people to read??"
Did I miss where Christ commanded the Church to teach all Christians to read? Because average folks back then had so much free time to send their kids to school. When they weren't trying to keep from starving to death!
Your ignorance of history, especially early Church history, is only surpassed by your inability to argue cogently and logically.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 12:57PM
Don't worry, Nick---Margie will condemn Doctor Bigot's terrible lack of civility and charity.
Any moment now.
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 1:21PM
Teflon93,
"Doctor Bigot, you have yet to produce Scripture to back up your spurious claim that 'if you were sprinkled as a baby you were not baptized PERIOD.'"
He doesn't have to provide ANY evidence, at all.
He is Doctor "pope" Bigot, Grand Arbiter (or is it Grand Kleagle?) Of Who Is And Is Not A Christian. He has the Truth of Christianity because he has a BRAIN!
Christianity is merely an intellectual exercise. It has nothing to with the heart or soul. Pope Bigot has yet to mention prayer when trying to discern what the Holy Spirit is trying say in Scripture.
No, Doc appeals to non-Catholic "scholars" with whom he already agrees to tell him what Scripture is saying.
Like you wrote, who should I trust? Saint Augustine, and the other Fathers/Doctors of the Church, or some ignorant, anti-Catholic bigot?
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 1:45PM
You and Condom93: Clueless and deluded by choice.
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 3:24PM
"Clueless and deluded by choice."
Okay, Doctor Kleagle.
Are you getting your sheet pressed for the weekend?
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 5:01PM
Nope.
Unlike Catholics, we don't need to wear funny robes and ridiculous hats to make ourselves feel important.
We don't engage in vein rituals, needless repetition, and pagan practices.
We don't call anyone "father" except our Father in Heaven...As we are commanded in scripture. (I love bumping into Priests out in public, and calling them "Sir"...They're always so dumbfounded to not have their knobs polished by sheep-like parishioners...)
In other words, Nicky...We follow the Bible, and you...Don't.
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 5:12PM
Who is this "we", whiteman?
You have yet to provide one scintilla of actual evidence that "the Church" referenced in Scripture is YOUR church, Doc.
When do you "eat" Christ's flesh and "drink" His blood, like He commanded in chapter 6 of the Gospel of Saint John?
Do you worship Christ and observe the Sabbath on Sunday?
Do you slaughter clean animals to sacrifice to the Lord, like He commanded in Exodus?
Do you stone transgressors of the Law, as God commanded?
You don't call your dad "father?" Oh, that's right, you have issues, I forgot.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 6:03PM
I posted in another thread a looooong list of Scriptural quotations where Christ or the apostles called someone other than God father, typically in the normal form of addressing them.
Here's just one example:
Acts 3:22 - For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
Oh, just one more:
Colossians 3:21 - Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.
Galatians 1:14 - And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers
St Paul does this a lot; one hopes Doctor Bigot doesn't consider him unChristian for calling men "father".
But St Paul was only emulating Jesus :
John 7 - [21] Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.
[22] Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
Needless to say, Doctor Bigot didn't respond to that.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 2:17PM
Note also that Doctor Bigot has no response whatsoever to the Scripture and ECF quotations provided above knocking down sola scriptura and referencing apostolic tradition.
Typical of him. He demands evidence, when provided it ignores it, then denies it was ever provided. Laughable especially in a thread where anybody can follow the chain.
What's more is that there are many more examples where those came from.
Such a small conception of the Church has Doctor Bigot.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 2:41PM
Okay, here's why Doctor Bigot and Margie are so angry:
2 Thessalonians 3:
[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Phillippians 4:
[9] Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
But what of Scripture here?
The Fathers, again:
“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
Scriptures--WITHIN the Church Christ founded.
Indeed, how could it be otherwise?
If Scripture is obvious and Scriptural doctrines clear to all, why do so many Protestants adhere to sola scriptura yet disagree fundamentally on the doctrines of salvation?
Some say baptize infants, some say only adults.
Some say you must have a Pauline "born again" experience (although St Paul was the only apostle to have so dramatic a conversion). Some say you don't.
Some say you can lose your salvation. Others say you can't.
Some say the Eucharist is required. Others say it isn't.
They all claim to be maintaining the true, obvious, purely Scriptural path. Yet they walk in many different directions.
They have failed to heed the apostles' warnings for unity and have become unmoored.
The Ethiopian was far wiser than they.
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 4:50PM
Please explain from wence comes your conviction that references in scripture to "the Church" mean "The CATHOLIC Church".
(Psssssst: They don't. That's why NOTHING you have posted is valid. NOTHING)
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 4:59PM
What are the other claimants, Doctor Bigot?
Your ignorance of history is glaringly obvious, but you do realize that the only possible contenders today for the Church Christ founded are the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, correct?
This is because we were one Church at Pentecost in 33 A.D. before the schism in the Middle Ages. Both Catholic and Orthodox trace a straight line of apostolic succession to the twelve apostles.
Your particular community cannot say the same and are therefore not in contention for the Church Christ founded at all.
But there are other reasons---not least of which is the fact that we see your doctrines in the early Church not at all.
You might recall this passage from Scripture, Matthew 16:
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
I have asked you many times for the Scriptural reference where Christ took this binding and loosing authority away, as he had to have done, if the Church was no longer to be obeyed once the canon of Scripture was settled in the late 4th century.
Chapter and verse, please.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:16AM
Still waiting, Doctor Bigot and Margie.
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 4:52PM
The sum total of Condom93's "logic" is thus:
"You say 'potat-oh', the Pope says we're supposed to say 'pot-taht-o'"
...So simply because some say that something is so, it must be so, right?
Logic, please!
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 5:02PM
So moronic, you had to post it twice, huh Doc?
Or, are you having spastic fits?
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 5:05PM
Logic, please, indeed!
Teflon93's Guide To Refuting the Lies of Doctor Bigot
1. When Doctor Bigot claims the Catholic Church teaches something, quote the Catechism as to what she actually does teach.
2. When Doctor Bigot claims that Scripture says something, request chapter and verse. When he fails to provide it, post the Scripture which refutes him.
3. When Doctor Bigot claims that apostolic origin for some late heresy, quote the Early Church Fathers refuting him.
4. When Doctor Bigot claims something from history, post the correct historical record, thereby refuting him.
It's very simple and very effective.
Thus Doctor Bigot's endless ire.
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 4:52PM
The sum total of Condom93's "logic" is thus:
"You say 'potat-oh', the Pope says we're supposed to say 'pot-taht-o'"
...So simply because some say that something is so, it must be so, right?
Logic, please!
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 4:54PM
What is MOST pathetic (and amusing) about your posts, all of them, is that you have yet to provide one scintilla of actual evidence that "the Church" referenced in scripture is "the Catholic Church".
NOTHING. You simply say it over and over again, likely trying to convince yourself as well as others.
teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 5:25PM
Ahh, but that what the Early Church Fathers show!
St Augustine (4th century----at least 1,100 years before Doctor Bigot's favorite Protestant theologian):
For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. —St. Augustine (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith.[14]
Justin Martyr (2nd century, 1st apology) -
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
And many more--38 volumes in fact.
Tertullian, from above:
"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…” Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).
Catholic proof of apostolic succession is here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
Where is yours?
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 4:02PM
Sorry, not interested in what the Catholic "Church fathers" have to say...
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:18AM
Since the Apostles were the earliest fathers, this doesn't surprise me.
But you cannot claim---as you laughably do--that your community was founded by Christ if you can't show an unbroken line back to Pentecost.
You are a very silly person, Doctor Bigot.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 4:03PM
Since Peter was NEVER a Pope, your list is invalid from the start.
And simply providing a list made by Catholics as evidence of proof of "Apostolic succession" is not a valid claim either.
Wrong again!
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:21AM
The Pope is simply a shorthand title for "Bishop of Rome".
St Peter most certainly was the 1st bishop of Rome, as Catholic and Orthodox attest.
One can look anywhere in the writings of those on said list, Doctor Bigot, and see the succession upheld. In other words, just as with a list of Roman Emperors, part of the evidence for valid succession is that they identify their predecessors.
Which your community cannot do, having been founded in 1520 at the very earliest, only 1,500 years too late for Pentecost!
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 3:01PM
Okay, I can't resist one more, since it might help Doctor Bigot understand the concept of apostolic succession which hithertofore has eluded him:
"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…” Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).
The heretics, being unable to contrive anything of the same kind, simply claim the saints of the Church SUPPRESSED the evidence!
Margie| 4.27.10 @ 3:19PM
Angry? Better watch out, God is angry too, He is angry at liars!
Once again the haughty Catholic makes himself Judge, Jury and Executioner. Here is why the Teflon Don is a fraud:
You twist the Scripture to suit your false doctrines, and do so consciously.
"I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.." Rev. 22:18.
Good luck, Mr. Teflon Don.
You also twist Christ's own words to try and nullify the regeneration of the Spirit that He tells us that without which, "you cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:3.
Lotsa luck, Mr. Teflon Don.
You also call the "Church" the "Catholic" Church only, which is a lie. Christ says that His Church is the body of believers, and they are those who belong to Him!
"For where two or three are gathered in My Name, there am I in the midst of them." Mt. 18:20.
You are a false teacher who Jesus warns us about in the Bible~
"So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'" Mt. 15:6-9.
"I am the good Shepherd; I know My own and My own know Me, and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's Hand. Jn. 10:27-29.
Now, who has the authority, but Christ! Not Mr. Teflon and not any man or organization.
"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." Gal. 6:7.
"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." 2 Pe. 2:1
I would not want to be you!
"Those who hate you will be clothed with shame, and the tent of the wicked will be no more." Job 8:22.
"Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! Lk. 6:22.
That is what you are doing to us, Mr. Teflon Don! Thank you! According to the Bible, I am therefore blessed!
"Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at His word: "Your brethren who hate you and cast you out for My Name's sake have said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy'; but it is they who shall be put to shame." Is.66:5
Let the Lord be glorified!
Amen.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 4:04PM
Yes, no one had better add one word to Revelation.
Especially inserting 1,000 years between words in one sentence, as the dispensationalists are wont to do!
Remember also Christ's admonition, Margie:
Matthew 18:
15] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
[16] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Can't pull somebody up for correction before an invisible church!
And of course let's not forget what immediately follows Christ's warning:
[18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
After all, it is the Church's binding and loosing authority which confirms correct doctrine, not Margie's disjointed quotations!
Why, the Early Church Fathers had something to say about that, too, Margie:
"For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16 (post A.D. 202).
Clement was a wise man indeed.
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 3:21PM
Doctor Wrong,
You should go back and re-read some of your comments.
You really sound like 3/5 Bob, Liberal Reader, David Matthews, and Daphne Kenward, all rolled-up into one!
Especially Daphne.
Just substitute "Catholics" for "Jews" in one of her diatribes, and it could be yours.
That, on top of your love for the New York Slimes, makes you a progressive, Doc!
Doctor Right| 4.27.10 @ 4:48PM
The siren-song of the defeated:
"You're a racist/anti-semite!"
(Considering the many, numerous anti-semitic acts the Catholic Church has condoned over the centuries, ya' might wanna' be careful with that one, Cardinal Nickie!)
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 5:30PM
Try reading again, Doc.
I wrote that you're like 3/5 Bob, Liberal Reader, David Matthews, and Daphne Kenward.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 5:51PM
Doctor Bigot may be unaware that the Ku Klux Klan was an anti-Catholic hate group.
Beyond that, Doctor Bigot, I don't see any evidence of racism or anti-Semitism on your part. Strictly anti-Catholic, insofar as your posts demonstrate.
Green Lama| 4.27.10 @ 5:08PM
Wow.
This is pretty amazing.
Between Nick, Teflon93, and Doctor Right, I'm having a hard time figuring out which one of you is actually demonstrating one ounce of Christian love or understanding. You all seem more concerned with scoring points and proving how smart you are than with engaging in a potentially constructive dialogue between Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians. None of you has expressed any real devotion to the ideals of Christian unity, and that's a shame.
You're all on this website because, presumably, you're interested in Conservative politics. Why can't you focus on what brings you together, instead of what pulls you apart?
Sorry to preach from a soap-box, I don't mean to be a nag. And don't let the "Green Lama" moniker fool you, I'm NOT a Buddhist!
Take care.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 5:28PM
Calls to charity are always welcome.
Recall St Jude as well, though:
[21] Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
[22] And of some have compassion, making a difference:
[23] And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
By all means, Green Lama, feel free to join the discussion.
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 5:28PM
Green Lama,
I can understand your post, based on this thread. But, this has been going on for a few weeks now.
Doctor Wrong is an anti-Catholic bigot. All he wants to do is bash Catholics. He attacked me, and others, first.
Christ neever said not to defend ourselves. He said to give your other cheek if someone strikes you. Which I, and Teflon93, and Mr. Koehl have been doing by putting up with the Doc's asinine statements.
But, Christ also turned over the money-changers tables and had some strong things to say to the Pharisees, didn't He? Consider this "tough love."
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 5:35PM
Doctor Bigot can call me all the names he likes---I still pray for him.
I do feel obligated to correct his lies about what the Church teaches, however---people might be misled otherwise!
Green Lama| 4.27.10 @ 6:04PM
Nick,
I'm sorry, but I see nothing in Doctor's Rights admittedly over-the-top post that validate the charge that he is a bigot. Bigotry is action, as well as word and thought. Unless you have proof that Doctor Right has engaged in specific, anti-Catholic actions beyond comments on this forum, you're incorrect.
Remove the plank in your own eye before condemning the speck in your brother's eye.
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 7:01PM
Green Lama,
You can't go by one post to make a judgement.
Doctor Wrong has repeatedly lied about what the Catholic Church teaches. He has lied about Pope Benedict, accusing the Holy Father of knowing about the pederast/pedophile priests currently in the news.
Those are his actions.
He has accused me of being raped by a priest when I was a child. And then accused me of being a child-raping priest. He has accused me of not caring about the victims, another lie.
I never claimed that I don't have faults. If you think Christ wanted us to be pacifists, and not to defend ourselves and our faith, you are mistaken.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 7:40PM
Doctor Bigot's greatest hits, from this thread:
"The Catholic Church is so full of bull-crap and outright contradictions that you can swim in it. "
"Way to cover for the molesters, Chester!"
"And BTW...The fact that it happened in the 80's IS EXACTLY the point, because many of these perverts are STILL at their jobs today, you complete and utter fool!
But keep providing cover for the sickos! You're a wonderful Catholic drone! "
"Boy, it didn't take long for the Church drones/apologists to come out of hiding! Guess that rock gets lonely...
The Catholic Church's "walls" were breached long ago by false and misleading doctrines. Why is it a surprise that they shield perverts? (MAYBE 'cuz its soooo deep, they fear the repercussions?) "
"It happened when the Catholic Church was formed after Constantine's conversion. Imperial Rome was full of creeps, especially the priesthood. When they became Catholics, they brought their "practices" with them. "
"You're a phony.
You're not sorry at all for what this man and his family have suffered. If you were, you wouldn't have resorted to discussing such idiotic, irrelevant issues such as the McMartin Pre-School case, which has absolutely nothing to do with his post.
If the Catholic Church was truly sorry for what's happened, WHY would they be fighting the legislation described in his post? It has NOTHING to do with "ObamaCare" - another straw-man.
He must fell sooooo good that you think he deserves justice while you actively work to obfuscate the facts.
You're pathetic. "
"Now it's confirmed: You are an absolute ass. "
"She said "hierarchical", NOT "Patriarchal", you fool. "
"Condom93:
I know all about your false doctrine of "Apostolic succession".
It's a sham.
And so are you. "
"As a good Catholic, ya' might wanna' be careful about using phrases like "stick together"...
The implications are kinda' gross.
In fact, that's where the whole problem started. "
"Don't let the Pro-Catholic Mutual Admiration Society on this forum get to you, Margie.
When they're not masquerading as faux-scholars, these guys like to pretend that they care soooo much about sexually abused children.
In fact, the opposite is true.
They have one concern, and one concern only" Protecting the reputation of "Holy Mother Church".
They're probably Catholic priests. "
"I guess that "Faith and Morals" clause doesn't include anything about what to do when one of your priests gets caught with his hand in a little boys pants..?? "
"I asked you for that a while ago, you pathetic apologist for child-molestation. "
"But your little circle-jerk admiration society is amusing...Is that something Father Flanagan taught you? The circle-jerk..? "
"And I'm not intolerant of differing creeds, beliefs, and opinions...Only the obviously dumb ones...Like Catholicism."
Well, you get the idea, Green Lama.
Your response?
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 8:20PM
Teflon93,
Doctor Daphne, a.k.a. Doctor Wrong, a.k.a. Doctor Bigot must have gone back to HowToBashCatholics.com to try to find some more lies to cut-n-paste.
Seeing as he has left such a long string of unanswered questions from today's smack-down.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 8:25PM
Perhaps he's digging into the writings of Justin Martyr, Nick.
Or perusing the Catechism to ensure that he is more accurate in his assertions as to what the Church teaches in the future.
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 8:22PM
I post an awful lot on Catholic topics, as you poor people who put up with them have discovered.
Here are some online resources for those interested to inquire further into sources of information regarding the Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church---the authoritative compendium of Catholic teaching. If you want to know what she teaches on any given topic, this searchable Catechism is very useful:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
The Early Church Fathers---38 volumes of classic teachings of the first Christians, a gold mine of information as to what the early Church did and taught:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 8:22PM
A great online comparitive translation Bible:
http://net.bible.org/home.php
A browsable King James Version Bible -- I use this when quoting Scripture for Protestant interlocutors despite the translation issues due to a) the beauty of the language and b) the existence of a group of Fundamentalists who claim that only the KJV is the inspired word of God.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 8:23PM
I don't use Catholic Answers much for these discussions but their site is a wonderful resource for anyone wanting to know the Church's teaching on various topics:
http://www.catholic.com/library.asp
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 8:23PM
On the topic of sexual abuse, facts and data are very important to have at hand given the amount of lies bandied about. These next links are helpful in understanding the magnitude of the problem and the tangible impact of the Church's efforts to address it:
The John Jay Study (2002):
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
Catholic statistics from CARA:
http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm
Hopefully this will prove useful for anyone inquiring further into these topics.
Doctor Right| 4.28.10 @ 10:57AM
HELLO, CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS!!!
Here's some fun reading! Enjoy!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....18_pf.html
Vatican: Pope may apologize for abuse by priests
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 28, 2010; 8:56 AM
VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI may issue a mea culpa for clerical sex abuse at a June meeting of the world's priests at the Vatican.
The June 9-11 summit, initially called to mark the end of the Vatican's year of the priest, had already morphed into a pep rally for the pope as he came under fire amid a new wave of reports on sex abuse by clerics.
Now, according to the top Vatican official dealing with abuse, it's possible that Benedict may issue some form of an apology at the meeting.
Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told U.S. public broadcaster PBS on Tuesday that he "wouldn't be surprised" if the pontiff issues a mea culpa at the meeting.
Teflon93| 4.28.10 @ 12:00PM
You are a silly little man, Doctor Bigot.
The Pope has apologized several times for this scandal, most importantly to the victims, whom you keep forgetting:
http://www.catholicnews.com/da.....001182.htm
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/ma.....-step.html
And of course did the same during his U.S. visit.
In fact, the Pope has apologized more often than YOU have, Doctor Bigot.
It is no doubt because he is a better man than you are.
Teflon93| 4.28.10 @ 12:07PM
I've posted this now several times as well, but given that Doctor Bigot has a nasty habit of claiming evidence posted contradicting his calumnies was never posted at all, let's run him off with the text of the Pope's apology:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat.....nd_en.html
PASTORAL LETTER
OF THE HOLY FATHER
POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE CATHOLICS OF IRELAND
1. Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Church in Ireland, it is with great concern that I write to you as Pastor of the universal Church. Like yourselves, I have been deeply disturbed by the information which has come to light regarding the abuse of children and vulnerable young people by members of the Church in Ireland, particularly by priests and religious. I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealt with them.
As you know, I recently invited the Irish bishops to a meeting here in Rome to give an account of their handling of these matters in the past and to outline the steps they have taken to respond to this grave situation. Together with senior officials of the Roman Curia, I listened to what they had to say, both individually and as a group, as they offered an analysis of mistakes made and lessons learned, and a description of the programmes and protocols now in place. Our discussions were frank and constructive. I am confident that, as a result, the bishops will now be in a stronger position to carry forward the work of repairing past injustices and confronting the broader issues associated with the abuse of minors in a way consonant with the demands of justice and the teachings of the Gospel.
2. For my part, considering the gravity of these offences, and the often inadequate response to them on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities in your country, I have decided to write this Pastoral Letter to express my closeness to you and to propose a path of healing, renewal and reparation.
It is true, as many in your country have pointed out, that the problem of child abuse is peculiar neither to Ireland nor to the Church. Nevertheless, the task you now face is to address the problem of abuse that has occurred within the Irish Catholic community, and to do so with courage and determination. No one imagines that this painful situation will be resolved swiftly. Real progress has been made, yet much more remains to be done. Perseverance and prayer are needed, with great trust in the healing power of God’s grace.
At the same time, I must also express my conviction that, in order to recover from this grievous wound, the Church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children. Such an acknowledgement, accompanied by sincere sorrow for the damage caused to these victims and their families, must lead to a concerted effort to ensure the protection of children from similar crimes in the future.
As you take up the challenges of this hour, I ask you to remember “the rock from which you were hewn” (Is 51:1). Reflect upon the generous, often heroic, contributions made by past generations of Irish men and women to the Church and to humanity as a whole, and let this provide the impetus for honest self-examination and a committed programme of ecclesial and individual renewal. It is my prayer that, assisted by the intercession of her many saints and purified through penance, the Church in Ireland will overcome the present crisis and become once more a convincing witness to the truth and the goodness of Almighty God, made manifest in his Son Jesus Christ.
3. Historically, the Catholics of Ireland have proved an enormous force for good at home and abroad. Celtic monks like Saint Columbanus spread the Gospel in Western Europe and laid the foundations of medieval monastic culture. The ideals of holiness, charity and transcendent wisdom born of the Christian faith found expression in the building of churches and monasteries and the establishment of schools, libraries and hospitals, all of which helped to consolidate the spiritual identity of Europe. Those Irish missionaries drew their strength and inspiration from the firm faith, strong leadership and upright morals of the Church in their native land.
From the sixteenth century on, Catholics in Ireland endured a long period of persecution, during which they struggled to keep the flame of faith alive in dangerous and difficult circumstances. Saint Oliver Plunkett, the martyred Archbishop of Armagh, is the most famous example of a host of courageous sons and daughters of Ireland who were willing to lay down their lives out of fidelity to the Gospel. After Catholic Emancipation, the Church was free to grow once more. Families and countless individuals who had preserved the faith in times of trial became the catalyst for the great resurgence of Irish Catholicism in the nineteenth century. The Church provided education, especially for the poor, and this was to make a major contribution to Irish society. Among the fruits of the new Catholic schools was a rise in vocations: generations of missionary priests, sisters and brothers left their homeland to serve in every continent, especially in the English-speaking world. They were remarkable not only for their great numbers, but for the strength of their faith and the steadfastness of their pastoral commitment. Many dioceses, especially in Africa, America and Australia, benefited from the presence of Irish clergy and religious who preached the Gospel and established parishes, schools and universities, clinics and hospitals that served both Catholics and the community at large, with particular attention to the needs of the poor.
In almost every family in Ireland, there has been someone – a son or a daughter, an aunt or an uncle – who has given his or her life to the Church. Irish families rightly esteem and cherish their loved ones who have dedicated their lives to Christ, sharing the gift of faith with others, and putting that faith into action in loving service of God and neighbour.
4. In recent decades, however, the Church in your country has had to confront new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularization of Irish society. Fast-paced social change has occurred, often adversely affecting people’s traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values. All too often, the sacramental and devotional practices that sustain faith and enable it to grow, such as frequent confession, daily prayer and annual retreats, were neglected. Significant too was the tendency during this period, also on the part of priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel. The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.
Only by examining carefully the many elements that gave rise to the present crisis can a clear-sighted diagnosis of its causes be undertaken and effective remedies be found. Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life; insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates; a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures; and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person. Urgent action is needed to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families, and have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing.
5. On several occasions since my election to the See of Peter, I have met with victims of sexual abuse, as indeed I am ready to do in the future. I have sat with them, I have listened to their stories, I have acknowledged their suffering, and I have prayed with them and for them. Earlier in my pontificate, in my concern to address this matter, I asked the bishops of Ireland, “to establish the truth of what happened in the past, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected, and above all, to bring healing to the victims and to all those affected by these egregious crimes” (Address to the Bishops of Ireland, 28 October 2006).
With this Letter, I wish to exhort all of you, as God’s people in Ireland, to reflect on the wounds inflicted on Christ’s body, the sometimes painful remedies needed to bind and heal them, and the need for unity, charity and mutual support in the long-term process of restoration and ecclesial renewal. I now turn to you with words that come from my heart, and I wish to speak to each of you individually and to all of you as brothers and sisters in the Lord.
6. To the victims of abuse and their families
You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen. Those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape from your sufferings. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel. At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope. It is in the communion of the Church that we encounter the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself a victim of injustice and sin. Like you, he still bears the wounds of his own unjust suffering. He understands the depths of your pain and its enduring effect upon your lives and your relationships, including your relationship with the Church. I know some of you find it difficult even to enter the doors of a church after all that has occurred. Yet Christ’s own wounds, transformed by his redemptive sufferings, are the very means by which the power of evil is broken and we are reborn to life and hope. I believe deeply in the healing power of his self-sacrificing love – even in the darkest and most hopeless situations – to bring liberation and the promise of a new beginning.
Speaking to you as a pastor concerned for the good of all God’s children, I humbly ask you to consider what I have said. I pray that, by drawing nearer to Christ and by participating in the life of his Church – a Church purified by penance and renewed in pastoral charity – you will come to rediscover Christ’s infinite love for each one of you. I am confident that in this way you will be able to find reconciliation, deep inner healing and peace.
7. To priests and religious who have abused children
You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres. Those of you who are priests violated the sanctity of the sacrament of Holy Orders in which Christ makes himself present in us and in our actions. Together with the immense harm done to victims, great damage has been done to the Church and to the public perception of the priesthood and religious life.
I urge you to examine your conscience, take responsibility for the sins you have committed, and humbly express your sorrow. Sincere repentance opens the door to God’s forgiveness and the grace of true amendment. By offering prayers and penances for those you have wronged, you should seek to atone personally for your actions. Christ’s redeeming sacrifice has the power to forgive even the gravest of sins, and to bring forth good from even the most terrible evil. At the same time, God’s justice summons us to give an account of our actions and to conceal nothing. Openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God’s mercy.
8. To parents
You have been deeply shocked to learn of the terrible things that took place in what ought to be the safest and most secure environment of all. In today’s world it is not easy to build a home and to bring up children. They deserve to grow up in security, loved and cherished, with a strong sense of their identity and worth. They have a right to be educated in authentic moral values rooted in the dignity of the human person, to be inspired by the truth of our Catholic faith and to learn ways of behaving and acting that lead to healthy self-esteem and lasting happiness. This noble but demanding task is entrusted in the first place to you, their parents. I urge you to play your part in ensuring the best possible care of children, both at home and in society as a whole, while the Church, for her part, continues to implement the measures adopted in recent years to protect young people in parish and school environments. As you carry out your vital responsibilities, be assured that I remain close to you and I offer you the support of my prayers.
9. To the children and young people of Ireland
I wish to offer you a particular word of encouragement. Your experience of the Church is very different from that of your parents and grandparents. The world has changed greatly since they were your age. Yet all people, in every generation, are called to travel the same path through life, whatever their circumstances may be. We are all scandalized by the sins and failures of some of the Church's members, particularly those who were chosen especially to guide and serve young people. But it is in the Church that you will find Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today and for ever (cf. Heb 13:8). He loves you and he has offered himself on the cross for you. Seek a personal relationship with him within the communion of his Church, for he will never betray your trust! He alone can satisfy your deepest longings and give your lives their fullest meaning by directing them to the service of others. Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus and his goodness, and shelter the flame of faith in your heart. Together with your fellow Catholics in Ireland, I look to you to be faithful disciples of our Lord and to bring your much-needed enthusiasm and idealism to the rebuilding and renewal of our beloved Church.
10. To the priests and religious of Ireland
All of us are suffering as a result of the sins of our confreres who betrayed a sacred trust or failed to deal justly and responsibly with allegations of abuse. In view of the outrage and indignation which this has provoked, not only among the lay faithful but among yourselves and your religious communities, many of you feel personally discouraged, even abandoned. I am also aware that in some people’s eyes you are tainted by association, and viewed as if you were somehow responsible for the misdeeds of others. At this painful time, I want to acknowledge the dedication of your priestly and religious lives and apostolates, and I invite you to reaffirm your faith in Christ, your love of his Church and your confidence in the Gospel's promise of redemption, forgiveness and interior renewal. In this way, you will demonstrate for all to see that where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more (cf. Rom 5:20).
I know that many of you are disappointed, bewildered and angered by the way these matters have been handled by some of your superiors. Yet, it is essential that you cooperate closely with those in authority and help to ensure that the measures adopted to respond to the crisis will be truly evangelical, just and effective. Above all, I urge you to become ever more clearly men and women of prayer, courageously following the path of conversion, purification and reconciliation. In this way, the Church in Ireland will draw new life and vitality from your witness to the Lord's redeeming power made visible in your lives.
11. To my brother bishops
It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse. Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations. I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness. I appreciate the efforts you have made to remedy past mistakes and to guarantee that they do not happen again. Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence. Clearly, religious superiors should do likewise. They too have taken part in recent discussions here in Rome with a view to establishing a clear and consistent approach to these matters. It is imperative that the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland be continually revised and updated and that they be applied fully and impartially in conformity with canon law.
Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church to which we have consecrated our lives. This must arise, first and foremost, from your own self-examination, inner purification and spiritual renewal. The Irish people rightly expect you to be men of God, to be holy, to live simply, to pursue personal conversion daily. For them, in the words of Saint Augustine, you are a bishop; yet with them you are called to be a follower of Christ (cf. Sermon 340, 1). I therefore exhort you to renew your sense of accountability before God, to grow in solidarity with your people and to deepen your pastoral concern for all the members of your flock. In particular, I ask you to be attentive to the spiritual and moral lives of each one of your priests. Set them an example by your own lives, be close to them, listen to their concerns, offer them encouragement at this difficult time and stir up the flame of their love for Christ and their commitment to the service of their brothers and sisters.
The lay faithful, too, should be encouraged to play their proper part in the life of the Church. See that they are formed in such a way that they can offer an articulate and convincing account of the Gospel in the midst of modern society (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) and cooperate more fully in the Church’s life and mission. This in turn will help you once again become credible leaders and witnesses to the redeeming truth of Christ.
12. To all the faithful of Ireland
A young person’s experience of the Church should always bear fruit in a personal and life-giving encounter with Jesus Christ within a loving, nourishing community. In this environment, young people should be encouraged to grow to their full human and spiritual stature, to aspire to high ideals of holiness, charity and truth, and to draw inspiration from the riches of a great religious and cultural tradition. In our increasingly secularized society, where even we Christians often find it difficult to speak of the transcendent dimension of our existence, we need to find new ways to pass on to young people the beauty and richness of friendship with Jesus Christ in the communion of his Church. In confronting the present crisis, measures to deal justly with individual crimes are essential, yet on their own they are not enough: a new vision is needed, to inspire present and future generations to treasure the gift of our common faith. By treading the path marked out by the Gospel, by observing the commandments and by conforming your lives ever more closely to the figure of Jesus Christ, you will surely experience the profound renewal that is so urgently needed at this time. I invite you all to persevere along this path.
13. Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, it is out of deep concern for all of you at this painful time in which the fragility of the human condition has been so starkly revealed that I have wished to offer these words of encouragement and support. I hope that you will receive them as a sign of my spiritual closeness and my confidence in your ability to respond to the challenges of the present hour by drawing renewed inspiration and strength from Ireland’s noble traditions of fidelity to the Gospel, perseverance in the faith and steadfastness in the pursuit of holiness.In solidarity with all of you, I am praying earnestly that, by God’s grace, the wounds afflicting so many individuals and families may be healed and that the Church in Ireland may experience a season of rebirth and spiritual renewal.
14. I now wish to propose to you some concrete initiatives to address the situation.
At the conclusion of my meeting with the Irish bishops, I asked that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country. I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace.
Particular attention should also be given to Eucharistic adoration, and in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose. I ask parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part. Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.
I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God’s own truth, for it is the truth that sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32).
Furthermore, having consulted and prayed about the matter, I intend to hold an Apostolic Visitation of certain dioceses in Ireland, as well as seminaries and religious congregations. Arrangements for the Visitation, which is intended to assist the local Church on her path of renewal, will be made in cooperation with the competent offices of the Roman Curia and the Irish Episcopal Conference. The details will be announced in due course.
I also propose that a nationwide Mission be held for all bishops, priests and religious. It is my hope that, by drawing on the expertise of experienced preachers and retreat-givers from Ireland and from elsewhere, and by exploring anew the conciliar documents, the liturgical rites of ordination and profession, and recent pontifical teaching, you will come to a more profound appreciation of your respective vocations, so as to rediscover the roots of your faith in Jesus Christ and to drink deeply from the springs of living water that he offers you through his Church.
In this Year for Priests, I commend to you most particularly the figure of Saint John Mary Vianney, who had such a rich understanding of the mystery of the priesthood. “The priest”, he wrote, “holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods.” The Curé d’Ars understood well how greatly blessed a community is when served by a good and holy priest: “A good shepherd, a pastor after God’s heart, is the greatest treasure which the good Lord can grant to a parish, and one of the most precious gifts of divine mercy.” Through the intercession of Saint John Mary Vianney, may the priesthood in Ireland be revitalized, and may the whole Church in Ireland grow in appreciation for the great gift of the priestly ministry.
I take this opportunity to thank in anticipation all those who will be involved in the work of organizing the Apostolic Visitation and the Mission, as well as the many men and women throughout Ireland already working for the safety of children in church environments. Since the time when the gravity and extent of the problem of child sexual abuse in Catholic institutions first began to be fully grasped, the Church has done an immense amount of work in many parts of the world in order to address and remedy it. While no effort should be spared in improving and updating existing procedures, I am encouraged by the fact that the current safeguarding practices adopted by local Churches are being seen, in some parts of the world, as a model for other institutions to follow.
I wish to conclude this Letter with a special Prayer for the Church in Ireland, which I send to you with the care of a father for his children and with the affection of a fellow Christian, scandalized and hurt by what has occurred in our beloved Church. As you make use of this prayer in your families, parishes and communities, may the Blessed Virgin Mary protect and guide each of you to a closer union with her Son, crucified and risen. With great affection and unswerving confidence in God’s promises, I cordially impart to all of you my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of strength and peace in the Lord.
From the Vatican, 19 March 2010, on the Solemnity of Saint Joseph
Doctor Right| 4.28.10 @ 12:45PM
Looks like Benedict is as much of a blowhard as you are.
Paragraph after paragraph of drivel, with little action, is not impressive.
I will agree with him on one point though...The Catholic Church has DEFINITELY done "an immense amount of work in many parts of the world" on the issue of the sxual abuse of children by priests...All that covering-up and denial takes a LOT of energy!
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 1:05PM
Like you actually read the whole statement, Doc.
It would take you hours to look up the big words, let alone comprehend them.
Pope Bigot I| 4.28.10 @ 1:23PM
Like most missives from "the Holy See", it's a long, meandering statement that impresses the hoi polloi (guys like you), but actually says NOTHING of substance.
Benny gives the impression that the Church is fully in-charge of this issue (the rampant, sexual abuse of children by pervert Catholic priests, and the numerous cover-ups by the Church hierarchy of same), when in fact, he and his robed buddies are (again!) in full-scale CYA mode.
Only this time, no one is falling for it. And that's what REALLY bugs you, isn't it?
I promise, as your new Pontiff, I will get to the bottom (no pun intended) of this issue!
Hey, look! You can see my face on that potat chip! It's a MIRACLE!!!
Teflon93| 4.28.10 @ 5:33PM
Nick, Doctor Bigot's obviously a teenager.
Tread lightly; we're not dealing with an equal here.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 6:16PM
Teflon93,
That would explain a lot, wouldn't it?
Doctor Right| 4.28.10 @ 12:49PM
So you admit that there's a scandal!!
BRAVO!
That only took 3 weeks!
Pretty soon, I'll convince you to finally get baptized!
Teflon93| 4.28.10 @ 5:35PM
I see your parents washing your mouth out with soap for lying didn't take, Doctor Bigot.
In this and other threads, paste for me the exact verbiage---with date and time stamp---where I:
1. Denied that there was a scandal.
2. Denied that sexual abuse occurred.
3. Denied that some bishops engaged in coverups.
4. Denied that the Pope had acknowledged all of the above.
Oh, by the way, I've posted the text of the Pope's apologies several times.
You truly are God's gift to the Church.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 1:10PM
So, now Doctor Wrong is a fan of the Washington ComPost?
When are you going to get a job in President Dither's administration, Doc?
Pope Bigot I| 4.28.10 @ 1:18PM
Nice deflection! Way to duck the issue! Man, you're brave!
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 1:35PM
Doctor Daphne,
How did I duck the issue?
The issue is that the liberal MSM hates the Catholic Church, and will lie and obfuscate in order to attack it and lead believers away from God and into the hands of Satan.
You are one of their Useful Idiots, as you have amply displayed in these threads.
Conservatives are respectful of Catholics.
Liberals/marxists hate the Bride of Christ.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 9:59AM
The mainstream media despises Christianity in general. When you Catholics whine that you're somehow singled-out, you sound like a bunch of pathetic cry-babies.
Your assumption that I am somehow a Liberal is beyond stupid. Your logic is quite immature. You're going to have to get used to the fact that some VERY politically Conservative Christians are critical of the Catholic Church. You're also going to have to et used to the fact that not everything that the NYT says is a lie.
I'm actually very respectful of Catholics. My entire extended family are Catholics. I don't argue with them, and I don't treat them disrespectfully. Most of them, including my parents, understand where I'm coming from.
But NO ONE in my family is a pathetic, sycophantic toady for the Church's propaganda like you and Teflon93 are.
You and Teflon93 are disgusting creeps. You can't stand that anyone dare criticize "Holy Mother Church", so your knee-jerk reaction is to attack.
Your knowledge of scripture is extremely limited. You can quote a few verses, but you have a shallow understanding of what it means. That's because like most Catholics, your knowledge of scripture is taught to you by men who are cloistered off from the real world, and whose survival depends entirely on the dissemination of their doctrines. I've attended many a Catholic service in my life. They are repetitive, empty exercises. Most of the Priests are completely unengaged from the Mass, going through the motions so they can shuffle the parishioners in and out the door for the next scheduled Mass. Their sermons are shallow, and rarely even discuss scripture and it's actual meaning. When they do, they spread misinformation, which is why you think Jesus commanded us to be cannibals.
The Church you love went apostate over a millenia ago, and maybe even before that. VERY LITTLE that Catholic Church adheres to regarding "faith and traditions" has any relation to scripture, and some of it outright contradicts scripture. Yiou keep claiming that these "traditiions" were somehow handed down by Paul in an oral form, but you CANNOT find one verse proving the validity of ANYTHING you claim in these "traditions", except for very generic verses that you have been taught to misinterpret.
If I thought that a Deacon or Elder in my Church was a sex pervert, my first reaction would be to find out if it's true, and to notify the authorities. But when the Catholic Church first found out, or rather, when the PUBLIC first found out (hundreds and hundreds of years after this began...It DID NOT start this century), the Church's first reaction was to cover their asses, and lie, obfuscate, relocate, cover-up, and bury the truth. If you deny this, you are a LIAR.
How can you justify even ONE act of cover-up by anyone in the Church hierarchy regarding the molestation of children by Catholic Priests??? And when that cover-up was discovered, it was itself covered-up by even more-senior members of the Church hierarchy, up to and including the Popes and their funny hats. To deny that Benedict, or John Paul II, or John Paul I, or Paul VI, or any Pope did not know of this problem after spending a lifetime in the Catholic Church's clergy is idiotic. To continue to spread this idiocy is a willful LIE.
Your Church is crumbling. Sure, you have millions and millions of members, but so what? These parishioners, the world over, are being taught rubbish, and this is intentional. Many of the leading seminaries in the USA now lean hard-left in their teachings. Prospective seminarians who favor the teaching of conservative Catholic doctrine and Bible-based theology are routinely denied admission to thse seminaries (Read "Goodbye, Good Men", by a former Catholic seminarian to understand). Inclusive in these left-leaning Catholic teachings is the acceptance of homosexuality, and the increasing ordination of gay priests. At some of these same seminaries, homosexuality is rampant. This has been documented by many former seminarians, so to deny this is also stupid.
But you and Teflon93 just can't stand the truth. Rather than expose these creeps, at ALL levels in your "Holy Mother Church", you prefer to attack the external critics, and bury your head in the sand.
Whatever. It's your Church. But when your protected perverts threaten children, prepare to suffer the wrath of the authorities.
Your sycophancy is disgusting. Your hubris is annoying. Your ignorance is sad.
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 10:47AM
Doctor Wrong,
Is this why you hate the Catholic Church so much?
Were you rejected by one of those liberal seminaries? Or, did you get accosted at one?
You are wrong, though. Semenaries are turning around in this country. Much more needs to be done. But, the ones that are orthodox are thriving, as are the devout monastaries and convents.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 2:35PM
Nick:
The village called...They want their idiot back. You should probably go.
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 11:18PM
Okay, George Costanza.
Where's your plate of shrimp?
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:22AM
Did your parents get you a jokebook for your birthday, Doctor Bigot? How wonderful!
You realize birthday celebrations have pagan roots, right?
Doctor Right| 4.28.10 @ 10:59AM
Now where's that pompous windbag, Condom93?
Calling his priest for advice?
Frantically checking his websites for a cut-n-paste response?
Prepping some obfuscation talking-points?
Crying hysterically?
All of the above????
Teflon93| 4.28.10 @ 12:12PM
How's that research coming, Doctor Bigot? Those CARM servers must be overloading!
Still waiting for that chapter and verse on sola scriptura, by the way. Since that's necessary before we limit ourselves to Scripture alone, it's crucial for your argument---such as it is.
How old are you, Doctor Bigot?
In posting your greatest hits I was struck by the possibility that you are a teenager, in which case I would feel guilty for expecting from you the wisdom and civility of a mature man. This would be unjust.
Doctor Right| 4.28.10 @ 12:41PM
Hello, Condom93, you pompous, condescending jackass!
I've explained "Sola Scriptura" to you 3 times; rather than actually try and understand my response, which was VERY clear, you keep insisting for another answer.
Tell ya' what...Once you provide a scriptural (not Cathechism) response to the justification for "extra-scriptura" practices, I'll repeat myself for a 4th time.
But I won't hold my breath, because you CAN'T justify "extra-scriptura". I know it. You know it. And this Green Lama guys proably knows it too. You're a phony. You're nothing but a rank apologist for pedophilia.
You think I'm a teenager? Whatever...I think you're an ass.
Don't bother praying for me; vain repetition is useless.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 1:02PM
For the third time:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the [TRADITIONS], which you have learned, whether by [WORD] or by our epistle."
-2 Thessalonians 2:15
Doctor Right| 4.28.10 @ 1:06PM
Alreay told you, genius:
"learned": Past tense. No made-up Catholic doctrine had been taught to the people to whom Paul is addressing.
PLEASE get with the program.
NEXT victim!!
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 1:16PM
And I told you, moron, what does "tense" have to do with anything?
Saint Paul handed down TRADITIONS by MOUTH, as well as by letter, to the churches he set up. Those bishops handed down those TRADITIONS to the next generation.
You would know this, if you ever bothered to read the Early Church Fathers.
These TRADITONS were SPOKEN as well as written, as Saint Paul clearly states. That means there are TRADITIONS, that we should HOLD to, that were not written down.
Get it?
Pope Bigot I| 4.28.10 @ 1:41PM
"...what does "tense" have to do with anything? "
This may be the DUMBEST thing you've said yet.
When reviewing scripture. or anything for that matter, "tense" (and spelling, and punctuation, etc) form the context of the passage/statement being read. Unless you're a literary deconstructionist a la' Jaques Derida, or a complete fool, you understand that.
In that CONTEXT, Paul explicitly said "learned"...PAST TENSE. This means that at that time, they had already "learned" what he was referring to. Since Catholic Doctrine and bugaboo had NOT yet been created, this IMPLICITLY means that he was NOT referring to the false doctrines of Catholicism. That would be chronologically impossible.
If you are trying to say that the "traditions" Paul handed down were the doctrines of Catholicism, please...PROVE IT. As you and your greasy friend like to say...
Chapter and Verse, please!
Your view of the Bible and Catholic Doctrine is nothing more than a "Just so" story. It has NO basis in fact. You and Condom93 merely think that if you keep saying it over again, loudly, that it MUST be true. Either that, or people will et so sick of talking to you that they'll just go away, at which point you'll wrongly assume you've somehow won the argument.
Well...You haven't. Your childish, immature, and faulty reasoning is on bold display. NOTHING you have offered as evidence supports ANY of your argumemts.
I would LOVE to debate you in an open forum, with the rules of proper debate moderating the discussion in front of an impartial audience. You would be soundly humiliated.
Now kiss my ring, knave!
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 2:13PM
Doctor Daphne,
This by far the most nonsensical of your rants!
Saint Paul "explicitly" says that TRADITIONS were handed down by MOUTH, as well as by epistle.
So, how am I supposed to quote chapter and verse of something that was only SPOKEN, Einstein?
When was this "Great Apostasy" supposed to have happened, again? Date please.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 9:31AM
"Were"...Past tense...Einstein.
The N.T. is composed of various leters, most of them written by Paul (Not "Saint" Paul. ALL Christians are Saints...I suppose this has eluded you, too..?).
If you look up the word "letter" in the dictionary, you will see that it is something that is "written".
Are you denying that the letters ("epistles"...Another cutesy-pie Catholic word) have "chapters" and "verses"..?
I've already told you when the "Great Apostasy" began: When Constantine oficially adopted Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire, and the pagan Priests of Rome absorbed the faith into their own practices.
Do they teach history where you're from?
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 11:25AM
Doctor Wrong,
"Are you denying that the letters ("epistles"...Another cutesy-pie Catholic word) have "chapters" and "verses"..?"
You are a bubbling bag of ignorance. Do you read every other word in these posts?
The word "epistle" is not a "Catholic word", brainiac. It's Greek. You are aware the oldest copies of the New Teatament, extant, are in Greek, are you not?
But, your biggest problem seems to be reading and comprehending the English language. I'll explain once more, maybe it will sink in this time.
SAINT Paul went to different cities, on 3 different journeys, to spread the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ and set up His Churches. He would appoint bishops and priests to this end.
He would teach them Christian TRADITIONS. Some were written down in letters. Some (if not most) were taught by MOUTH, or spoken. Just like when we went to school.
Now, how am I supposed to quote a chapter, or verse, of a SPOKEN Tradition? Did you follow me this time?
Saint Paul wrote "hold to the traditions, which you have [LEARNED] [...]."
It is "past tense" because Saint Paul had already taught the Thessolonians. This was his second letter, that we know of, to them. So, again, what does "tense" have to do with the point I was making about SPOKEN traditions?
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 2:47PM
So let's see if I get this straight...
When PAUL traveled and preached the gospel, he passed on "Christian TRADITIONS"...Is that the sum total of your arguemnt.
If so, that's not only wrong, it's stupid.
Ummmm...Since you don't understand English, let's go to Webster's:
Main Entry: tra·di·tion
Pronunciation: \trə-ˈdi-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tradicioun, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French tradicion, from Latin tradition-, traditio action of handing over, tradition — more at treason
Date: 14th century
1 a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4 : characteristic manner, method, or style
Now let me dumb it down for you, dummy...
There were NO traditions when PAUL was preaching. NOT POSSIBLE, since "tradition" relates (as we see above) to inherited, established norms from "THE PAST".
In other words (dumbing it down even more), the traditions that you're trying to force-fit onto PAUL...these made-up, phoney-baloney, man-made practices DID NOT EXIST, therefore, PAUL could not have taught them.
But you have a fall-back position (of course...). You want to claim that these fake "traditions" date from PAUL'S spoken sermons and lessons...And that (of course...) since these were "spoken", there's no record of them today (of course...), so you can't qoute back chapter and verse (of course...).
Well...Isn't that convenient???
It's actually no different thatn Mormons claiming that all records of the Nephri and the Lamanites in South America were destroyed in a great cataclysm, so don't bother looking for them, because you won't find them...But "trust us anyway"...
Well, Nickie...That kind of stupid reasoning probably plays well when Father O'Toole works off his hang-over by sermonizing to the sheep, but it doesn't work in the real world.
You have NO written proof that supports the "traditions" of Catholicism. You'd like to beleive that PAUL "spoke" them, but you have NO proof of this, either...NONE. ZIP. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.
As your infallible Pope, I hope you see the error of your ways.
NEXT VICTIM!
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 8:14PM
Doctor Wrong,
"There were NO traditions when [SAINT] PAUL was preaching."
Another false PROCLAMATION from anti-pope Bigot I.
Saint Paul converted c. A.D. 35, went on his first missionary journey c. A.D. 45-49, and was martyred c. A.D. 67.
This means, PAY ATTENTION NOW, that when Saint Paul was establishing churches in Asia, the Church, and Her PRACTICES, had been around for over 15 years. So, when he preached the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Gospel was 15 years in "THE PAST!" -NEXT
"But 'trust us anyway'... "
Ah, yes, here we are back to that word "trust" again. Whom should I trust?
-Doctor Wrong, a.k.a. anti-pope Bigot I, and his band of anti-papist "experts" of "real Christianity?', OR
-Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who knew the Apostles; Pope Saint Clement I, third successor of Saint Peter (the 1st Bishop of Rome), and first Apostolic Father; Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who knew Saint John, the disciple whom Jesus loved; and the rest of the Church Fathers and Doctors? - NEXT
"You have NO written proof that supports the "traditions" of Catholicism."
Bzzzzzzzzzz! Wrong!
I, again, refer you to the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Their writtings are voluminous.
Also, you are trying to change the argument, Doc. You didn't ask for Scriptural proof that the "traditions" were Catholic. You asked to be provided "a scriptural (not Cathechism) response to the justification for "extra-scriptura" practices [...]."
Which is what I have provided you, and you have acceded to, to wit: Saint Paul handed down SPOKEN TRADITIONS, which were not written down, and therefore can't be quoted. Just as Saint John states that all the things that Christ did could not be written down.
NEXT!!
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 8:27PM
I'd better "dumb it down for you", Doc.
Saint Paul admitted that everything he taught was not written down.
So, not all Christian doctrine is as spelled out, or well defined, as it was later on.
It was because of heretics, like you, that the early Christians had to write down the practices and customs of the Church, which in the early years were not questioned, because it was the Apostles and 70 disciples who were doing the teaching.
Thank you, heretics.
Because of you, we have many rich writings, full of the practices of the early church.
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 12:04PM
Doctor Wrong,
I've been asking you for weeks when the Church supposedly "apostasized", this is the first time you have given an answer.
So, the "Great Apostasy" occured in the 4th century A.D., huh?
That means the Christian writtings from before that time would give an accurate picture of Church teachings and customs, would it not?
Justin Martyr (2nd century, 1st apology) -
"Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
-(h/t to Teflon93, thanks!)
Saint Justin Martyr would have known people who had known the Apostles.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 3:06PM
There is NO MORE "Doctor Right". You have anointed me as your Pontiff, Pope Bigot I.
Did you forget?
In any event, once again, you fail to use any logic in your pathetic arguments, and I continue to shred you into tiny, metaphorical pieces...
But let's begin...
"I've been asking you for weeks when the Church supposedly "apostasized", this is the first time you have given an answer."
I have answered you. Repeatedly. If you're to dumb to realize that, tough.
"That means the Christian writtings from before that time would give an accurate picture of Church teachings and customs, would it not?"
No. Not necessarily. You first need to define "Christian writings". Many people were writing about Christianity during this time period. As you would know if you ever read the Bible instead of listening to Father McManus barf up his Guinness, PAUL often encountered people who were believing Christians, but whose Faith was immature and under-developed (like somebody I know!), and were claiming and practicing things that were not in accordance with Christ's teachings (like...Catholicism, maybe?). He was constantly exhorting these people to abandon their false beliefs, and rebuking them when they did not.
Therefore, to quote Justin, and assume prima facie that what he says is 100% correct would be a mistake.
In this case, it IS a mistake.
It has already been aptly demonstrated to you by the capable "Sandy" that Christ was NOT exhorting his followers into ritual cannibalism at the Last Supper, but speaking figuratively.
In that regard, if Justin believed that he was literally eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, then he was mistaken. There is NO scriptural justification for the false Catholic doctrine of "transubstantiation". Simply because you revere Justin as a Catholic Saint does not make him correct...Or is he, too, infallible??
Basically, you believe that Catholic Doctrine is true because other Catholics also believed it to be true.
That is NOT proof; it's merely wishful thinking.
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 5:35PM
Doctor Wrong,
You can't get anything right, can you? I've written that you are anti-pope Bigot I, because you have appointed yourself Grand Arbiter of who is, and is not, a "real" Christian.
So, now you are claiming the "Great Apostasy" occured in the 2nd century A.D.? Would you make up your mind.
Is it any wonder no one will follow your teachings? You change them day to day!
Okay, how about Saint Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd bishop of the church Saint Peter founded? He knew the Apostles.
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 8:43PM
Doctor Wrong,
"In this case, it IS a mistake."
Yet, another PROCLAMATION from anti-pope Bigot I.
How many dogmas do you have?
How many of them did you make ex cathedra?
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:23AM
He doesn't know, Nick---he is unable to clearly state the theological tradition whence he comes.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 12:43PM
Doctor Wrong,
You sure are a glutton for punishment, aren't you?
As Teflon93 asks above, when are you going to answer our questions?
I'm still waiting to find out when the "Great Apostasy" of the early Church happened. Dates please.
Also, are your proclamations of which Christian doctrines are true and false "ex cathedra" statements, pope Bigot I?
And, what does Scripture say about abortion? Is it right, or wrong, to have one?
What about invitro-fertilization? Or embryonic stem-cell research?
You also PROCLAIMED that children "DON'T NEED to be baptized." Where is that in Scripture, Doc?
Doctor Right| 4.28.10 @ 12:47PM
Hey...I just realized something!
If I am "Pope Bigot I", then I'm INFALLIBLE!
So why are you arguing with me? I can't be wrong.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 12:55PM
"So why are you arguing with me?"
Because you are an anti-pope.
Pope Bigot I| 4.28.10 @ 1:15PM
Waitaminnit...Which is it? Am I Pope Bigot I, or "the anti-Pope"..???
I'm soooooo confused!!!!!
Telfon93| 4.28.10 @ 5:31PM
No problem. Just show us where your church is so we can examine their rolls of bishops tracing back to the apostles in an unbroken line.
Oh, wait, you can't do that.
Never mind.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 9:25AM
So you want to know where the Church I attend is, now???
That's the first time you've ever requested that.
Previously, you've asked me what Church I belong to, and I've repeatedly said:
The Church that Christ began.
We don't have "Bishops". We have Elders, in accordance with scripture. I've also provided that reference before, so if you didn't read it previously, too bad.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:25AM
I have asked you that question many times, Doctor Bigot. You are simply dishonest.
You do not belong to the Church that Christ founded. Your community was founded more than a millennium and a half after Pentecost.
Do you ever read Acts?
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:26AM
Is "elder" a Greek word?
As I thought the New Testament was written in Greek, it would be odd to use an English word of French etymology for an exalted position in a community claiming to follow Scripture to the letter.
Pope Bigot I| 4.30.10 @ 2:49PM
I already covered this, Einstein.
"Bishop" comes from "Presbyter".
"Presbyter" is Greek. It means "Elder".
The requirements for elders are clearly defined:
Titus 1:5-9 (Qualifications of Elders)
5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
7For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
I wonder if I'd be a good elder?:
Above reproach: YES
Husband of one wife: YES
Having children who believe: Not yet.
Not accused of dissipation/rebellion: Hmmmm...
Not self-willed: Uh-oh
Not quick-tempered: YES
Not addicted to wine: D'OH!
Not pugnacious: What's "pugnacious"?
Not fond of sordid gain: Define "sordid"...
Hospitable: YES
Loving: ABSOLUTELY
Good: YES
Sensible: YES
Just: YES
Devout: YES
Self-controlled: YES
Holding fast the faithful in accordance with the teaching: YES
Exhorting sound doctrine: YES
Refute those who contradict: DUH!
Would "Teflon93" make a good Elder?
Holding fast the faithful in accordance with the teaching: UH-OH...
Exhorting sound doctrine: OOPS!
Refute those who contradict: NO. HE JOINS THEM.
Oh well...
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 2:56PM
Ahh, but in Scripture, it is the Greek which counts, isn't it?
Your little community isn't following Scripture, but rather English tradition.
Are you of the Scottish Presbyterian persuasion, then?
Pope Bigot I| 4.28.10 @ 1:25PM
Where is scripture are ANY children baptized???
Speak where the Bible speaks.
Stay silent where the Bible is silent.
If you Catholics followed that simple philosophy, you wouldn't be in so much hot water...
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 1:43PM
Doctor Daphne,
"Speak where the Bible speaks.
Stay silent where the Bible is silent."
Where is that in Scripture?
Also, you have PROCLAIMED that "adults" only are to be baptized. On which birthday is this supposed to be done, according to Scripture?
And, where did the Scriptures tell you to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?
Pope Bigot I| 4.28.10 @ 2:29PM
I'll explain this to you ONE more time.
No...The phrase "Speak where the Bible speaks.
Stay silent where the Bible is silent" does NOT apear as written in scripture. (Neither hardly ANYTHING the Catholic Church does, either).
However, "Speak where the Bible speaks.
Stay silent where the Bible is silent" is the LOGICAL way to approach scripture.
If we believe that scripture is the divinely inspired word of God, then I think we all agree that we should pay heed to what it says, and obey. LOGICALLY speaking, the CONVERSE is then also TRUE:
We cannot assume that anything NOT in scripture is divinely inspired. THEREFORE, we cannot engage in these practices, doctrines, creeds, etc, IF they contradict scripture or are elevated above scripture.
I hope that helps.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 2:49PM
Doctor Daphne,
"However, "Speak where the Bible speaks.
Stay silent where the Bible is silent" is the LOGICAL way to approach scripture."
Nope, sorry. If it's not in the Bible, you can't believe it.
Sound familiar, hypocrite?
Teflon93| 4.28.10 @ 5:30PM
St Paul baptized an entire household. Households in the ancient world contained children, Doctor Bigot.
Moreover, as you have seen, infant baptism was practiced throughout the Early Church, as the testimony of the Fathers indicates.
And even better, it's obvious why they did so---Christ warned to not hinder the children in coming to him, as those 16th century Reformers did with the "age of reason" silliness that is nowhere found in Scripture.
Oh, by the way, where does Scripture command to baptize only those who have attained the age of reason?
Chapter and verse, please.
Then I'll ask what precisely that age is.
Chapter and verse there too, Doctor Bigot, since you claim to do only what Scripture commands.
Pope Bigot I| 4.30.10 @ 2:35PM
Name the children baptized in scripture. C'mon, genius...Name them.
You can't.
Children DO NOT need to be Baptized. "Original sin" is a false doctrine - a lie - without scriptural justification.
Baptism is for those who are old enough to know right from wrong, old enough to understand scripture, old enough to accept the responsibilities of Christianity, and old enough to reasonably live up to them with no excuse. In most cases, that means LITERAL adults. It may mean adolescents who are mature ("Spiritual adults"). It NEVER means children.
I love the fact that I'm ALWAYS right, while you're ALWAYS wrong.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 2:54PM
Another admission from Doctor Bigot that he, who claims to follow only Scripture, cannot find Scriptural evidence for what he believes.
As always.
Teflon93| 5.4.10 @ 7:38PM
Here is what the Didache (~100 A.D.) has to say on the subject:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
Thus we see that immersion was NOT required of Christians from the very beginning of the Church. Indeed, how could it, given Christianity began in the bloody desert where water was precious?
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 12:53PM
Oops! Forgot these questions:
You have yet to provide one scintilla of actual evidence that "the Church" referenced in Scripture is YOUR church, Doc.
When do you "eat" Christ's flesh and "drink" His blood, like He commanded in chapter 6 of the Gospel of Saint John?
Do you worship Christ and observe the Sabbath on Sunday?
Do you slaughter clean animals to sacrifice to the Lord, like He commanded in Exodus?
Do you stone transgressors of the Law, as God commanded?
You don't call your dad "father?" Oh, that's right, you have issues, I forgot.
Pope Bigot I| 4.28.10 @ 1:14PM
From now on, you're going to have to address me as "Your Eminence".
Anyway...
NO ONE actually eats Christs's flesh and drinks his blood. "Transubstantiation" is another phony Catholic belief. But in answer to your question, I partake of the Lord's Supper each Sunday.
No, I don't slaughter animals. If you understood the New Testament (which, as this question reveals, you obviously don't), yo would understand that Christ FULFILLED "The Law" given to the Hebrews. Those Laws laid down in Exodus and Leviticus are defunct. Duh.
No, I don't stone transgressors. But I have been tempted.
I call my Dad "Dad". And I don't have issues with him. He's a great guy.
YOU have issues. Namely...Your lack of knowledge of your own faith.
But I can help. As Pope Bigot I, I command thee to say 20 "Hail Marys", 20 "Our Fathers", sprinkle yourself with Holy Water, pay a $50 indulgence to the Cathedral of the Most Holy Immaculate Perpetuity, and thank me very much!
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 1:25PM
Doctor Daphne,
So, Mr. "Bible Christian" disobeys Christ's command, in the Bible, to "eat" His flesh and "drink" His blood,
decided on his own to stop slaughtering clean animals and stoning violaters of God's Law,
and decided on his own to not call anyone "father."
"Those Laws laid down in Exodus and Leviticus are defunct. Duh."
Are you claiming murder and homosexuality are now allowed, Doc?
Pope Bigot I| 4.28.10 @ 1:31PM
As I suspected, you have a VERY immature and undeveloped view of scripture.
If you don't understand that as Christians, we are NOT bound by the O.T. "Law", then you are not worthy of even commenting on this debate.
Do YOU sacrifice goats and sheep? Do you split them into 2 equal parts? Do you maintain a tabernacle? Do you celebrate a "Day of Atonement"? If the answer to any of these questions is "No", why not?? Seems like you think your bound by The Law of the Hebrews...
Go back to school, sonny...
BTW, genius...
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
ROMANS is in the "NEW" Testament...Get it?
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 1:53PM
Doctor Daphne,
My Church teaches that we are no longer bound by Law of Moses. Saint Peter, the first Pope, decreed this in Acts when he allowed dispensations from the dietary laws and circumcision.
You, on the other hand, Doc, go by your own doctrine:
"Speak where the Bible speaks.
Stay silent where the Bible is silent."
I see you couldn't find a justification for disobeying Christ's command, in the Bible, to "eat" His flesh and "drink" His blood, could you?
Pope Bigot I| 4.28.10 @ 2:02PM
You REALLY do NOT understand scripture.
CHRIST tells us we are not bound by the Law:
Matthew 5:17
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Peter, who was NOT ever a "Pope", may have said this, but he was parroting Christ.
And I think you may need to look up the definition of the word "metaphor"...
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 2:27PM
Doctor Daphne,
Have you ever read Acts? The issues of clean animals and circumcision where dividing the Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Saint Peter, the first Pope, decreed and proclaimed that Gentiles were not bound by the Mosaic Laws, not Christ. Except, that Christ was speaking through Saint Cephas, Peter, Petros, the Rock, the Vicar of Christ.
Boy, you really are ignorant of the Bible, aren't you, Doc? How can you claim to only follow the Scriptures when you don't even know what is in them?
Pope Bigot I| 4.30.10 @ 2:30PM
Actually, I've read ACTS several times.
Never saw a mention of "Saint Peter".
BTW, genius...Do you understand what a "Saint" is?
No, you don't.
And you claim to follow scripture..?
To quote the great philosopher Bugs Bunny: "It is to laugh."
Teflon93| 4.28.10 @ 5:22PM
And then in Matthew 19---long after Matthew 5, he tells the rich man to keep the commandments if he wants eternal life.
But since you don't believe Christ, Doctor Bigot, kindly tell us which of the Ten Commandments---besides bearing false witness---you see fit to break with impunity.
Pope Bigot I| 4.30.10 @ 2:28PM
"Doctor Bigot, kindly tell us which of the Ten Commandments---besides bearing false witness---you see fit to break with impunity."
No one has borne "false witness" against you, moron.
In my opinion, you're an ass. Period. That's not a lie.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 2:53PM
Must Christians follow the Commandments or not, Doctor Bigot.
Quit cowering.
Answer the question.
Teflon93| 5.1.10 @ 3:27PM
Still hiding, Doctor Bigot?
Sandy| 4.28.10 @ 1:49PM
Nick are you actually saying God calls us to be cannibals? Oh my.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 2:00PM
Sandy,
Christ commanded it, according to Saint John, in his Gospel. Chapter six, verses 53-56:
Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Many disciples found this teaching too hard to follow, and left Christ that day. The same thing happened almost 500 years ago.
Pope Bigot I| 4.28.10 @ 2:05PM
Like I said before...You have a very immature and under-developed understanding of scripture.
"Transubstantiation" is a false doctrine that originated in the misunderstanding of this verse.
Christ also said our bodies are the "temples of the Lord". Do we have windows? Doors? Are we made of bricks and stone?
"Metaphors"...
Sandy| 4.28.10 @ 2:20PM
Uhm, He actually said to do it in remembrance of Himself.. He was speaking figuratively, not literally.
"And He took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me." Lk. 22:19.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 2:45PM
Sandy,
Umm, actually He wasn't speaking figuratively. Christ said, "THIS IS My body." Not, "This is a SYMBOL of My body."
"Rememberance" does not mean "figuratively" or "metaphorically."
Again, in the Gospel of Saint John, Christ REPEATEDLY said one had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Jews in the crowd asked, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Now, if Christ was speaking figuratively, wouldn't He have told them, "Hey, I didn't mean literally. I was speaking figuratively?"
Christ didn't do that.
As Saint John goes on to say: "66 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve: 'Will you also go away?' 68 And Simon Peter answered him: 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.' 69"
Why would Christ let all those disciples leave if they were misunderstanding Him, Sandy?
This was right after He multiplied the loaves and fishes, by the way.
If Christ could do that, on top of creating the universe, turning bread and wine into His Body and Blood shouldn't be that hard. Wouldn't you agree?
Sandy| 4.28.10 @ 2:58PM
I see. So when He said "This is my body" He pulled a rib out and said munch a bunch?
Silly boy.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 4:09PM
Sandy,
No need to be condescending, ma'am.
Saints John and Matthew (they were eyewitnesses) clearly state that Christ first broke the bread, then held it up, and said, "This is my body."
Have you not read these verses?
I see you have no substantive answers to my questions, do you?
Sandy| 4.28.10 @ 4:22PM
Yes Nick you are promoting nonsense. I get it. Now use that brain God gave you and come to your right mind.
He meant it figuratively, dear. He also says He is the Bread of Life. He means it figuratively. You have been taught wrongly, son.
He doesn't teach cannabalism. He said when we break bread, to "Do this in remembrance of Him." It's really quite clear.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 4:50PM
Sandy,
If it is so clear, why did he let all those disciples leave and walk "no more with Him", without explaining it better, daaah-ling?
Also, if it is so clear, why do so many Christians, Catholic and Protestant, believe the bread becomes His body and the wine becomes His blood, while other Christians do not?
It must not be as clear as you think it is, huh?
And simply ASSERTING that it is "figurative" is not proof, or really much of an argument, Sandy.
Telfon93| 4.28.10 @ 5:38PM
They also must explain the Orthodox and early Church practice. To read the Early Church Fathers is to see the unanimous support for the Eucharist as actual body and blood of Christ, just as Christ said.
Sandy, do you believe yourself to be smarter than St Augustine?
Sandy| 4.28.10 @ 8:44PM
I consider myself to be smarter than thou. How smart can one be to believe something, and live according to something that isn't in the Bible? The Eucharist isn't in the Bible and so therefore I refuse to take part in it.
In that I am smarter than thou, and Jesus' words I will follow rather than man's.
Now I consider that pretty darn smart.
Teflon93@windstream.net| 5.4.10 @ 7:27PM
Oh, but the Eucharist is in the Bible---aside from John 6, you'll have to explain what St Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 11:
[26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
[27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
[30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
Of course, the Eucharist is also attested to unanimously by the Early Church Fathers, who, Sandy, were far smarter than YOU.
Sandy| 4.28.10 @ 8:49PM
No, no, young man. Assuming He means it literally is not only silly but outright insane. It is beyond reasonable thought. If He meant it literally, you would be saying He is telling you to be a cannibal.
It's absurd.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 9:13PM
Sandy,
You still have given no answer to explain why Christ let all those disciples leave Him, if all He had to do was tell them that He was not being literal. Why would Christ do that?
To answer the "cannibalism" canard, the flesh Catholics eat, at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is Christ's RESURRECTED BODY, not His earthly, physical body.
The bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior, but still retain the physical properties of bread and wine.
You may be confortable limiting the power of God, but I am not. Do you also reject the rest of Christ's miracles in the Gospels, Sandy?
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 9:20PM
By the way, Sandy, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Orthodox Christians also believe that Christ was being literal when He said, "Eat my flesh [...] drink my blood [...]."
Not just Catholics.
Teflon93| 5.4.10 @ 7:36PM
The Jews who left clearly understood what Jesus was saying. How could they not? He said it many times.
Which is why the Eucharist is understood to be the actual body and blood of Christ from Pentecost to today by Catholics and Orthodox. It wasn't until 1,500 years after Pentecost that Protestants, lacking valid Holy Orders and thus the ability to consecrate the Eucharist, decided that they didn't need it after all.
As for why it is the flesh and blood of Christ, consider Numbers 11, where it is prefigured:
[1] And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
[2] And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.
[3] And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the LORD burnt among them.
[4] And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?
[5] We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:
[6] But our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.
[7] And the manna was as coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdellium.
[8] And the people went about, and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in a mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes of it: and the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil.
[9] And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it.
[10] Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families, every man in the door of his tent: and the anger of the LORD was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased.
[11] And Moses said unto the LORD, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?
[12] Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?
[13] Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat.
[14] I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me.
[15] And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness.
[16] And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.
[17] And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.
[18] And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat.
[19] Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days;
[20] But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?
[21] And Moses said, The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand footmen; and thou hast said, I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month.
[22] Shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them, to suffice them? or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to suffice them?
[23] And the LORD said unto Moses, Is the LORD's hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not.
[24] And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.
[25] And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
[26] But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.
[27] And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.
[28] And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.
[29] And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD's people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
[30] And Moses gat him into the camp, he and the elders of Israel.
[31] And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.
[32] And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp.
[33] And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.
[34] And he called the name of that place Kibroth-hattaavah: because there they buried the people that lusted.
[35] And the people journeyed from Kibroth-hattaavah unto Hazeroth; and abode at Hazeroth.
The Eucharist is flesh and blood because we rejected manna and demanded flesh and blood.
At a terrible price to Christ.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 9:21AM
He doesn't understand what a metaphor is, Sandy!
The ironic thing is that he condescendingly refers to me as a "fundamentalist", yet fails to realize that he, himself, is accepting as "fundamental" that which was intended to be figurative.
Teflon93| 4.29.10 @ 10:37AM
Where in John 6 is there any indication Christ is being figurative?
Note that whenever Christ speaks in parables elsewhere in Scripture, it clearly states as such.
The hypocrisy of fundamentalists in this is clear---but then again, their insertion of 1,000 years into a sentence of Revelation to buttress the late 19th/early 20th century heresy of dispensationalism shows consistency is not their strong suit.
BTW, Doctor Bigot, do you rebuke Martin Luther for adding "alone" to his translation of Romans?
The only place where "faith alone" is to be found in the original received text is in James 2, where it is denied.
Which is why Luther was sorely tempted to toss out James.
Pope Bigot I| 4.30.10 @ 2:26PM
"Where in John 6 is there any indication Christ is being figurative?"
- Teflon93
It's called common sense...And "reading for comprehension"...And "context".
Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Teflon93| 5.1.10 @ 5:30PM
Ahh, "common sense"---which is why St Paul, St Peter, and the Early Church Fathers didn't get it?
Why in fact Christians for 1,500 years believed in the actual body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist?
And why Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans still hold that Christ meant what he said?
Gotcha, Doctor Bigot.
Thank you for the admission that you do not in fact believe what Scripture says.
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 10:37AM
Doctor Wrong,
I've never called you a fundamentalist, I've called you a "Bible Christian."
So, this yet another straw man, rather than substantive, argument you have made.
This is all you have, since you can't answer my questions or refute my points.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 3:58PM
A "Bible Christian", huh?
I'll gladly cop to that!
So, genius...What kind of Christian are you?
The kind that follows made-up nonsense?
Don't bother replying...We already know the answer.
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 5:04PM
Doctor Wrong,
I'm a "Christian" Christian.
I'm the same kind of Christian as Saints Peter and Paul. And Saints John, James the Less, Andrew, James the Greater, Matthew, Thomas, Simon the Cananean, Thaddeus, Philip, and Bartholomew.
I'm the same kind of Christian as Saint Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd bishop of the church Saint Peter founded there. He knew the Apostles.
I'm the same kind of Christian as Saints Polycarp, Irenaeus, John Chrysostom, Pope Clement I, and the rest of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
I am not an anti-pope Bigot I "Christian", Doc.
Pope Bigot I| 4.30.10 @ 2:24PM
"I'm the same kind of Christian as Saints Peter and Paul. And Saints John, James the Less, Andrew, James the Greater, Matthew, Thomas, Simon the Cananean, Thaddeus, Philip, and Bartholomew."
- Nick
NO. You're NOT. They were NOT Catholics. EVER.
You inhabit a fantasy world of your own (and the Catholic Church's) making.
Your logic is childish. Just because you claim something doesn't make it so.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 2:52PM
And yet the Early Church Fathers were Catholic, and attest to no break in the Church from apostolic times.
Which is why you must ignore them, Doctor Bigot.
Meanwhile, there is no evidence of "sola scriptura" or "sola fide" prior to the early 16th century and there is evidence for infant baptism back to the second (in which we are told it has been practiced since the beginning).
You have nothing to stand on, Doctor Bigot.
Lynn| 6.5.10 @ 12:23PM
The question is whether or not when Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, was He referring to a physical, or a spiritual partaking of His flesh and blood.
If it was a physical partaking the hunger would return and you would have to eat and drink over and over, but if it was a spiritual eating and drinking then it would never be needed again to the satisfying of the soul.
Jesus said in John 6:35 that He is the bread of life and he that comes to Him shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Him shall never thirst.
And again in John 4:14 Jesus said that whosoever drinketh of the water that He shall give them shall never thirst; but the water that He shall give shall be in be in the ones whom He gives it a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
How then can one have to physically eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus over and over again?
Teflon93| 4.28.10 @ 5:24PM
That is precisely what those in attendance thought, Sandy---including the Apostles.
Why don't you look in the Old Testament for the occasion in the desert where the Jews tired of manna and demanded flesh.
That will help you understand the passage, as well as why St Paul warned against approaching the Eucharist unworthily, lest we eat and drink our damnation.
You DO remember that, don't you?
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 2:41PM
Sandy and Doctor Wrong,
Instead of insulting my beliefs, by calling them "silly" and "cannibalism", or insulting me personally, by calling me "insane"; why don't you simply give me a rational explanation of why Christ would let all those disciples leave His ministry, if they were merely misunderstanding what He REALLY meant?
It should be easy to refute me, seeing as I am "silly" and have a "very immature and under-developed understanding of scripture." Right?
It's called making an ARGUMENT, as opposed to just making ASSERTIONS. Try it sometime.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 5:13PM
"It's called making an ARGUMENT, as opposed to just making ASSERTIONS. Try it sometime."
- Nick
BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!!
Now THAT'S FUNNY!!!!!
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 5:37PM
That is about as substantive as your "arguments" get, Doc.
Benny Dicky| 4.28.10 @ 1:57PM
Are "Nick" and "Condom93" the same person..?
Teflon93| 4.28.10 @ 5:26PM
Nope, Nick and Teflon93 are faithful Catholics. Our posts reflect the unity of teaching in the Church.
By contrast, Doctor Bigot and Margie won't even cop to their denomination or theological tradition.
Lest the differences be exploited.
Margie| 4.28.10 @ 6:18PM
You really are a pathological liar, aren't you, Mr. T? How utterly despicable! Have I not proclaimed what I am, by the Grace of God? Have you not rejected me as a Christian because I am not Catholic, thus making Christ a liar? "Lest differences be exploited?" Is see that YOU are the only one exploiting anything, and that is false teachings and lies!
Benny Dicky,
According to the Bible, I am a Christian. I came to Christ according to Romans 10:9 & 10.
"..because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved."
See that? It's what God says. And you don't have to become a Catholic. Salvation is directly through Christ Himself. Believe the Bible, not these men's teachings. They refuse to accept us regular Bible believing Christians as their brothers and sisters in the Lord. They are lying.
Jesus is Lord, not man!
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me; and him who comes to Me I will not cast out." Jn. 6:37.
Jesus didn't cast me out, and He won't cast anyone out who comes to Him. THAT is a promise you can count on. Though the Catholics cast me out, Christ does not.
Amen.
Teflon93| 4.29.10 @ 10:32AM
There you go again, Margie, projecting your own forked tongue onto others.
Did you forget this is a THREAD? Anybody can scroll up and see what I've said.
To whit:
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 1:26PM
They were ad hominems and unfortunate ones, Margie.
My point is that you hardly have standing to complain given every post of yours is riddled with ad hominems.
Still, we must avoid the near occasion of sin. Tim would be better to avoid responding to you for this reason.
You do engage in hypocrisy by embracing Doctor Bigot's various slanders, though, but look after your own salvation with fear and trembling, Margie.
contra your own position:
Margie| 4.26.10 @ 11:22AM
Actually, Mr. Slippery,
You would be the definition of bigot~~ an anti-Christian bigot who cannot tolerate genuine Christians, only Catholics. Though it is a favorite word of yours to use on anyone who dares to question your Religion, the perversion of the Priests, it actually describes you!
Jesus is Lord~ not you. And you don't get to define nor judge Christians.
As high and mighty as you may sound, you're nothing but an anti-Christian bigot yourself.
Case closed."
Are Catholics Christians according to you, Margie?
As I've told you before, this is what the Church teaches:
I. THE CHURCH IS ONE
"The sacred mystery of the Church's unity" (UR 2)
813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."259 The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."260 The Church is one because of her "soul": "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church's unity."261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:
What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."262
814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264
815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.266
816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268
Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
Which is why Catholics recognize as Christians all those who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Indeed, those who came into the Church from the various Protestant communities which practice Trinitarian baptism do not get "re-baptized"----baptism being a one-time deal as Scripture clearly indicates. They get confirmed in the Church.
Presuming you were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, Margie, you are a Christian.
Are Catholics Christians?
What is your criteria?
Where did you get it?
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 5:22PM
"Are Catholics Christians?"
Of course they are. But they are VERY misguided Christians.
They place their trust in extra-scriptural doctrines and traditions that often contradict the Bible. They claim to "venerate" Mary, yet they pray to her, which is a form of worship. They allow a Priest to impose himself as an intercessor between the believer and his/her savior, which is unnecessary and untrue. They give their loyalty to a "Pope" in Rome, often allowing this loyalty to override their faith in Christ Jesus.
Catholicism, for many, has become a cultural issue, as opposed to a religion. I'm often amused by people who proudly proclaim their Catholicism, yet don't even live up to the requirements of their professed catholic faith, let alone the requirements of scripture.
So yes...Catholics ARE Christians. They just need serious re-education.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 3:07PM
The Orthodox venerate Mary.
Are they "misguided"?
Teflon93| 4.29.10 @ 10:33AM
Jesus is both God and Man, Margie---do you reject the Holy Trinity?
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 4:58PM
Watch out, Margie! Mr. Slippery has a pre-canned set of questions he asks EVERYONE who critiques his "Holey Mother Church".
This is one of those questions. Baed on your answer, he'll make a lame attempt to try and prove that the only reason you believe this is due to the wisdom of Catholics.
He's utterly unimaginative and devoid of logic. He believes everything that Father O'Brian told him as a wee, young lad.
In short...He's a drone.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:27AM
Margie, still waiting---do you reject the Holy Trinity?
Margie| 4.30.10 @ 5:37PM
LOL~ what I am rejecting my dear man~ is YOU!
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 6:51PM
Funny how you can't answer a simple question, Margie.
Margie| 5.1.10 @ 1:36PM
Have you ever heard the song, "Slip-Sliding Away?"
The Teflon Drone slip slides away into oblivion.
For freedom Christ has set me free. I stand fast, therefore, and refuse to submit again to the yoke of slavery known as the Catholic Religion. Gal. 5:1
Teflon93| 5.1.10 @ 3:26PM
Margie apparently thinks people are too stupid to realize that she refuses to answer the question as to whether or not she believes in the Holy Trinity.
Do you, Margie?
Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one in being as the Creed says or not?
It is a point which has unified the Church over many centuries.
Why, here's what St Paul had to say in Galatians 5:
Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, 20 idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, 21 envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.
Hmm, St Paul opposed dissensions and sects.
Margie, you have a bad habit of playing Bible Bingo and never reading the whole chapter.
No wonder you have no credibility.
Teflon93| 5.1.10 @ 3:51PM
Oh, alright, Margie, just one more, since St Paul is just wonderful:
Ephesians 4:
3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.
One Lord, one faith, one baptism---not 30,000 varieties, not zero baptisms, etc.
Which shouldn't be surprising since so many epistles were calls to unity and since so much of the Early Church Fathers' writings were aimed against the various heretics who arose.
Margie| 5.2.10 @ 8:28PM
No freakazoid~ I have no "credit" in your eyes.
But you're a liar!
You're so arrogant you think you have credibility!
Keep lying, O slippery One.
Hell awaits you.
Teflon93| 5.3.10 @ 8:21AM
Margie, you might want to actually read Scripture on that score.
Given your problem with the log in your eye in so many areas---cluck-clucking at Tim for his comments while embracing Doctor Bigot's, for example---it will no doubt be an enlightening experience for you.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 5:04PM
Actually, your posts represent the limits of narrow, doctrinaire thinking.
You're not dissimilar to Chinese students with their Little Red Books during Mao's cultural revolution of the 1960's. They had the Little ed Book, you have the L'il Cathechism. Both are plu-perfect examples of nonsense for the brainwashed masses.
In fact (look out...now I'm rambling), there is a strong correlation between the way the Catholic Church keeps it parishioners under control, and how Communist dictators keep their "comrades" under control. Both are totalitarian ideologies that discourage free-thinking and individualism, and favor a collectivist ideal (or, as you like to say "unity").
Benny-Dict| 4.29.10 @ 5:15PM
Then how come you hardly ever post at the same time?
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 1:18PM
Wow, Batman, you really are a great detective!
Nick| 4.27.10 @ 8:20PM
Teflon93,
Doctor Daphne, a.k.a. Doctor Wrong, a.k.a. Doctor Bigot must have gone back to HowToBashCatholics.com to try to find some more lies to cut-n-paste.
Seeing as he has left such a long string of unanswered questions from today's smack-down.
Reply to this
Teflon93| 4.27.10 @ 8:25PM
Perhaps he's digging into the writings of Justin Martyr, Nick.
Or perusing the Catechism to ensure that he is more accurate in his assertions as to what the Church teaches in the future.
Reply to this
And since you and Doctor Bigot never post at the same time, what are we to make of THAT?
Hmm---Doctor Bigot and Nick never post at the same time either---could it be----?
Pingback| 4.28.10 @ 5:01PM
Gold eases but holds near $1,150/oz on debt concerns links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 6:06PM
Doctor Wrong,
You wrote:
"No...The phrase "Speak where the Bible speaks.
Stay silent where the Bible is silent" does NOT apear as written in scripture."
Neither does anything taught by Doctor Wrong's Church of the What's Happening Now, Brother!
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 6:35PM
Doctor Wrong,
You wrote:
"THEREFORE, we cannot engage in these practices, doctrines, creeds, etc, IF they contradict scripture or are elevated above scripture."
Then why do you worship on Sunday, when the Sabbath was on Saturday, in Christ's day?
You have many strange customs and doctrines, (in your tiny, little church of one), that are not found in Holy Scripture, Doc.
This is what happens when you make yourself Grand Arbiter of what is, and is not, Christian.
A Doctor Wrong, divided against itself, cannot stand.
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 3:20PM
Doctor Wrong? Hello? No answer?
Got an answer to this one: On which birthday are Christians allowed to get baptized, according to the proclamations of anti-pope Bigot I?
Lynn| 6.5.10 @ 12:44PM
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Sin revives when a person realized they are a sinner. whatever age that may be that a person realizes this is unknown to me.
Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Evidently there is a time in a persons life when they mature enough to be able can discern both good and evil.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 4:54PM
Actually, Professor, the Hebrew Sabbath in Christ's day started at sundown on Friday night, and ended at sundown on Saturday.
For your edification and education:
1 Corinthians 16:1-2
Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.
And when Paul met with believers in Troas to worship and celebrate communion, they gathered on the first day of the week:
Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.
Now, some early Christians, including PAUL and PETER (who was NEVER a Pope) did, in fact, occasionally observed the Sabbath according to Jewish tradition. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this. In fact, if one wishes, one can observe the original Jewish traditions (as do many "Jews for Jesus").
The important thing to understand is that we must not allow "traditions" to occur if they supersede, contradict, or subvert scripture. (OOPS! Sorry, Catholics!)
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 5:19PM
Doctor Wrong,
"Actually, Professor, the Hebrew Sabbath in Christ's day started at sundown on Friday night, and ended at sundown on Saturday."
Did I write anything to contradict that?
I stated the Sabbath was on Saturday, in Christ's day. Saturday began at when the sun went down. Epic fail, Doc.
I've been asking this question for a few days. It took you this long to find the answer, huh? Or, did you ask someone at your Bible church?
I'm glad you found the answer. I'm also glad you are starting to read, and understand, the Scriptures. Keep it up.
You do know that Seventh Day Adventists don't believe the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, don't you? Are they Christians, Doc?
Some Adventists hate the Catholic Church as much as you do, by the way.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 1:09PM
Really, Doctor Bigot?
I thought you said the Law was dead?
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 1:10PM
Oh, and where in Scripture does it say "we must not allow "traditions" to occur if they supersede, contradict, or subvert scripture"?
Chapter and verse, please.
Make sure it refers to the New Testament too.
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 7:55PM
Oh! I almost forgot!
Hey, Doctor Wrong!
Congratulations are in order. I found out today that my sister and brother-in-law are expecting their EIGHTH baby!
Along with my baby sister and her husband, who hves four kids already, that makes 12 more Catholics for the next generation. My sisters have well made up for my singlehood.
How many youngsters are being schooled in the doctrines and proclamations of Pope Bigot I? I would bet not that many. You guys don't like to follow God's command to "be fruitful and multiply."
Or, is that another Old Testament law we don't have to comply with anymore, according to Doctor Wrong's Church of the What's Happenin' Now, Brother?
And you can take it to the bank that they will be experts in Catholic hermeneutics, Doc!
God Bless!
Nick| 4.28.10 @ 8:00PM
That should be: "[...] who HAVE four kids already [...]."
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 9:18AM
CONGRATULATIONS to your sister and her husband!
I hope it's a healthy, happy baby!
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 12:08PM
Doctor Wrong,
Thank you.
Now, try answering my questions.
Pope Bigot I| 4.29.10 @ 5:10PM
816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . "
What ABSOLUTE hog-wash!
Christ NEVER told Peter to "rule" anyone. This is a bald-faced lie. It's how Catholics justify the imposition of a political leader (The Pope) on their sacred throne.
Their is NO scriptural justification for this whatsoever.
When Christ said:
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
He DID not give Peter the power of a ruler or a monarch. He wanted to use Peter's inner strength to further the aims of His (Christ's) Church on earth. There is NO justification in scripture for the governing structure of the Catholic Church. Those who claim that it was the Church that Christ created are either lying, or ignorant.
The head of the Christian Church is Jesus Christ, NOT the Pope.
Nick| 4.29.10 @ 6:05PM
Doctor Wrong,
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
You forgot the rest, Doc:
"And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
-In the Old Testament, the person who held the keys of the kingdom was the king's prime minister. He stood in for the king, when the king was away.
"And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
- The power of the prime minister to "bind and loose" was the power to allow and forbid. Also, to forgive and to punish. When the prime minister made a decree, it was as if the King had made it himself.
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 10:28AM
Whom did Christ ask to "feed his sheep"?
Pope Bigot I| 4.30.10 @ 2:20PM
""And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
This is a NEW Testament quote. And it DOES NOT validate the claims of the Catholic Church.
NEXT!
"And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
WRONG again. Your claim IS NOT supported by this quote. Peter's role as "Pope" is NOT supported by this quote. Christ was simply telling Peter that he (Peter) has an awesome responsibility to spread the Good News on earth, and do it dutifully, and Heaven is guaranteed.
...You really live in a Papal fantasyland...
NEXT!!
Teflon93| 4.30.10 @ 3:06PM
You seem to have misplaced your Scripture, Doctor Bigot. Blow the dust off it and read it. If you can find it.
Matthew 16:
[15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
[16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
John 21:
[14] This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
[15] So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
[16] He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
[17] He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
"Feed my sheep"---to St Peter, not to any other apostle.
Now we know why it was St Peter who led the apostles in the first conversion:
Acts 2:
[37] Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
[40] And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
[41] Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Now we know why it was St Peter who presided over the selection of Mathias (Acts 1):
15] And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
[16] Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
[17] For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
[18] Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
[19] And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
[21] Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
[23] And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
[24] And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
[25] That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
[26] And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Hmmm, Matthias didn't select himself.
The Apostles, St Peter presiding, elected him.
Apostolic succession, which even St Paul recognized when he, chosen by Christ, visited St Peter before taking up his apostolate.
Where is your "elders"' apostolic succession, Doctor Bigot?
Where is the unbroken line from them to St Peter and the rest of the apostles?
Let's see the rolls.
Nick| 4.30.10 @ 8:24PM
Doctor Wrong,
"This is a NEW Testament quote."
When Christ spoke these words, Doc, there was no New Testament. Dope.
You are aware that Christ was fluent in the Scriptures (Old Testament), aren't you?
"Christ was simply telling Peter that he (Peter) has an awesome responsibility [...]."
Another PROCLAMATION of what Scripture REALLY means by anti-pope Bigot I.
Have any proof to back up your fallacious interpretation? Scripture, or the Early Church Fathers, will do. Try Saint Ignatius, he new Saint Peter. Did you?
"Binding and loosing" was a Jewish term, by the way.
Margie| 4.30.10 @ 5:30PM
You ROCK, Dr. Right!!!
Margie| 4.30.10 @ 5:33PM
OOps, I mean Pope Bigot I.
Because I used the wrong name to address you your eminence, I will now say 75,000 Hail Marys, 50 zillion Our Fathers, and sit, kneel, stand, and beg 1 million times.
That good enough?
LOL!
Margie| 4.30.10 @ 5:41PM
"Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he has redeemed from trouble."
Ps. 107:2
Thank you, Jesus!
Nick| 5.3.10 @ 12:22PM
Doctor Wrong,
You've previously acknowledged that he, who posts last, WINS!
So, I humbly accept this victory, and your total capitulation to the fact that the Catholic Church is the True Church, established by Christ.
jfksd| 6.30.10 @ 11:50PM
beijing massage shanghai girl
guo | 7.1.10 @ 5:24AM
www.wmvconverterformac.com