Posted on 09/13/2014 4:06:30 AM PDT by markomalley
McCarrick’s last act as Archbishop of Washington was to re-assign a huge number of priests, making sure the “conservatives” were put in the most unsuitable assignments.
One priest who didn’t know a word of Latin was put in a parish that has an Extraordinary Form Mass every Sunday.
This was deliberate on McCarrick’s part. A person in the know has said, “Fr. X was sent here to fail.” But he didn’t. He learned the “Old Mass,” and is a great pastor.
McCarrick is evil. Of course, he was at the graveside, slobbering on Ted Kennedy’s casket, just as Cardinal O’Malley slobbered on the living Kennedys earlier that same day.
Thank you for the background info.
As a lapsed Catholic, Cardinal McCarrick’s suicidal ignorance inflicted upon followers through the influence of his stature within the church confirms my decision to remain lapsed.
How, in God’s name, is he permitted/authorized to consecrate the sacraments with his antithetical views?
uh......you’re putting your soul for ALL eternity in jeopardy because of a few bad men??? Come on.....that is just an excuse for not getting out of bed on Sunday to go to Mass and receive HOLY COMMUNION....the greatest treasure on earth Jesus gave us!!!
Got to remember who the Muslims REALLY worship and it is NOT the SAME GOD, in other words SATAN.
Rather the Koran was dictated by SATAN whom the Bible does warn CAN be an “angel of light.”
One two greatest treasures, the Holy Euchurest and the Holy Bible.
Cardinal McCarrick’s evil and stupidity does not change the fact that the Church was founded by Christ. It also does not change the facts about Lourdes, Fatima, St. Therese, Padre Pio, Mother Theresa, Thomas Aquinas, and innumerable other evidences of the working of grace in the Church.
So Cardinal McCarrick is evil. That’s not a rational excuse to leave the Church. You don’t get to heaven on the sins of others.
People who have not read the Koran should not be making pronouncements on Islam.
Eucharist.
Wow, they sure poorly catechize their Cardinals and Bishops!
“May St. John the Baptist protect Islam...”
St. John Paul II
Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Bavaria, in his 2006 speech, simply titled “Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections,” Benedict characteristically took up a knotty concept — the interplay of faith and reason. He wanted to show how reason untethered from faith leads to fanaticism and violence.
To illustrate that case, Benedict dug up a 14th-century dialogue between a long-forgotten Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar about the concept of violence in Islam.
“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” Benedict quoted the emperor as saying to his Islamic interlocutor.
In Islamic teaching, Benedict said, “God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”
I am reminded of when the Archbishop of Canterbury became a Druid High Priest, and saw nothing wrong with ecumenism with pagans.
I am also reminded of the movie Ladyhawke, with the Bishop of Aquila selling his soul to the devil in exchange for making a curse against the couple who had thwarted his carnal cravings.
And also of Hatto II, the Archbishop of Mainz, who for his murderous evil was consumed by mice in his “Mouse Tower on the Rhine”.
They whetted their teeth against the stones,
And then they picked the Bishop’s bones;
They gnawed the flesh from every limb
For They were sent to punish him.
It is the Holy Eucharist for those who believe the Word of God!
Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said. Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Again and Again
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).
No Corrections
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?
And the guy is still part of the leadership in the Catholic Church. There is coming a sad day for those who follow that apostacy.
He’s hoping the muzz will saw off his head last.
Not ontil the influence of Islam is cleansed from the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.