88 [Catholic] Church Abuse Victims to Split $8M

The Ledger (Pittsburgh) ^ | 10/21/2014 | Joe Mandak

[CynicalBear]

>>relying on erroneous protestant translations from the 1600’s is indeed Catholic bashing.<<

The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are from the 1600s? Who knew?

[Alex Murphy]

The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are from the 1600s? Who knew? 

Silly boy! Only the Latin manuscripts date back to the first century, doncha know.

[delchiante]

Let me put it another way,

If the catholic church is wrong about so much, why would one trust them to be right about their claim that they represent the Messiah of Israel?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Woke up this fine Sunday morning, went to Church, and then decided I was probably being too obscure, too much the star of "Ask Mrs. Einstein" in #35 and #36 to make a helpful contribution.

So if I may, let me make the same point in 2 simple sentences:

• The Popes' statements are true, understood in this sense: that it is grave matter (objectively very very bad) to be separated from the Church. And yet...
• this cannot be the kind of sin that results in being eternally lost, if the person did not know, or did not fully consent, to be separated from the Church. Mortal sin is a matter of grave evil done with knowledge and deliberation.

I have sometimes volleyed back and forth with non-believers who dared me, or baited me, to say the Catholic Church would consign them to hell. They seemingly wanted me to say (or "admit") that I (we) consider them damned.

This I won't and can't do, knowing that God ardently wills their salvation, and yours, and mine.

One must trust in Jesus when you perceive Him near, like the thief. Love Him and love our neighbor, as Jesus said: all the Laws and all of the Prophets depend on this. On this, too, depends all the teachings of the Church and all practices of our Faith.

I hope that makes it both cordial and clear?

Now I am going off to enjoy a birthday brownie. Wish I could give you one!

[Mrs. Don-o]

#144

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

I don’t mind a person raising honest points against Catholic doctrines. But what is more tiresome than a person who is regularly arguing with a cardboard cut-out or refuting a cartoon?

---

How about a cereal box?

[CynicalBear]

>>to say the Catholic Church would consign them to hell.<<

The underlying premise being that the Catholic Church has any authority whatsoever which it does not. That authority is a made up construct not supported by scripture. There is no way an organization that incorporates paganism can be the representative of God on earth.

[metmom]

Endlessly trolling with the sole purpose of pointing out instances that YOU HAVE PERSONALLY determined where the Catholic Church deviates from Scriptural teaching, based on a distorted interpretation of the bible relying on erroneous protestant translations from the 1600’s is indeed Catholic bashing.

If the Protestant translations of the Greek and Hebrew are erroneous, show us where they're wrong.

Crying *Catholic bashing* convinces no one of anything except liberal debate tactics designed to merely discredit the opponent instead of addressing the topic.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree a cereal box is not an argument!

[metmom]

If the catholic church is wrong about so much, why would one trust them to be right about their claim that they represent the Messiah of Israel?

I don't know. Yet people do trust them to represent Jesus to the world.

[metmom]

I have sometimes volleyed back and forth with non-believers who dared me, or baited me, to say the Catholic Church would consign them to hell. They seemingly wanted me to say (or "admit") that I (we) consider them damned.

I'm sorry if it seemed that I was trying to bait you into anything. That was not the intent of those posts.

It was rather to show what official Catholic teaching has been throughout the years and still is and what some Catholics still cling to.

If you have read most of these threads, you ought to be aware that not only are there Catholics who consign me to hell, as has already been done on this very thread, but who think that heretics should be eliminated. We've seen it on two different threads from the same poster.

IMO, the Catholic church was NEVER given the authority to override God's forgiveness granted to men and retain their sins, resulting in essentially sending them to hell.

That in no way represents Jesus who came to seek and save the lost. Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world but to save it and tells us that salvation is through HIM.

He didn't need to set up a religion by which men could come to God by their works or efforts, or keeping the Law.

There was already on established by God Himself handed down from Mt Sinai.

He came to freely give us mercy and grace for the asking, without condition, including membership in an organization or bondage to effort on our part.

You are on the horns of a dilemma.

Catholic church teaching is clear. You either agree with it, or not and I don't see a lot of leeway for the laity to personally interpret it as they would like. Which is something Protestants are forever being castigated for.

Enjoy your birthday brownie for me.

[Mrs. Don-o]

First, the Catholic Church does not have, and does not claim, the authority to send people to heaven or to hell. We all face one and the same Judge, Jesus Christ.

Second, your "incorporates pagan elements" charge is not well defined. If by "pagan elements" you mean "elements of human culture not Christian in origin," a reasonable response would be "of course we incorporate pagan elements, those which are not contrary to the Gospel." This means, non-Christian customs which,purified of error are rendered harmonious with faith in Jesus Christ.

Within the world of classical antiquity, Christian poets used the existing traditions of Greek and Latin poetry. For instance. Paul quotes the pagan poets Aratus and Epimenides in Acts 17:28: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being: as certain also of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.'"

So St.Paul actually incorporated pagan poetry into the New Testament.

The hymnodist Venantius Fortunatus wrote poems that are still used in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, such as the Vexilla Regis ("The Royal Standard") and Pange, lingua, gloriosi proelium certaminis ("Sing, O my tongue, of the glorious struggle"). These hymns are based on the rhythmic marching songs of Roman armies.

You can see that it's not enough to say someone "incorporates pagan elements." You have to examine the matter more closely, to see if the "element" is harmonious with the deposit of Faith which comes to us from the Apostles.

An example might be holding weddings in church. Do you think church weddings are objectionable? I don't suppose you do. Yet this is a custom not described in the Bible --- not anywhere, not once! --- not described and not prescribed. But we do it because it is a custom which is congruent with the doctrines of the faith. A church wedding fits in well with the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Here's something you'll like about Pagan roots of Christian Church practices.

Hat tip to our friends the Lutherans.

:o)

[CynicalBear]

>>First, the Catholic Church does not have, and does not claim, the authority to send people to heaven or to hell.<<

It has been shown over and over again the declaration by the Catholic Church that salvation outside that organization is not possible. That is a declaration that anyone not subject to that organization is consigned to hell. That is a doctrine not found in scripture.

>>You have to examine the matter more closely, to see if the "element" is harmonious with the deposit of Faith which comes to us from the Apostles.<<

What an interesting comment for a Catholic to make. A great percentage of Catholic belief and practice did NOT come from the apostles. For a base let's look at what God said.

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God:

It should be evident to anyone that taking something the pagans did to serve their gods was not to be used to serve the one true God unless He has specifically instituted a practice. So as an example let's take the "queen of heaven" concept which Catholics are required to believe. Was it a belief and practice by pagans? The answer is obviously yes.

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Did the apostle teach such a thing as the queen of heaven? Absolutely not. The belief and practice is pagan and a direct disobedience of God's command.

Your wedding analogy is a mute point. A Jewish wedding was attended only by members of the Jewish faith. The ceremony and the process is well documented. Jesus attended at least one of those ceremonies as did Mary and the apostles.

Then you suggest I watch a satire on Christmas. I'll remind you of your comment "You have to examine the matter more closely, to see if the "element" is harmonious with the deposit of Faith which comes to us from the Apostles". Where did the apostles teach the celebration of the birth of Christ? And on Dec 25th no less. Actually we only have examples of birthday celebrations for evil kings and this:

Ecclesiastes 7:1 A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

It is indisputable that God said not to incorporate things the pagans did to serve their gods into worship of the one true God. It is also indisputable that the Catholic Church does exactly that. And they certainly were not taught by the apostles.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

As long as people view this as just a PR problem, nothing will change.

[stonehouse01]

“Only the Latin manuscripts date back to the first century, doncha know?”

In the late 300’s St. Jerome translated the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into Latin, using the originals.

Martin Luther and Wycliff mistranslated and left out key portions of the bible in the 1600’s to serve their heretical purposes.

[Iscool]

“Only the Latin manuscripts date back to the first century, doncha know?”

In the late 300’s St. Jerome translated the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into Latin, using the originals.

Nah, he didn't...

Martin Luther and Wycliff mistranslated and left out key portions of the bible in the 1600’s to serve their heretical purposes.

so why did Jerome re-translate the scriptures into Latin when a Latin version already existed???

Here's the real answer:

The Old Latin pretty much matches the King James Version...Disgusting, isn't it???

Jerome wanted or was instructed to write a different version...So Jerome created the New Latin bible, the Latin Vulgate...

[Heart-Rest]

"Your premise is built on error. Jesus did not set up a hierarchy. The Catholic Church has totally corrupted the meaning of what an "elder" in the assmebly is. Besides, the leadership in the Catholic Church isn't even qualified to be in leadership per Paul. So no, I didn't admit anything."

=============================================================

So in post #32 you quoted a Bible text specifically talking about "bishops", which you are now saying here does not mean what you actually posted yourself?

Your responses are built on error (and I think on much worse).

(And, by the way, you do understand that, in civil law (for example), when it says you can only have one spouse, it is not saying that you must have a spouse, and that when civil law says you must not deliberately harm your own children, it does not mean that you must have children, don't you?)

[metmom]

Second, your "incorporates pagan elements" charge is not well defined. If by "pagan elements" you mean "elements of human culture not Christian in origin," a reasonable response would be "of course we incorporate pagan elements, those which are not contrary to the Gospel." This means, non-Christian customs which,purified of error are rendered harmonious with faith in Jesus Christ.

Cynical Bear has posted many times a direct quote from Catholic sources which admit that pagan elements are incorporated into Catholicism.

I see no exceptions in Scripture where pagan elements are acceptable if they are *purified* or *sanctified* by the church.

[Heart-Rest]

"You can declare all you want. I show from scrioture and the words of the Catholic Church that they are pagan which God considers evil."

=============================================================

Can God convert a pagan person into a Christian?

Can God convert a pagan symbol (such as a cross) into a Christian symbol, valued by many Christians as a symbol of the love of God, and of His great sacrifice made to offer sinners salvation from their sins?

Is it sinful for protestant Christians to have an image of a cross in the front of their church?

Is it sinful to use an image/photo (like this image/photo of C.S. Lewis when he was still an anti-Christian atheist)

   

and this image/photo of C. S. Lewis after he converted to Christianity?

   

For that matter, is it your belief that it is sinful to use any kind of photographic image, such as a photo of one's family, or a photo of a sunset, or a photo of a mountain, or do you think using those images is somehow okay?

[Heart-Rest]

"The bible was written with language that any 1st year algebra student can understand..."

=============================================================

Are you trying to make the ridiculous claim that every non-Catholic person who calls himself a Christian and reads the Bible has the exact same interpretation and understanding of the Bible as every other non-Catholic person who also calls himself a Christian and also reads the Bible?

(That idea is preposterous, and undeniably false.    Even the many translators of the Bible cannot agree on the precise meaning of various Scriptures.)

------------------------------------------------------------

"Sure, algebra teachers have to teach, what's in the book...Catholic teachers do not teach what's in the book... "

=============================================================

That statement is as false as the day is long, and your endless repetitions of it will never make it true.