Posted on 11/24/2004 9:25:38 AM PST by wallcrawlr
An informal exorcism performed at the Cathedral of St. Paul this month was more profane than sacred and was directed toward gay Catholics, police and church authorities said Tuesday.
They said the ritualistic sprinkling of blessed oil and salt around the church and in donation boxes amounted to costly vandalism and possibly even a hate crime.
The damage was discovered Nov. 7 after the noon mass, and after words were exchanged between members of the Rainbow Sash Alliance, a gay rights group, and the opposing group, Catholics Against Sacrilege.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
"Dangerous like Jesus when he went into the temple and drove
out the money changers and turned over their tables?"
Well, at least the moneychangers didn't try to sell the temple............like our modernist/gay/apostate bishops are doing all across the country - selling churches for filthy lucre.
One poisons the Catholic portion of this religion forum when she says that Novus Ordo consecrations "may" be invalid. With no evidence. No substance. Just snide implication.
That is not a "valid position."
Bingo. That's exactly what we have done and been excoriated for doing so.
"The Novus Ordo is not invalid. Never has been, never will be."
You know some people like mantras - like the above. It keeps them safe and secure in their little perfect world. Unthreatened by any possibility of a mode of thought which might "rock their world" and give them even the tiniest fleeting feeling of insecurity.
See, because if the NO were invalid, persons like this one would totally freak! It is vitally important to their way of life, income, and mental security that it be so. To even consider the possibility of another mode of thought - an alternative opinion - is devestating to them.
It's also because some people earn their livelyhood from the NO establishment, dispensing annulments, etc. So, such an opinion threatens them as a person, not in an intellectual manner.
Otherwise, such a person would be able to rationally construct an argument to oppose such a thesis.
Please cite the verses that mention this.
The Will of God allowed for this, as it was fitting in God's plan of salvation.
See above.
Here we enter into the realm of mysticism.
Your two above statements do not relate to mysticism.
The demons were not afraid to assail his physical body. It was allowed to them to do this.
Please provide evidence to support this claim.
"One poisons the Catholic portion of this religion forum when she says that Novus Ordo consecrations "may" be invalid."
Not in the least. One raises a topic of concern for discussion. Your mischaracterization of it as "poisoning" is the old liberal tactic of trying to win a fight without examination of the issues, by discrediting the other fellow and his position."
In the secular realm, it takes the form of, "If you oppose affirmative action, you're a racist;" "If you oppose abortion, you're a sexist;" "If you support the 2nd Amendment, you're an ignorant, inbred hillbilly gun nut;" and "If you voted for Bush, you're an ignorant moron."
All those things are attempts to preclude discussion of the merits of a position, and to establish one's own viewpoint as the only possible stance a reasonable person could take.
And that's just what you're doing with, "If you worry about the ability of a Heretic to perform the Transubstantiation, you're poisoning the forum."
"With no evidence. No substance."
Another liberal debate trick. No matter how many libraries full of support the other side has presented, always, always, always deny that they have offered anything. That sets you up to demand that they post it again, thereby bringing the discussion to a halt and wasting everybody's time. If they refuse to waste their time re-posting stuff that they know darn well you saw the first time around, then you can claim it was never posted in the first place.
"Just snide implication."
There's only one snide person in this discussion. Mount a mirror on your monitor so you can keep an eye on him.
That is not a "valid position."
You are probably less qualified than anyone else on Free Republic to make that determination.
The lazy man's answer to "evidence."
"Just go search for it yourself." That's the trad answer to a request for evidence.
You called?
The Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club stands ready to prepare for AND initiate ceremonies. All we need is an invitation.
With all due respect, right now I have neither the time nor the patience to due that kind of research right now. Take a look at the date!!!!!!!!!
Most of that is patently obvious in the Gospels. That which is not necessarliy overtly stated - in re your comments - is readily deduced from an intelligent analysis of the narratives of Christ's Passion & Death in the Gospels.
My thoughts and analysis are (obviously) from a traditionalist Roman Catholic perspective. But I think that most baptists/fundamentalists would also agree with much of what I said about Christ's passion, nd the influence of demons - and the relevance of the Divine Will in these things.
As to dealing the "the realm of mysticism"......that makes it obvious that you did not read my entire post - nor are you aware of what I was trying to say, and the point which I was making.
If you wish further elucidation, I suggest reading "The Dolorous Passion of Jesus Christ" by Blessed Anne Katerina Emmerich.
Back off.
You know as well as I do that the NO, (all other things being equal) is a perfectly valid Rite.
And you ALSO know as well as I do that, for example, the Green Bay Diocese was a "divorce mill" LONG before VatII--it was known for that problem in the 1940's and '50's.
That was before VatII--and Rembert Weakland was ordained before VatII--we could go on.
Post/propter fallacy. 20 yards, loss of down.
If you have something to say to me, say it to my face. Stop hiding behind Deborah's skirts, nancyboy.
""Just go search for it yourself." That's the trad answer to a request for evidence."
And another liberal debate trick to shut off meaningful discussion: misrepresent the other fellow's statements, so you can waste days squabbling about what he really said, instead of addressing the merits of the arguments.
Of course you are absolutely correct. This person does this on purpose simply to wear you out. He is on here 14 hours a day.
Y'know what......as a fan of the old "Laugh-In" show from the late60s/early70s........tell him to look it up in his Funk & Wagnalls!
If you have an argument to posit that proves the Novus Ordo is invalid, let's hear it.
Otherwise, be known as a liar, on two threads.
You're a mediocre parliamentarian, and your debating skills suck.
Perhaps you'd like to post some evidence--since Deborah won't--that the Novus Ordo consecrations are invalid.
"Back OFF"????
Umm.......excuse me sir, but who exactly do you think you are? I was not posting to you, and most importantly I do have the right to express my opinion here - whether you agree with it or not. If you have a contrary opinion - fine......then spit it out, and provide an argument for your position.
That I will always respect.
That's funny, I think one poisons the Catholic portion of this religion forum (on this conservative site) by posting articles from The National Catholic Distorter and Commonsqweal. : )
As you have noticed already, just like in the real world N.O.s on this forum have been known to threaten violence when you question their rite. It doesn't end with personal verbal attacks.
If you don't like them, don't read them. I don't read the swill from The Remnant or Traditio, and I'm very happy.
The religion forum is not exclusively for schismatics.
Hey, Nancyboy, you know one thing that's going on here?
When Sinkspur is really getting his head handed to him on the merits, he escalates the abuse, turns the thread to garbage, and then gets it pulled.
That way the substantive arguments that have crushed him, and his pathetic failure to answer those arguments, are not available on the Internet for all to see.
Did you notice that the "Catholic bishops approve national adult catechism" thread got pulled, by Jim Robinson himself? (Reason: "pulled." Thanks a lot for the info, Jim.)
It happens a lot.
Regards,
Your character-assassin-in-arms, raddie traddie symp, rabble, slurping the same firewater, town drunk, town drunk again, mental patient, Kool-aide drinking, nasty, nasty old man.
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.