Posted on 07/14/2015 5:15:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Also, why does the Catholic church allow men with that kind of sin in their lives to SERVE communion, but prohibits parishioners with that kind of sin in their lives from TAKING it?
Bible spamming eh?
You don’t read Scripture?
Your loss.
The primaries is the only Dem voting I do. Actually I consider my self independent. Republicans are democrats in drag.
Just because I don’t read your posts does not mean I don’t read the Bible. That’s pretty egotistical on your part, I think.
Worst Pope in history. Perhaps he could meet with ISIS to discuss their plans for World peace.
To remove a pope against his will they would have to kill him. Probably, it’s been done.
The ability to confect the Eucharist is not dependent upon the relative sinless state of the priest. This concept goes all the way back to the third century when there was a controversey about the baptisms of heretics, and whether or not they (the baptisms done by heretics) are valid or such people needed to be rebaptised. It was decided that they don’t.
The same concept applies here. It isn’t the man, by his own power who confects the Eucharist rather it’s the power of God. The personal state of the priest in question is irrelevant. This is the way it needs to be understood really; after all if it took a certain level of holiness to confect the Eucharist then we would have a severe shortage indeed. Same with baptisms. It’s the power of God at work in the Sacraments not men.
When I say something is wrong, I back it up. I don’t expect people to take it on my say so. THAT would be egotistical.
Since Catholics regularly excuse the abominable behavior of their clergy and excuse it regularly, it’s clear they don’t know what God has to say about it.
And yet blatant, unrepentant sin in the lives of those in authority in the church, disqualifies them from serving in that position.
That’s GOD’S decision, not ours.
Why haven’t you admitted I was correct?
Well, let’s look at the typical reaction on the part of Catholics to men like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and Ted Haggard.
They’re castigated and their ministries are discredited and sometimes, there’s jail involved.
Yet when a Catholic priest molests boys, he’s still allowed to perform mass, as long as his intent is pure. After all, he’s just human like the rest of us, nobody is perfect, and once a priest, always a priest.
The RCC hierarchy went out of its way to protect many or most of those molesters, shifting them from congregation to congregation.
Kind of a double standard, there, when Catholics excuse sin in their midst and damn others for it.
You think we're not going to be hearing THAT soon?
JP I
Everyone needs to read the Bible. Don’t you and others on here read it. Y’all do not know what y’all are missing. I have never heard that posting Bible verses was spam. Wow, what a concept.
And of course you have irrefutable proof of this.
Ask your fellow Catholics who proposed it first.
It wasn’t my idea that that’s how he died.
I’ll rephrase it then.
JPI?
I refer to it as "Scriptural Tourette's."
It's usually occurs when a Protestant is stuck on a particular theological point, so they default to the closest tangentially related verse they interpret to support their contention.
Link?
Women, Catholics, blacks, city dwellers, Democrats. A group somewhere has to hold the line and it isn't the Catholics.
Communism is another plague being adopted by the Catholic Church. Seems like an appropriate place to discuss her endless plagues.
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.