Posted on 12/15/2002 8:34:40 PM PST by Notwithstanding
Their so-called smoking gun theory boils down to this: the pope in 1999 recommended that a defrocked priest ought not return to the area where he committed his offenses. They take this eminently sensible advice and use it as a hammer to bludgeon the pope. Just so everyone understands what’s going on here, what the pope did was to say that a former priest—someone who had been returned to the status of a layman—ought to start a new life in a new location. Isn’t this what parole boards recommend to released inmates—that they not return to the neighborhood that nurtured their maladies? Shame on Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly and others for disseminating this mindless charge.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicleague.org ...
Beauty.
No doubt you are a faithful servant who knows and loves his Master well.
You can't blame 'em.
In America, folks get to decide for themselves when a human being is just a "clump of cells" and suitable for purchase from the fertility clinic or use in President Bush's hopeful research (under the supervision of his personally-appointed pro-cloning director of the NIH whose budget he doubled) and when that life is actually a human being ... a Potential Child whose Potential gratification of his parents desires is grounds for monetary damages in a wrongful death claim.
Personal Opinions are the stuff of the almighty Personal Values we must accomodate as a nation at the express deconstruction and rejection of the self-evident truths on which this nation founded its claim to liberty for all.
It's been a joy to read your posts. Take care.
(Curious as to your credential ... though I know on what authority you speak as a rule. My Grandpa is the only Knight I know. =)
No joke?
Your screen name is appropriate.
May god Bless you abundantly
--Still Proud2bRC
Promoting Alberto Rivera as an "ex-Jesuit priest" with a "special assignment from the Vatican" to corrupt and destroy Protestantism, when the truth is that Rivera was never a Jesuit, never a priest, and never had any sort of "special assignment from the Vatican" ... that makes Jack Chick a liar.
Don't believe me? Evangelical Protestant sources, including the magazine Christianity Today, have investigated Chick and concluded that the whole "Alberto" story is a fabrication.
In defending Jack Chick, you're defending someone who has been shown, by non-Catholic sources!, to be actively engaged in fabricating calumnies about other believers, evidently solely for the purpose of making money. What Chick sells is religious pornography. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Because the Truth is a Person.
It isn't. And everyone knows it. But the debate tactic of slandering rather than discussing facts is standardized among some of his ilk - the which you ought to be well aware of Ilbay; but, thank you for pointing it out. For some, absent any facts or intelligent defense, all they can do is namecall. We aren't liberals. And playing liberal games tells us the vancancy of credibility they have on it. Look at the bile in the condemnation. To me, that is projecting.
Regarding the "Pope ordered coverup" story, the facts have been extensively discussed already, on this site. The evidence does not prove the claim, or even begin to prove it.
I don't know whether the story is rooted in bigotry or incompetence, and it doesn't matter (much). We've presented our facts, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
You didn't answer the question. I asked you how the Holy Spirit guides believers towards the Truth.You did ??? Funny, I can't find this question in the text of your post that I responded to.
So I'll repeat: How does the Holy Spirit teach and guide the individual Protestant?
You're repeating this from where/when ???
But ... regardless, ... on to the question at hand ...
How does the Holy Spirit teach and guide the individual Protestant? ... Directly ... ?
The Holy Spirit can and does provide direct guidance to the individual christian, which the following scripture affirms ...
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.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:
Then how do you explain the manifold Protestant believers who disagree with one another regarding doctrine, each claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit?
This is, most often, the result of believers' not seeking the Lord's truth directly, but rather choosing to listen to fallible leaders.
Unfortunately, these leaders also, often, are not listening closely enough or purely enough (i.e. without other egocentric agendas) to hear the teaching of the Holy Spirit undistorted.
In other words, ... rather than seeking for the truth of God, ... many are diverted by a desire to protect their turf.
I believe that it is much more profitable for us to humbly acknowledge our fallibility, ... to know that what we do know is by the grace of God, ... and to earnestly seek what further the Lord has for us as we grow in His grace.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God (note - not the church), that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Hebrews 13:17 -- Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you
Your characterization of my post is as inaccurate as some of Chick's writings.
There are many items of doctrine, morals, and dogma which are shared word-for-word between Catholics, Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, and Jews--plus a few others.
All that is TRUE has inherent rights.
WHat is FALSE, however (such as identifying the Pope as the "whore of Babylon" has NO RIGHTS.
Sorry, but that's moral law 101--and the above-mentioned persuasions ALL hold that to be true.
No--what it proves is BlackElk's point: that you cannot personally vouch for any given translation.
This Pope may very well be able to read and understand all three of those languages, but that's not the issue, either.
The core of it was the charge given Peter ("feed my lambs/sheep") and to the Apostles as a whole: ("Whatsoever you hold on Earth, etc.,") along with His promise to send the Spirit to assist and His promise to remain with the Church.
With all of that, printed in ALL the editions of Scripture, how can one presume to argue with defined doctrine/dogmas of the Church?
Hebrews 13:17 -- Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for youAll the more reason to seek diligently the will/wisdom of God Himself, especially as regards who will have the rule over you.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
The core of it was the charge given Peter ("feed my lambs/sheep") and to the Apostles as a whole: ("Whatsoever you hold on Earth, etc.,") along with His promise to send the Spirit to assist and His promise to remain with the Church.With all of that, printed in ALL the editions of Scripture, how can one presume to argue with defined doctrine/dogmas of the Church?
If you are saying (and I think that you are) that the apostles, including Peter, were given the ministry of feeding the sheep ... and we are the sheep ... and the produce of the apostles is (most literally) their writings ... which have been compiled into the New Testament document, ... and designated (by the church) as scripture (i.e. the very Word of God), ... then we, ... as sheep, ... ought to make the scripture our constant grazing ground, ... preferring it to all others.
Therefore, one only has grounds to argue with defined church dogma/doctrine, when such dogma/doctrine is not found in scripture.
I believe Law is evil.
How he stayed in a position of power as long as he did is sick. Do you remember the comment about how "you treat the least...".
What if several priest had taken the Pope into a room and tortured him to the point that his life became a nightmare for years ... and then Cardinal Law covered for the monsters and worked so they could continue doing damage to the Pope and others? Well, that's what was allowed and it was worse than doing it to the Pope because it was done to children -- the most innocent among us.
People are not judged on how they treat the powerful, the wealthy or the famous, but how they treat the least among us.
Cardinal Law was evil and so were the "priests" who raped children, and the Catholics who let this go on and on and on. It's so sick.
Sure it is. But Scripture seems pretty clear that hearing and obeying "fallible human authorities" is not an option ... it's a requirement.
Subject, of course, to the proviso that nobody can lawfully command someone else to commit sin.
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.