Posted on 03/14/2007 6:29:56 AM PDT by NYer
Yours are not.
Judas hightailed it out of there before the Institution of the Eucharist. At Christ's command.
According to the Bible, there are sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance: Wilful murder - the blood of Abel, [Gen. 4:10],the sin of the Sodomites, [Gen. 18:20; 19:13]
the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, [Ex. 3:7-10]
the cry of the foreigner, the widow and the orphan, [Ex. 20:20-22] and injustice to the wage earner. [Deut. 24:14-5; Jas. 5:4].
Christ said that it would be better that those who lead children astray be thrown into the river with a millstone around their neck. And that it would have been better that Judas never been born (although He did not say the same thing about Peter, indicating a significant differnence in their sins) and Ananias and Sapphria were struck dead for their sin.
Scripturallly, God views some sins as more severe, even to label some as unforgiveable. "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgivness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.' [Mk. 3:29; Mt. 12:32; Lk. 12:10]
ping to #101
I meant #102...off to teach math now, ironic isn't it.
Hmm? Luke 22: 16-21 says Judas was still there.
In th Gosepl of John, Christ instrusts Judas to leave,and he does. After Judas leaves, He speaks to Peter about his betryal. In Mark, Judas in spoken to before the Institution of the Eucharist, Peter after. So too in Matthew. Taking these three together, it appears to me that Judas left, the Eucharist was instituted and then Christ spoke to Peter about his upcoming betryal. It just seems more fitting.
We are talking about my own personal interpretation of Scripture, but hey, that's completely legit right ;)
LOL! Well, I'm sure others have noticed this, and I wonder how it was resolved. I'm guessing the Angelic Doctor commented on it at some point. ;-)
IMO, Sean does a great job. The only exception is him having ANY lib on. When I tune in - the last thing I want to hear is ANY twisting the facts, clueless, lying lib. And then he is most gracious to them - and they KNOW he will be that way.
I'd never give them any air time - they already have the MSM 24/7.
I don't know about right now, but it was too often the case that they were transferred to unsuspecting parishes and allowed to carry on the their priestly duties including celebrating the mass and ironically hearing confession, and unfortunately also carrying on their unpriestly duties of buggering boys.
When and if that occurs, then by definition they do not constitute contraception.
I would defer to someone more knowledgeable, but I'm pretty sure the homosexual pedophile priests are ineligible to receive or distribute Communion, just as you or I would be ineligible to receive it. Didn't stop them, but if they're going to bugger people, I don't think desecrating the Eucharist is a big deal to them.
Gross oversimplification here, but if I smack you in the face, that's a sin, but it's not as bad a sin as murdering you in cold blood. Both are sins, and Christ died for all of them, but the former will not necessarily make you ineligible for receiving the Eucharist.
BTW, there's a better word than "ineligible," but I don't know what it is.
As is the case with any mortal sin, you must first repent, obtain absolution before presenting yourself at the Lord's table.
You are talking about 'under the law'
Under what law, I'm talking about Acts 5:1-11.
a fact this priest forgets.
Prove it.
Tell me what 'sin' is NOT covered by His Blood ?
Again I point you to the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgivness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.' [Mk. 3:29; Mt. 12:32; Lk. 12:10]
While I also am not impressed by Sean's intellect it is nonsense to charge he is driving anyone to the Democrats because of his religious views.
How do you think the Democrat party survived for 200 years but for the Catholic vote? That has long been the source of its power. It controls almost all major cities because of that power base.
I had forgotten the 70s incidents. You are correct.
One day, perhaps, you will not LIE about those you disagree with.
Thats a good point. How do you think that would apply to say a 3rd party, myself, who believed it likely that you (perez24) was likely to murder "presently no screen name" but did nothing about it and perhaps helped to create circumstances which would make that crime easier to commit? Do you think I, the third party, would be "eligible" to receive?
Of course I'm drawing an analogy towards those who worked to keep quiet and deceive during the abuse scandal. Those bishops, priests, and perhaps even higher than that, they are still with us.
In no way do I mean to imply that other religious bodies than the Roman Catholic Church do not have the same problems with sexual abuse of the young. You are right to bring that truth forward.
It is the sheer size of the Catholic Church which makes this so easy to concentrate on its problems in that regard when some smaller body is ignored. People say "who?" and let it go.
To call Sean Hannity a "liberal" does not credit to the arguments of this priest. That is just dumb.
To lie is to knowingly present falsehood as truth. This I have not done.
You may apologise any time you like.
You may also educate yourself regarding the scandal of homosexual predation in various institutions any time you like. I see no evidence on this thread that you have any worthwhile knowledge of the matter.
Absent an apology from you, I consider this discussion closed.
What Father did was take the same tactic that O'Reilly used when he went on Steven Colbert's show. He stayed detached and calm, unflappable I believe is the correct word. Like he knew he was going to be attacked and had mentally prepared for it.
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.