Posted on 10/12/2007 6:31:38 AM PDT by kellynla
A Catholic parish in San Francisco has been classified alongside graphic San Francisco sex-fest sponsor Miller Brewing after officials served Communion to members of the ultra anti-Catholic "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," whose mockery of Christianity is legend in the city.
The service was captured on video by a member of the Catholic group St. Joseph's Men Society, and it has been made available Catholic blogsite Quamdiu Domine.
Two "sisters" at Holy Redeemer church in San Franscico
"I doubt that even Judas would have done such a perverse thing as this," said Anthony Gonzales, president of the men's organization. "Not only did [Archbishop George] Niederauer sell out our Lord for human respect but deliberately crucified Him again within the very sanctuary of the church that he was consecrated to protect. If Rome does not remove him immediately from his position and excommunicate him for this evil, then Rome itself becomes complicit in the crime. Enough is enough!"
The archbishop told LifeSiteNews he didn't notice anything unusual about the members of the congregation to whom he served Communion.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Great post, Claud. You may not have me convinced, but you have my respect.
There’s no doubt about it. This parish is an abomination, but it’s not representative of the faith. I share your outrage at what goes on there. There’s a great deal of frustration among faithful Catholics. We’re being assaulted on all sides - by the media, the government, the marketplace, and most cruelly, by our own shepherds. Please forgive us the times we may lash out wrongly. This is a time of great testing for all Christians. Whether or not you agree with Catholic doctrine, we are worshiping the same Jesus Christ and stand firm against the same Devil. Personally, I will always defend the faith. What goes on at certain parishes, however, is indefensible.
Sure. I’m just saying no one should mistake them for a website that has the Church’s interests at heart.
“Where do you think your Bible came from, buddy? I’ll give you a hint — The Catholic Church.”
And what was the response?
Actually no it didn’t in entirity. Parts of it did and parts of it didn’t.
Who was it that refused to translate the Bible so the average person could read it?
I find Dr. Ravi Zacharias very interesting as he makes very sound arguments for overly educated people.
Ah, so that's the trouble. Well comments like that are standard fare in the threads I'm usually in. People go on for pages and pages with much much worse..."Whore of Babylon" and all that. This is a Religion discussion board and you have to expect such things unless it's a Caucus thread.
And are those statements all that bad, seriously? There's no malice there, that's just what he thinks: that we have misguided teachings that aren't in the Bible. Good way to respond to that is say "like what?", and then post where it is in the Bible. :)
whether or not WND has “the Church’s interests at heart”
I don’t know, it certainly has brought MANY issues to light that we would have NEVER found out about in ANY of the LSM!
“Whether or not you agree with Catholic doctrine”
I don’t but can’t go further on risk of getting my head bashed in.
“we are worshiping the same Jesus Christ and stand firm against the same Devil”
Absolutely, we are on the same side. Which I may add is going to win.
“What goes on at certain parishes, however, is indefensible.”
While this example is on the extreme end of the spectrum there are many others. There are many churches under the leadership of misguided individuals. Sometimes its finanical, and other times its biblical. The Episcopal, Methodists and Presbyterians (PCUSA) have all adopted liberal stances on many issues. The Unitarians think there is too much God in church. I sat on the board of a PCUSA church where we debated the churches stance on abortion and homosexuality. I asked the pastor for guidance on what the bible said. Others were more concerned with what their bosses at work might think. For the life of me I couldn’t understand why there was even a need to discuss the church’s stance on these issues. As a result those denominations are seeing membership numbers plummet. Their response is to move even more liberal.
Are those lies or is it just that you don’t want to hear it?
I am very distressed to see that while there are 1.5 billion members of a hostile cult wishing nothing less than our deaths, we seem to believe it is more important for Christians to fight Christians. As Benjamin Franklin said after he signed the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately!"
‘I just refuse to allow bigots to post lies about the Catholic Church, Catholicism and Catholics.”
Thats about the 20th time you’ve called me a bigot and its quite offensive. I am not a bigot because I don’t agree with Catholics.
So, if I understand you correctly, anything that you disagree with is automatically a lie. Is that correct?
‘Why does World Net Daily care about Catholic issues? Last I checked, they provide quite the soapbox for the anti-Catholic Hal Lindsey.”
They frequently post stories which portray the Catholic church in a bad light. They also post stories about how our enemies have WMD on ships which are circling in the ocean waiting for the right opportunity.
The are on the fringe and you need to check their stories carefully before accepting them as truth.
nooooooooo...anything that is posted which is contrary with the teachings of Jesus Christ is a lie.
got it? good!
No doubt. It just seems like a lot of pandering, followed by a well-place knife in the back. I stopped reading WND several years ago, and it had nothing to do with Catholicism. It was just too shrill and conspiracy-minded.
You have just opened yourself wide with that one, Kelly.
Ah, good...clarifying stuff....this is what I like! I think this was more of a one-off comment than a studied criticism, but I'll respond anyway.
Driftdiver, just to correct the record, no one "refused" to translate the Bible. Latin was the language of the people of the Roman Empire and the language of the Roman Church...but it started to gradually change into Italian, Spanish, French, etc. And just like today lots of people prefer the King James even though it's older English, people back then didn't want to all of sudden abandon the Latin they were used to, for the vulgar languages that were just coming into being. So the linguistic landscape sorta changed around the Church.
Prior to that, anyway, in cases of people that never spoken Latin, the Bible was translated into Slavonic for the Slavs, Gothic for the Goths, etc. The Byzantines of course had it in Greek, the Syrians in Aramaic, the Ethiopians in Amharic and the Armenians in Armenian. And tons of languages since then...Chinese, American Indian languages, etc.
But bear in mind that very few people could read back then. Literacy was nowhere near where it was now. Plus, before the printing press, books were fantastically expensive. I saw one source that compared the price of purchasing handwritten copies of all the books of the Bible to what people would pay then for a *house*. So people pretty much learned the Bible not by reading but by a) hearing it preached to them in Church or by some mendicant friar, or b) by seeing the pictures of Bible scenes in the Church.
We are very lucky today that we have printed Bibles in our houses! But it wasn't so much that the Catholic Church banned the vernacular. She was in favor of the vernacular...she just was *not* in favor of totally scrapping old liturgical languages like Latin in the process. We're both/and on this issue rather than either/or. So even at the Latin Mass I go to (which BTW is the same Mass that's been around since the 600s at least), Father says the entire Mass in Latin but then actually does the readings again in English. And of course in most parishes the Mass is in English today anyway...where the entire Bible is read over the course of a 3 year period.
Sorry about the length of the response....lost control of myself there! ;)
A lie is a *deliberate* falsehood. It has to be done with intent to deceive. If there is no intent, there is no lie. Period.
If a person says something he believes is true but isn't true---well, you can call that a falsehood, but you cannot say it is a lie.
That's moral theology 101 right there.
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.