| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
That about sums it up nicely.
Thank you for the links, it may turn out to be very useful elsewhere. There are a couple of outdated ones on the Primary Source Documents page though.
Do you think that it doesn't matter to the victim how many years after the fact it is?
What? After 20 or 50 years, they're expected to have gotten over it?
It doesn't count any more cause the legal statute of limitations has been passed?
Tell me, what are the consequences of a priest living with unresolved, habitual sin in his life? Does that not affect the validity of the sacraments which he performs. I recall reading somewhere that priests are expected to keep short accounts with God and that if they have sin in their lives, that any sacraments they perform, like baptism and confirmation, etc, are rendered invalid.
Would that mean that a marriage ceremony he performed isn't valid and the couple is still living in sin? What about a priest who oversees a confirmation ceremony for a child he molested? Would a baptism then not absolve the child of original sin?
Everyone who has ever lived is alive somewhere, either heaven or hell.
But if they have died in their physical bodies and are no longer on this planet, we are forbidden to contact them.
We are to pray FOR each other, not TO each other. And there is nothing in Scripture to justify the practice of conferring sainthood on people as if any of them are more special than any of us. We are not to be respecters of persons.
Have you been dabbling in German Higher Criticism, Judith Anne? I'd like to know the name of the whackjob Catholic apologist(s) you've been reading, that would say (in direct opposition to Catholic tradition) that "Paul didn't write Ephesians."
Okay, then, Paul is dead and is not a saint. If I am not to be a respecter of persons (James 2:1) then I tell you I do not respect him. If no one is better than anyone else, then Paul is no better than Peter, you, or a bum in the gutter.
Right?
By the way, which translation are you using? On whose authority?
You’re getting it.
The bum in the gutter was created in God’s image just as Peter and Paul and you and I were and Jesus died for him as well and wants to redeem him and use him just as He used Peter and Paul, and wants to use you and me.
Being a respecter of persons doesn’t mean you aren’t to respect others but that you aren’t to treat others any differently from anyone else.
Assigning them positions of preeminence and conferring sainthood on them over others is doing just that.
Besides, any believer is already considered a saint. Nobody needs a title so someone can pray to them for things that they ought to be praying to God for in the first place.
What exactly is the whole purpose of *Saints* in the Catholic church for any way? What function do they fill and serve? Why are they needed?
I disagree with you, and I’m not interested in the discussion, so maybe you can get someone else to discuss this with you.
Frankly, I think Mary is alive, a saint in heaven, who can hear our prayers and intercede for us with her Son. And, she is better than me. I won’t say she is better than you, because you might be sinless too, although I doubt it.
I read a LOT, numerous sources. I do not limit my reading.
LOL. "Sets my gums on edge" doesn't have the same ring, does it? I hope all is well there, or as well as can be.
We could maybe go for a verb instead of an adjective. E.G. "But, [Dominic | saint of choice] has died."
It IS good for us feelthy papists (and the Orthodox] to be challenged to say what is the difference between OT necromancy and praying to/with the saints who have died. What, in our account, changed on Easter Weekend with respect to the status of the dead. On the other hand,I think "your side" needs to give some coherent account of what happened with Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration.
I THINK it's right to say, from our side's POV,FIRST that God and the saints are out of time, or not bound by time. Praying to the saints, like most things we do, is eschatological, in the sense that it not only looks ahead to the consummation but, as I like to say it, 'kites checks' on the basis of that consummation, enjoying "now" the benefits offered to all of us "on that day."
THEN I would stress, repeat, underline, capitalize, and even occasionally use colored letters
(!)
to state that all the communication takes place by the gift and work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit of Christ which makes us one body.
I’m inclined to agree that that saying (Luke 22:36) was intended more metaphorically than literally, AND I also am not a pacifist.
That was certainly the case under Mosaic Law when the righteous who had died were held in the Bosom of Abraham.
However, ALL of that changed with Jesus Christ.
IF, contact with those who had physically died is forbidden, then Christ violated the Law at the Transfiguration. You have exactly two choices, pick one:
A. At the Transfiguration the Law was changed to reflect that the saints had eternal life.
or
B. The Transfiguration didn't actually happen.
Christ violated the law? ROFL! Christ WROTE the law!
Good post.
Yeah, I suppose there should have been a third choice.
:-D Good morning!
Even toddlers seem to think they are the "center of the universe." And if they never come to grips with that misconception, I suspect they will have a hard time in life.
It is such a problem for me, I meditate on pride every morning as part of my prayer. I remind myself that about a hundred billion people have lived on this planet and that I am just one of them.
By comparison, that is like one drop of water in an Olympic sized swimming pool - or one star in the Milky Way galaxy.
Likewise, I remind myself that I can only see through my own eyes. No matter how much I endeavor to see the world through the other guy's eyes, I cannot. I can never really "feel his pain." I can never really understand. Only God can.
More importantly, I cannot see "all that there is" all at once. I cannot see the beginning and the end of every thing and every one. I cannot see how it all fits together. Only God can do this. Only He speaks objective Truth.
And I remind myself how easily I am deceived by my own physical senses. For an example, I quote myself (LOLOL!):
But your car is speeding down the road at 65 mph. So for the guy watching you from the roadside table, that fly is going 70 mph.
But the road you have taken is on the equator and the circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901.55 miles and the earth rotates once every 24 hours. So that fly is now going 1,100 mph + 70 mph = 1,170 mph.
Moreover, the orbital length of earth traveling around the sun is 149,600,000 miles, traveled in 365.25 days. That is 67,000 miles per hour. So add that in, and the fly is going 68,170 mph.
The sun orbits the Milky Way galaxy at a speed of 486,000 miles per hour. Add that in, and the fly is now going 554,170 miles per hour.
All of this and we haven’t gotten to the accelerating expansion of the universe, i.e. space/time itself. Space/time doesn’t pre-exist – it is created as the universe expands.
A galaxy 1 million light years away would seem to be moving away from us at a rate of 60,000 miles per hour. For every 3.26 million light years further out that we look, the galaxies seem to be moving away from us at an additional 162,000 miles per hour. In sum, the universe is currently at least 156 billion light years wide.
And that is looking at motion from the fly’s perspective. If we go in the other direction as "observer" – the quantum – the cumulative velocities are even more mind-boggling.
And so, as you have said in your testimony, I shall also endeavor to readjust my perspective concerning every issue that arrives on my "plate" in this life.
Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
Wherefore I abhor [myself], and repent in dust and ashes. - Job 42:1-6
No. The moral character of the priest does not affect the efficacy of the sacraments which he administers. If it did, who among the humble (and there are at least a couple of humble clergy) would dare administer sacraments?
That sounds like a wonderful book!
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.