The Majority of Cardinal Dolan's Seminarians Are Pro-Abortion

Eyewitness | 121113 | Arthur McGowan

[Arthur McGowan]

On November 4, 2012, a debate was held at St. Joseph's Seminary in Dunwoodie, N.Y.

At the end of the debate, out of 52 seminarians, 19 voted for Romney.

Cardinal Dolan lectures his fellow bishops on the need for "conversion," while he is running a seminary in which a majority of the seminarians are pro-abortion.

[ArrogantBustard]

[xzins]

The Majority of Cardinal Dolan's Seminarians Are Pro-Abortion

That's why they'll never be pope.

[ArrogantBustard]

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you. Wonderful.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

Thank you Mrs. Don-o.

I love the confiteor. Especially in the new translation.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

For God so loved the world he sent a book. That seems to be what you are saying here.

The pillar and foundation of truth is not the Bible. it is the Church.

1 Timothy 3:15

[Dutchboy88]

"1 Timothy 3:15"

Your assumption that Rome is the "church" is where this thinking goes off the rails. The "assembly" of God is what Paul is writing to Timothy about and this is not a formal organization with a human leader. That is your organization's arrogant assumption. Go read the Greek. It is not what the text says.

And, if the text is not important to guide us, why harken to it to prove your point?

[Dutchboy88]

"However, I think one source of misunderstanding is that you interpret some Catholic practices in a different sense than we do ourselves.

This in itself is not an essential element of worship --- a priest like Fr. Walter Ciszak in a Soviet prison in Siberia with a little tin cup and wine made from soaking smuggled raisins, is offering the divine worship as truly as Ambrose or Augustine in a splendid setting in 4th century Milan or Hippo. In neither case is the priest (Ciszak or Ambrose or Augustine) offering anything of his own at all, but only Christ, the One High Priest, who offers the only sacrifice necessary. You know that: trust that we know it, too."

You have a very gentle manner with your points. And, I agree that we agree on a great deal. And, I certainly recognize that there is a difference of interpretation between you (and perhaps most Catholics) and me regarding some Catholic practices. But, please know, the difference is not that I doubt sincerity or intention. I fully believe that both are genuine. It is whether the "practices" themselves are appropriate.

In Ciszak's case, again, sincerity is not questioned. And, all of the pictures posted I must assume are there to prove that the Eucharist can be done even in a bombed out hovel. But, the ritual itself, a re-creation of the death of Christ by claiming that bread and wine are transubstantiated into body and blood, here is the rub. This ritual, this action, this claim is not supported by biblical revelation. It is a construct of the men who lived following the first century patterned after the so-called "last supper".

However, Jesus could not have been giving the 12 this directive (to transubstantiate it), since neither had actually been broken or shed at that time. And, He said to do it in remembrance of me, not to replicate what I am about to do. This is an enormous leap, one not justified anywhere but by Rome (and other large organizations). Whatever the intention of the groups here, Paul is clear in his letter to the Hebrews that a repeat of sacrifices is a spit in the face to Jesus. Jesus did the impossible once for all...and sat down at the right hand of the Father.

And, I know you know the old saw, "...the road to hell is paved..." etc. It matters little if a person only intends the best. It matters what is the person doing. If someone claimed that sacrificing children by burning them on an altar to Jesus was simply a wonderful expression of offering their precious possessions to God, would we say, "Well, they are sincere, so why make a fuss?" or "Well, this is what Abraham was ordered to do, so it is right there in the Book."? No, of course not. We would say this is a misunderstanding of the text (bad hermeneutics) and cannot be true.

Well, then when a pope decrees indulgences (something foreign to the Scriptures but coming back into use), we cannot simply say, "Well, they mean well." If something is not encouraged in the Scriptures, then it is not to be done. Here is my great concern with the additional trappings of the RCC. They have added the sacraments, the absolution, the confessional booth, the indulgences, the purgatory, etc. It is this baggage which disqualifies it. Otherwise, we should allow all additions such as Mormonism, 7th day, Christian Science, JWs, even the bizarre Joel Osteen health/wealth cult(now partnering with Oprah).

What do we use to hold up against all organizations? Is the Bible sufficient? Do we have the message fully delivered and is Scripture "...inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." or not?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I wish I had just a little more time for this (I'ver got to go out and rake up the leaves before it rains!)

Bu let me say that here we solidly agree: there is no "repeat sacrifice."

There is but one sacrifice: "the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev 13:8) It happened outside of time, transcending time: it is timeless. That same sacrifice is the one of which Jesus spoke when he said "This is My Body, broken for you," "This is my Blood," --- either He means that, or He means nothing.

It was His body broken and His blood shed at Calvary --- same sacrifice, Thursday in an unbloody manner, Friday in a bloody manner. This morning at 7:30 a.m. in my parish --- same sacrifice--- one Bread, one Body, one Lord, one High Priest who is Jesus Christ Himself.

We're not like Civil War Reenactors, shooting off something that's all bang and no bullet. ... "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

If this is not real, then nothing is real. "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Back to raking leaves! :o)

[Dutchboy88]

I won't interrupt the leaf raking. I know how hard that is when those things get soggy.

"If this is not real, then nothing is real. "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.""

Absolutely! But, as I said before, it is a mile wide leap from Jesus saying this to the ritual of a special man being designated to take bread and wine, lift the chalice or loaf up, speak words and have those words/his office/the act transubstantiate the elements into the real body & and blood of Jesus.

If He meant it to constitute a directive to begin such a ritual, then what do we do with "I am the door." "I am the shepherd" "I am the sheepgate"? Do we have a special man stand before a door and speak words to transform it into Jesus? Please notice that is precisely what is taking place in the so-called "eucharist".

But, the distinctions between us continue. Whence cometh faith? To the Catholic (correct me if I am wrong, please), faith is that act of trust initiated by the petitioner. It derives from a free will which is able to choose or reject Jesus. This is what makes salvation "just". Those who choose are rewarded with salvation; those who reject get their just desserts. God is calling to all men, but only those who bend their will respond. But, this is a derivation of men.

Those clinging to the message of the Scriptures, alone, find Paul saying, "So then it does not depend upon the man who chooses or the man who acts, but upon God...And He will have mercy upon whom He has mercy, and harden whom He desires." Such claims nullifies the effects of relying upon the sacraments...and really anything a man claims to bring about his salvation. In the Scriptures, men are not the gatekeepers, God is. This severely collides with Rome's additions to the Gospel.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

“If He meant it to constitute a directive to begin such a ritual, then what do we do with “I am the door.” “I am the shepherd” “I am the sheepgate”? Do we have a special man stand before a door and speak words to transform it into Jesus? Please notice that is precisely what is taking place in the so-called “eucharist”.”

Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself—He said, “I am the Light.” “I am the Door.” “I am the Shepherd.”

But He never said, “That light is Me.” “That door is Me.” “That shepherd is Me.”

However, He did say, “That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me.”

35[COLOR=”Blue”]Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.[/COLOR] 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 [COLOR=”blue”]Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”[/COLOR]

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, [COLOR=”blue”]“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread [3] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”[/COLOR] 59 Jesus [4] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

The Words of Eternal Life
60 [COLOR=”Blue”]When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?[/COLOR] 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 [COLOR=”Blue”]And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”[/COLOR]

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67[COLOR=”blue”] So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”[/COLOR] 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

So, how much do you believe of what Jesus said? 36 verses just here to tell you to eat His flesh and drink His blood or you have no life in you.

Tell me, is he nuts, is he a liar? Or is He God?, and He is telling you the Truth.

[Dutchboy88]

"So, how much do you believe of what Jesus said? 36 verses just here to tell you to eat His flesh and drink His blood or you have no life in you.

Tell me, is he nuts, is he a liar? Or is He God?, and He is telling you the Truth."

I believe all of what Jesus said. And, He is God.

You, however, are missing the point of my post. I said it is a unreasonable leap to go from what Jesus is literally saying to, "What He really meant was, 'From now on, a special man in a special role should lift up a piece of bread and a goblet of wine, speak some words over it, and that will transubstantiate the common materials into my actual body and my actual blood and then all the people in the audience who belong to the RCC may eat my actual body and drink my actual blood. And, you should do this over and over and over, again.'"

Wherein does the RCC gather the justification to make this leap? "Do this in remembrance of me" is simply a request to break bread & drink wine in remembrance of Him. It is you, my FRiend, who appears not to be able to let Him speak.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hello again, Dutch!

Sorry for the delay. I went out and, while raking leaves, tripped on uneven groun) and banged my left knee and elbow pretty hard. Nothing broken, but that was the elbow I crunched up 4 1/2 years ago in a bike crash and it's always easy to hurt and long to heal. Aching all over this morning, stood in bed (as we say) --- OK, now I'm back at the keyboard again.

I don't want to argue a bunch about the Eucharist right now, but maybe later when I have something new to offer instead of the same-old "But John 6!" "Wild Semitic hyerbole!" "Come let us adore!" "Uhh, he said He's a door?" "Did He?" "Didn't He?" "Didache!" "Didache right back atcha!"

Beinst my Don-o is Russian Orthodox, I'm always mindful that different terminology someimes approaches the same Truth. I don't say all the differenes are "just" terminology, but that can be a a lot of it.

One thing I do want to say about the "I am the Door," "I am the shepherd," "I am the sheepgate," examples. When He said that, it is not recorded that this provoked major problems with any of his disciples. People didn't jump up and say,

• This is a hard saying!
• If you're a door, where's your doornob?"
• Shepherd? Nonsense. Carpenter, more like. Everybody knows that.
• You're a Sheepgate? Fuggeddaboudit. You're out of your mind.

In other words, they were sensible people who knew a metaphor when they heard one. But "I am the Bread of Life... Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will no life within you..." Controversy, crisis, and a major walk-out. One wonders why there was such a difference.

And why Jesus didn't yell, "Wait! Come back! It's just a manner of speaking!"

:o)

OK, have a good evening. I'm over-and-out until tomorrow.

[Dutchboy88]

You're cute. Sorry to hear about the "ground attack". I have had those in the past and usually make up some new words to call the leaves...but they still just sit there and look at me.

I know you are away from the keyboard, so this isn't to try and pull you back. But, again, the problem is not what Jesus said, the problem is that whence cometh the justification to expand this into, "So what I mean fellas is have a guy who graduates from a Roman seminary, dressed in appropriate vestments, decked out with a chain and cross, stand before the crowd and lift up some bread and wine and pronounce words over it and you will be amazed...I will transubstantiate this into my real body and blood and you can actually partake of me. Do it over and over, again."? See the ginormous leap?

No question that we must eat his flesh and drink His blood, as we must enter through Him as a Door. But, He did not give orders for men to stand before doors and transubstantiate them into Him. You seem to take it that this would be obvious...well the same applies to the celebration meal. He simply said, "Do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me." He did not say, "So do this to transubstantiate the common materials into my real body and blood."

I give you the last word. Whenver you become available. Grace to you, my FRiend.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

Then why did St. Paul write this?

1 Corinthians 11:27 “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”

How can you be guilty of a symbol?

[Dutchboy88]

"Then why did St. Paul write this?

1 Corinthians 11:27 “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”

How can you be guilty of a symbol?"

It is your organization which calls him "St." Paul. Actually, every believer is a "hagios", a holy one, a "s"aint because they are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus.

But, you bring up a good question. Why would Paul write this to folks in Corinth? Because, if you read the entire context, the celebration meals were being infiltrated by those who made them into drunken parties. Perhaps the way "wakes" often turn out.

Those drunks were the ones who did not see the symbolism in the celebration and were by this condemned. They are unbelievers and guilty of the body and blood of Jesus. They are no different than those Jews who, along with the Romans, were being held responsible for nailing Jesus to the cross. Yet, remember, even His death was carried out by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God Himself.

Incidentally, a person can be quite guilty of actions which are completely symbolic, as explained by Paul in the letter to the Jews (Hebrews). By returning to the practices of sacrificing animals in accord with the Mosaic Law, those Jews were crucifying, "...to themselves the Son of God, and put(ting) Him to open shame." Such a return demonstrated that they misunderstood what was accomplished by the one-for-all sacrifice of Jesus (a danger the repetitious transubstantiation ritual risks). And such misunderstanding was evidence that these folks were unbelievers. Yet, all they were doing is going back to practice what they believed the Law asked for.

Does that help?

[Not gonna take it anymore]

1 Corinthians 11 New International Version (NIV) 11 1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

Correcting an Abuse of the Lord’s Supper 17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

[Dutchboy88]

I cannot get your point. We agree that having a party during the remembrance celebration is a gross, despicable practice. If you are saying that Paul is claiming the bread has become the body of Christ, your claim is a leap of extraordinary proportions. His argument is that they don’t recognize the significance of their mockery. Notice, no mention anywhere of a certain man, trained by Rome, assigned to a certain office, lifting the bread and wine up and saying words over them to transubstantiate them into something else.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

I believe that the Eucharist is Christ and that the priest confects the Eucharist.

You believe it is a symbol and since I was once a protestant I guess I can understand why. When the only thing you have to follow Christ is a book then of course you cannot believe in anything else. But what really mystifies me is since we don’t have all of the writings of the apostles, how can you know what is missing?

As John Cardinal Newman put it when he converted to the Catholic Church, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

You are not going to change my mind and I’m sure that I am not going to change yours.

[Dutchboy88]

"As John Cardinal Newman put it when he converted to the Catholic Church, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”"

As Bob Davis said when he converted from Catholicism to faith in Jesus Christ, alone, "It was like I was in a fog. All they said was trust us, we are the true Church. We know everything and we are the way. Then I was rescued by Jesus. Now, I disavow all of their heresy."