Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Do you think I believe that for one second?:-)
Just more doublespeak is all that was.
You guys evidently have fallen for Daves word swap game.Speaking of word swapping, the name's eastsider, not Eastsider. Tx. : )
Notice dave, please pay special attention! The context was of those who practice homosexuality, pedophilia and other ongoing, habitual, continuous practice of sin without benefit of true repentance.
OK, but you made a pretty general statement. I was attempting to get you to clarify it.
Ya see, there you go trying to poo poo away pedophile priests and other perverted clergy by making a strawman argument that just because they aren't perfect, they shouldn't be disallowed as clergy.
Now you're seeing things that aren't there. All I was doing was asking you about the statement you made.
I'm not saying one has to be perfect----Im saying they shouldn't be clergy when they are engaging in the ongoing, continuous, habitual practice of walking in darkness, whether it be homosexuality, pedophilia, fornication, adultery, stealing, murder, drunkenness, being a dope addict, etc, etc. One doesn't have to be "perfect", however, anyone in the clergy does have to hold a pretty high standard, Scripture says so, and that standard includes not being a pedophile, adulterer, fornicator, theif, murderer, drunkard, etc, etc.
So it was a general statement, and not one just limited to context. I wish you'd make up your mind.
SD
Does that mean you are going to stop asking me if I support pedophile priests and the actions the Church took to protect them?
SD
That is a good first step. Hopefully, over the ensuring weeks yule be able to recignize the intrinsically evil actions by the heirarchy(not ALL) within the papist church through history.
There is hope for you yet.
As Solomon says in Ecclesiasters, As long as a man is tied to the land of the living there is hope. For even a live dog is better off than a dead lion.
We are still talking about certain "acts" not the lifestyle. It's an out. The Catechism tap dances all around it; but, it does not call Homosexuality sin. It just says that some things homos do are sins. They say the acts can't be approved of, not the lifestyle. they say the certain acts are contrary, not the lifestyle. This is where the argument started with a single question. "How is it defined - as a sin, or a less than acceptable lifestyle.
Men flying is contrary to natural law; but, it happens and I don't think it is sinful in the least. Bowels can be disordered, it doesn't make it a sin, though one could laughingly consider it such at times. As I was saying before, the RCC could have made a plain statement that was unequivocal, and they did not - choosing rather to couch the language in such a way as to argue both sides. It was your side that came raging out saying Homosexuality is not a sin when the topic was broached. Not just one person; but, several. And in the midst of that we find the Catechism that won't even call it sin. Thus what we are left with is a bunch of Catholics that argue it biblically is not a sin while at the same time arguing that the Catholic church Teaches that it is - though they don't say it and don't really come close to it. If it's taught to be a sin, on what is that based and why are the catholics here saying it is not? Hmm? Can't have it both ways; but, that is exactly the state of affairs.
That sounds alot like "grease". You may need to take it up with Mack.
"Spin" seems to be OK and that's very much like he-who-shall-not-be-named. Maybe "slick" is ok too.
Which intrinsically evil and sinful acts? Do you mean the intrinsically evil and sinful act of Pride? How about the intrinsically evil and sinful act of Jealousy? Sloth? Gluttony? Shold every preacher who masurbates, gets fat, or envies his neighbor's new Cadillac get the pink slip, too?
Every human being on this earth commits intrinsically evil and sinful acts every day; it's called fallen human nature. If, as you suggest, the commission of intrinsically evil and sinful acts disqualifies one from the vocation of ministry, then there will be no ministers -- for to be one, one would have to live a perfectly sinless life. I trust you see how impossible that is. Let he who has never committed an intrinsically evil and sinful act cast the first stone.
Sinful desires are part of Man's nature. We all sin mentally. I myself have committed adultery, murder, and many other grevious sins in my heart over the years -- and so, unless you are Chirst, have you. But there are degrees of sin; few would argue that experiencing a desire to kill the guy who just cut you off in traffic is morally equal to actually ventilating him with a 9mm automatic. In other words, acting on evil impulses is worse than merely having evil impulses. In like manner, the Church teaches that homosexual desire is intrinsically disordered (i.e. sinful, evil), and that acting on those impulses (by having homosexual intercourse) is worse. What this means in practical terms is that priests (and others) who experience homosexual desires are called by their oath to pray for deliverance from them, and to practice absolute chastity.
Those who violate that oath should be removed from the priesthood.
Do you believe their intrincally evil sinfulness should be protected by the heirarchy within the RCC?
Of course not. What we have here (in the AmChyrch) is a failure to excommunicate.
I certainly don't , for Protestants, or any other denomination. Neither did St. Paul setting a high standard for pastors and overseers in 1 Timothy 3, as well as other places. Would you agree?
See my response above. Those priests, bishops, religious, and lay ministers who demonstrate by their actions and lifestyle their contempt for authority, their lack of orthodoxy, and their disregard for the traditional and infallible teaching of the Christian faith as regards sexuality should be removed from the ranks of Christ's shepherds.
But don't forget that people are sinful. Peter denied Christ Himself, not once but thrice. Surely that is a worse sin than any amount of butt-pokery -- and yet Christ forgave him, and moreover used him as the Rock upon which the Church was built. Those who deny the teaching of Christ's Church regarding sexuality deny Christ -- but sincere repentance coupled with a firm resolve to never repeat the denial will always result in forgiveness.
To sum up: practicing homosexuals (fornicators, masturbators, etc.) should be removed from the priesthood. Those who prey on children should be burned at the stake. I hope my opinions are clear to you now.
First off, what was said, was said to B-Chan, and it was within a context that both of us understood, and one that YOU totally missed.
Secondly, had you actually read everything that was said between "B-Chan" and myself, you would have found that I had clarified further between "B-Chan" and myself and the context of "intrinsically evil"----but noooooo, dave has to jump in without reading the entire context and have a PMS moment.
Would an estrogen suppository help you with those PMS episodes?
No we are not. This is what you do not understand. If the Church condemns the acts, it just as well condemns people who obsess about the acts, live a "lifestyle" of the acts, etc. Do you think the Church approves of an "Adultery" lifestyle? How about a thievery lifestyle? What about a murder lifestyle?
Do you think the Churhc would approve of any of these? Why then do you think the Church would approve of a homosexual lifestyle? Is there something "virtuous" about surrounding yourself in the trappings of your sin and defining yourself based upon your sin? What aren't you getting about this?
It's an out. The Catechism tap dances all around it; but, it does not call Homosexuality sin. It just says that some things homos do are sins. They say the acts can't be approved of, not the lifestyle. they say the certain acts are contrary, not the lifestyle. This is where the argument started with a single question. "How is it defined - as a sin, or a less than acceptable lifestyle.
The call to chastity, to virtuousness, does not allow one to live a lifestyle centered around sin. It is quite obvious to those not looking to make the Church the enemy.
Men flying is contrary to natural law; but, it happens and I don't think it is sinful in the least.
LOL Ha Ha Ha. You don't know what natural law means. I can assure you that "men flying" is not contrary to natural law. Keep talking, it is amusing.
As I was saying before, the RCC could have made a plain statement that was unequivocal, and they did not - choosing rather to couch the language in such a way as to argue both sides.
You do not understand the language. That is your problem, not the Church's. The language is unequivocal. Do you think the Chursh approves of a murder lifestyle? It doesn't say it doesn't approve in the Catechism?
SD
Nowhere, nohow, is Peter ever mentioned in Scripture as presiding at Jerusalem. There are; however a few references to Peter and Jerusalem: Acts 8: 13: Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed. 14: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama'ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15: who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; (Peter was sent to Jerusalem by the other Apostles????????????
And??? You are trying to find proof that Peter did not have primacy amongst the apostles. Peter was chosen to preach to the Gentiles and Samaria was Gentile, no? Who else should have gone? When you have say, a merger of companies and the CEO and his assistant are the ones chosen to go and do the negotiating with the other company, does it lessen the CEO’s authority?
Acts 11: 1: Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2: So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, 3: saying, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?" (Peter didn't bring the "word" to Jerusalem??????????//)
I don’t get your drift. My reading of Acts 11 is that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem thought it was a scandal that Peter stayed in the house of Cornelius – and Peter goes on to explain to them about his vision from God not to discriminate between Jews and Gentiles.
And I disagree with, what of course you have to believe as a non-C, about the Council of Jerusalem.
Acts 15: 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." 6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." 12 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. Acts 15: (5 & 7: These people all spoke before Peter!) (7: AUTHORITY?????) (10: SEVERELY REBUKED?????????) (12: They kept silence while they listened to Barnabus and Paul. Were they cheering and clapping hands while Peter was speaking?) (20-21: Suggestion, Judgment, whatever. It was made by JAMES!)
This scenerio is exactly how the magisterium of the RCC works. There is dissention or perhaps false teaching (Acts 15:5), then there is much debate/discussion (Acts 15:6-7) within the magisterium, and then one speaks with authority – as Peter did (Acts 15:7). My Bible has the following for Peter’s speech.
Acts 15:7-12
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."
12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.
I contend that James was speaking on the same matter as Peter, although after Peter has already spoken first. He says directly that what Peter has said agrees with the words of the Prophets and then James elaborates on what Peter has said. I see no problem with this as James was the leader of the Jerusalem community. I can’t understand your point… you are reaching.
I will copy the remaining Scriptural references without comment. No comment is needed for those who will read this "authority" objectively. Of course, it may be surmised that unrelated Scriptural references were simply "thrown in" for effect.
Acts 13: 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
Acts 15: 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
Galatians 2 6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) --those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me;
Acts 16: 4: As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.
(Decisions made by the apostles and elders, NOT Peter!
Your "authority" stands up only if read with an uncritical attitude by one who wishes to believe what he says. Furthermore, it is not advisable to check up on his citations.
Your “authority” stands up because you have an uncritical attitude towards yourself and wish to believe what you want to believe. You are your own authority.
Peter’s name occurs 195 times in the New Testament, while the rest of the Apostles together are mentioned 130 times, and the second most mentioned Apostle, St. John, is mentioned only 29 times. I believe that Peter was chosen by Jesus to feed his sheep and that Peter was given the keys – I don’t want to get into another discussion of this as the matter has been addressed countless times and none of us will change our belief, either way.
That's enough from you. Be gone.
SD
Not forgetting that at all, quite the contrary. That is why I went on to clarify, that one is "walking in darkness" as St. John says in 1 John 1:8-9, when remaining in a state of rebellion against God by the ongoing, continuous, habitual practice of their sin(say of fornication), without benefit of true repentance(which I also clarified---but poor dave, missed all of that too). We are all sinners, and remain sinners until the day we die. However, we are not to walk in open rebellion in the habitual, ongoing practice of sin, without true repentance. If we do, just as St. John says, we lie and do not practice the truth.
When falling into sin, the Holy Spirit convicts us of that sin, and leads us to confession and repentance.
The ongoing, habitual practice of rebellious sin is not a "fruit" of salvation---that is one who says they have faith, but lack the works of repentance and obedience to substantiate their faith. James says that faith is dead.
No pun intended, right? Anyway, this is standard for him. Even though it's unchristian and un-FR: "Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts." Guess the fine print must continually trip some people up.
You said earlier that if I didn't retract and apologize for calling certain actions by the papist church evil that you were going to "shun" me then.
So, am I shunned or not?
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.