Posted on 08/17/2018 8:40:24 AM PDT by wardaddy
Cardinal Raymond Burke has called for “open recognition” of the Catholic church’s homosexual culture in light of recent revelations of sexual abuse. “I believe that there needs to be an open recognition that we have a very grave problem of a homosexual culture in the Church,” Burke said in an interview Thursday, “especially among the clergy and the hierarchy, that needs to be addressed honestly and efficaciously.”
he former head of the church’s equivalent of the Supreme Court said it was already “clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men.”
“There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this,” he said, referring to the mainstream media cover-up of the homosexual nature of the abuse as well as such denial within the church itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Jesus said He would BUILD His church, not establish or found it on anyone else.
Cause He knew He already was the foundation.
In addition, it’s presumption, plain and simply, to conclude that He meant Roman Catholicism cause He never named it as such.
He didn’t say *I’m going to build the Roman Catholic church* or even *the Catholic church*.
And claiming retroactively that *He meant us* doesn’t cut the mustard. It doesn’t prove what He meant.
IOW, the depths of deception of Catholicism.
You can tell them time and again the historical facts of the situation and they still parrot back the same old lies they were taught.
They don’t get it. They really believe the Catholic revisionist history they are taught.
““paying attention to the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles” leads any serious believer to the Catholic or Orthodox Church.”
I agree that it makes a follower of Christ evaluate those churches.
But in the light of Scripture, it is obvious they became pagan.
Rome moreso than the orthodox churches, but even they have serious failings.
“We look at the source and at the continuity of teaching with that of the Early Church, reflected both in the Holy Scripture and in the commentaries of the Fathers.
And yet half of Rome’s teachings can’t be found before 100ad.
So there is no continuity.
“Trent had to respond firmly to Protestant lies and obfuscations regarding the Deuterocanon.“
Nah. Catholics tried to correct the failings and sins of Rome, but Rome tried to kill them.
They had to leave.
Had Rome not failed, or if it had responded in repentance, things would be different today.
As the Gospel was set free and spread, Rome was threatened and did all it knows to do - issue proclamations and anathemas, and inquisitions.
The Gospel is still spreading, despite Rome’s persecution and martyrdom of believers in Christ.
Meanwhile Rome is sexually abusing children and trying to minimize it.
All glory to God for Bis glorious Gospel of Grace!
And thanks to saint Luther, who was used mightily be God!
So fast forward to now.
The seal of confession has become a means to conceal terrible crime against children. But hey, I’m sure Jesus would be cool with that. He was just kidding about millstones and seas.
Right?
L
Oh look, the obsession with Luther rears its ugly head. I’m talking about Jesus and the Apostles. If Luther happens to agree with them, cool.
If Rome really is the ‘one true church’ then why do Roman teachings contradict the plain words of Scripture, which we both agreed is the teaching of the Apostles?
I would think that the Apostles meant what they said and said what they meant.
Ja, at least Orthodox teaches salvation by grace!
You can continue to believe and employ propaganda if you wish, but the fact is that they were not binding, for other than the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, only the decisions of ecumenical councils (which Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not) have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and thus Catholic scholars were able to, and did, hold differing opinions on the canonical status of the Deutros - right into Trent.
Thus if Trent had to respond firmly to "Protestant lies and obfuscations" regarding the Deuterocanon then it had to see to her own house as well. .
Trent settled the matter, apparently after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it. Trent confirmed Hippo & Carthage (though that these were exactly the as Trent has been disputed due to the confusing matter of the nomenclature of 1 Esdras). but the point is that the canon was not definitively settled until after the death of Luther in 1546.
And what is that historical basis (is Scripture part of it?) and your basis for assurance for its veracity.
In addition, answer the related questions you neglected. .
A true acknowledgement of what we have often documented.
the Holy Scripture is itself the product of the Catholic Church. Meaning, I assume, that that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination [of] writings and men [as] being of God;
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that it is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
Or how else does the logic work that "we gave you the Scriptures, and therefore alone are the sure unreprovable standard on what it means/are a law unto ourselves?"
And Trent didn’t even get a majority vote on their canon.
That’s really sad.
Continuity means consistency with the prior teaching, not absence of development.
Very rarely the only information about a crime comes through the confessional. Typically, someone complains. That is not under seal.
Development that begins hundreds of years after the Apostles is not the Apostles teaching, nor continuous.
"Development" apart from Scripture is called false teaching.
The only thing continuous is paganism. Rome is the Borg of religions. Same philosophy too - Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Come to think of it, Rome shares the same philosophy as Islam.
There is no “Roman”. The Catholic teaching, same as Orthodox, only contradicts Protestant theological fantasies. I can give you a number of doctrines, recorded in the Holy Scripture, where Catholics take Christ and the apostles at their words and Protestant build houses of cards to obfuscate the plain meaning.
“Very rarely the only information about a crime comes through the confessional.”
So the odd poor “rare” kid gets raped and the RCC keeps it to itself. Too bad about the kid. Oh well, I guess sacrifices have to be made.
Right?
By the way, can you define “rare” in this case? Is it 1? A dozen? A couple hundred?
Thanks in advance.
L
The point remains that the canon as set forth at Trent is essentially the same as the earlier “Africa” councils.
Yes, the Protestants are in rebellion against God. Good point.
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
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.