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 ...
For the your conclusion to be valid does it not presuppose that the presuppositions described in the questions asked of you are true. Is that what you believe? Why not actually answer the questions posed to you, which you invited?
+1
And what is ever more perplexing....when confronted by their own sources they somehow attribute our use of the source as inaccurate.
And of even greater amazement is their seeming dismissal of anything in their own sources that contradicts what they've been taught to believe.
And if you do...and you're honest....you will have to admit there is no "unamimous" consent among the ECFs on those issues Rome holds so dear.
“And of even greater amazement is their seeming dismissal of anything in their own sources that contradicts what they’ve been taught to believe. ”
It is willful ignorance or spiritual deadness.
What they were doing taught is all they have. If they listen and question, their reality is threatened.
But of course, once you see that you lose nothing but filthy rags and gain Christ, and in Him salvation and assurance of your salvation, and you are born again, you have new life and your eyes and heart are open.
Considering how intense we get it’s no surprise how defensive they can get.
It’s more a surprise to claim that Catholics don’t have to follow Scripture. Wow.
I saw that one. I couldn’t believe it. Might as well be a Mormon with that mindset.
What "theology" do you presume Luther invented? I'm an Evangelical Protestant - though I reject labels like those - and I can prove EVERY doctrine I hold in my Christian faith from Sacred Scripture. Can Roman Catholicism do that?
The Early Church Fathers you like to claim didn't always agree with each other in their commentaries and teachings, but they DID use Holy Scripture as their rule of faith and many disputed heresy by the more knowledgable application of Divinely-inspired Scripture.
How do you think those within the Christian faith communities determined what were the major tenets of Christianity? We have today the "more sure word of prophecy" because we have the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved revelation of those truths. Our assurance that they are true is based upon the Holy Spirit speaking through them to the hearts of those who listen for their shepherd and follow him. His truth is established in word and in power.
Jesus said, "My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand." (John 10:27,28)
That is simply NOT true.
These differences are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split. The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:
The Holy Spirit (the filioque)
In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Pope - Authority of
EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.
RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).
Pope - Infallibility of
EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.
Purgatory
EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.
I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.
http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html
And Catholics obey Christ's teachings?
Like this one?
Matthew 23:1-12 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others.
But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Call no man *father*. And you assign the title of what to your priests again?
So NOW you're claiming you do follow Scripture?
Where right here you admitted you didn't.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3679990/posts?page=236#236
You said right here in this post and I copy and paste......
The Church does not go by what is and what is not in the Holy Scripture; the Holy Scripture is itself the product of the Catholic Church.
So can you make up your mind?
Which is it? Do you follow Scripture or not?
I have never seen anyone play both sides against the middle like Catholics do. They can take the opposing position in an argument and switch sides on a moment's notice, without even blinking, and end up arguing against themselves, the whole while telling the non-Catholic they are wrong when they are actually making the same argument as the non-Catholic.
It is usually a good idea to learn something about the subject you intend to opine. The Church is Catholic. "Roman" is one particular rite of the Church you are most familiar with. "Roman Catholic" is a Protestant slur invented to make Catholics foreigners in their English-speaking countries.
Rome claims that you have to earn your salvation by works, oh, excuse me, ‘merits.’
No, "Rome" doesn't. We are saved by Grace alone, just as St. Paul teaches.
Roman Catholics claim you have to be Roman Catholic instead.
Catholics of all rites can be saved, or they can be lost. Non-Catholics can be saved and they can be lost. Non-Christians can be saved or they can be lost. Being Catholic helps, indeed, but salvation occurs when we are judged (not saved but judged) by Christ according to our works of mercy (Mattheew 25, second half). Genuine authentic faith in Christ is found in the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church, where people "who call on the name of the Lord" go. But, as Christ teaches in many places, one can be saved by Christ without realizing He is Christ. On the other hand, especially hard it is to find salvation in the stifling confines of Protestant heresies, based on the hatred of people of Christ and poor familiarity with the Holy Scripture that the Church gave them to study.
Shall we continue? After that, your post descends into comical.
So?
You post a long-winded lecture and embed something resembling a question somewhere in to bowels of your post. I skip those. If you need an answer, post a clear question.
Rome was the seat of the Pope at the time of the reformation. Today the Vatican persists in Rome
American prelates take orders from the pope who resides in Rome
Your rationalization effort is pathetic
"ECF" being Early Church Fathers?
There is consent. There is no unanimous consent, especially on marginal points.
Protestant "proofs" are either points no one disagrees with them, or peculiar interpretation of verses taken out of context. "Faith alone" is one such theological fantasy.
How do you think those within the Christian faith communities determined what were the major tenets of Christianity?
Why, the Catholic priests taught them according to the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Yes, they taught with the voice of Christ (John 10:27-28).
That is proven by the fact, apparently unfamiliar to you, that churches wholly Orthodox in character are already in union with the Catholic Church: they are Byzantine, Melkite, Ukrainian Catholic, and several others.
All of the Scripture is inspired and holy and good for proofs and instruction that the Catholic Church, the pillar and ground of truth, offers.
I guess you missed the cinema reference.
“Do it to Julia!”
Oh?
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.