Posted on 04/12/2002 1:40:46 PM PDT by aristeides
None of my bibles say "again" in verse 5:
Water baptism is not necessary. See Acts 16:29-31.
Unnecessary. Uncalled for. Beneath you.
THIS is the nub of the scandal. They have been hiding and protecting one another for the last forty years or more. Please pray for us that we can at last root out the rot and get rid of these evil priests and bishops whose only goal is to try to destroy the Church from within.
So baptism is a necessary step in a process but it is not the whole process. It is the ticket that allows you to do the other sacraments which are also steps in a process but not guarantees. So do these other steps also add to our grace battery? Baptism gives us grace but not enough for salvation. I assume that we must do other things to get more grace and I use the battery as an analogy. I assume then that the bad things we do discharge the grace battery also, right?
This has been getting more worldwide press but some of the articles seem to position that married (noncelebate) priests would solve this problem. Well obviously there are gay priests (some openly to their congregation) who aren't holding to their celebacy vow. What makes the author think that heterosexual priests are remaining celebate? This article mentions that altar girls are also being molested but what about older women who come in for counselling? Perhaps there are even priests who are having sex with someone not even in their congregation. Wasn't there a Sex In The City episode where one of the characters had a crush on a man that she discovered was a priest?
The Catholic Church is finding a hard time convincing honorable people to join the priesthood (often there is a prayer said at mass to bring more people to the calling). Anyone who applies but doesn't hold to his vow of celebacy is putting himself in a difficult position to be a respected authority figure. The more public he is with his actions, the harder it is to put trust in him for confession and counselling (he's as much a sinner as those who are coming to him). Priests also take a vow of poverty; should this be done away with so that more priests may join and still be able to "get theirs"?
Perhaps the priests who wish to get married should look at other Christian denominations. I am Presbyterian (although I attended Catholic schools and still occassionally attend a Catholic service when visiting relatives). I don't express a preference for those who seek to serve their religion, join the church of your beliefs but I am puzzled by this attempt to change long standing practices to solve the problem of molestation in the church.
Are there issues of adults coming in for counselling and being "seduced"/"molested"? This happens in the medical and psychological fields. I'd agree that children being harmed is worse but all of the behavior is reprehensible if people are being taken advantage of (young and innocent, or vunerable and confused).
I can't count the number of Jewish comedians who exclaim Jesus' name in their speech in surprise. And then there are the athiests I've heard who shout out God's name in surprise and damnations.
Those Bibles would be abridged, edited, Protestant versions, correct?
Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."
Matthew 3:16 "And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and coming upon him."
John 3:5 "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
John 4:10 "Jesus answered, and said to her: If thou didst know the gift of God, and who he is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou perhaps wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water."
Titus 3:5 "Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost."
1 Peter 3:20-21 "Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Water baptism is not necessary. See Acts 16:29-31.
Your opinion only and a case of linguistic literalism. Acts 16:29-31 is not all inclusive. Belief alone is not enough.
Matthew 19:16-17 "And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
Acts 16:33 "And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately."
All references Douay-Rheims.
Not at all. <sarcasm>(Ooooh, the "P" word, how demeaning!)</sarcasm>
In fact, one is the New American Bible, from your very own United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
They went back to translate "the original and the oldest available texts of the sacred books," instead of the relying on your uninspired Latin Vulgate. Translating from the original is always preferable to retranslating a (bad) translation.
You're using the post Vatican II USCCB as a benchmark? How ecumenical of you.
They went back to translate "the original and the oldest available texts of the sacred books," instead of the relying on your uninspired Latin Vulgate. Translating from the original is always preferable to retranslating a (bad) translation.
The Latin Vulgate was used universally in the Catholic Church for over 1500 years. You must obviously then concede that the Septuagint is the exact text since the early Christians relied on the Alexandrian canon and not the Hebrew canon. St. Jerome was uninspired? I'll bet he was more fluent in Greek, Hebrew and Latin than anyone on the USCCB or the CBAA. I'll defer to Jerome and Augustine in the fourth and fifth century, the Council of Trent and Pius XII before either of these two latter day groups, or King James.
Wow, is it me or aren't council decisions infallible... LOL.
Perhaps someone is trying to say the alter boys deserved it?
The coverup in Bridgeport, by Egan and his predecessor:
A priest orders a 7 year old girl to strip naked and beats her about the buttocks.
Another priest bites and injures the penis of a teen altar server during oral copulation
A priest molests an eight-year-old altar server behind the church
More and more, each incident more grotesque than the next.....
There are any number of responses I could give you at this point. Councils are no more infallible than beans. The Church has demonstrated countless times it's propensity for error. And it's not like this stuff *just* started happening. The obvious solution to their problems would be to abandon their dabblings in philosophy, get back to scripture, raise up ministers that are actually saved and actually act like it, and move on from there. That, however, is asking the impossible I'm sure.
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.