Posted on 08/07/2003 4:33:51 AM PDT by Bluntpoint
Cover up mandate may have come from Rome itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
I believe most of it is semantics, but it is not the message of the Bible that faith alone saves us. In fact the only occurrence of the phrase "faith alone" in the Bible is preceded by a "not."
I presume that you're talking about James 2:24, which says "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
The whole purpose of this chapter of James is to show the difference between true faith and false faith. We are saved by faith alone, but a saving faith is the kind of faith that demonstrates itself through works. Just a few verses earlier in James 2:14 , James writes: "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" Note the emphasized but oft-neglected word says. A person who has genuine faith will have works to back up that faith. A person who claims to have faith, but really doesn't, will not have works to back up their supposed faith.
To say, as you do, that it is not the message of the Bible that faith alone saves us is to believe that the Bible is inconsistent with itself. The message taught by James reconciles perfectly with the doctrine that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone and that the kind of faith that saves is the kind of faith that produces works. You, on the other hand, cannot reconcile these passages with a salvation by works theology without declaring Jesus and Paul to be in error:
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life..." (spoken by Jesus) John 3:36
Note that Jesus did not say "whoever believes in the Son and does good works will merit eternal life unless he commits a mortal sin and dies before undertaking penance," as is taught by the Catholic Church. Why not embrace the doctrine taught by Jesus instead of a doctrine created by men?
So they said to him, "What can we do to accomplish the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent." John 6:28-29
Then he [the jailer] brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved." Acts 16:30-31
...a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. Galatians 2:16
But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit... Titus 3:4-5
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him. John 3:36
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;
it is not from works, so no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record." Romans 4:2-8
For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Romans 3:28
Protestants try to work around this; Luther wanted to excise the book of James completely. Yet, there it is.
I don't know where you get the idea that Protestants "try to work around" the book of James! I was taught and understood this concept before I was 12 years old -- there's nothing to work around! You, on the other hand, not only have to work James but the rest of the Bible as well.
Yes, it's true that for a while Luther doubted whether the book of James should be included in the Bible, but he soon saw the error of his ways. You have to remember that Luther was taught erroneous teaching since childhood and it took the collective efforts of many people to recover the doctrine of salvation which had been perverted for hundreds of years.
Let's assume for the moment that you're correct and Jesus did make Peter the head of the Church on earth. The passage still says nothing about papal succession, infallibility, or any of the other core doctrines of the papacy.
Further, even the Catholic Church admits that the successors of Peter do not have the same authority as Peter, yet Peter died around 68 AD -- before many of the other apostles and a good 30 years before John. Peter's successor would have been inferior to, yet in authority over other living apostles.
Remember also that the authority given to Peter to bind and loose is also given to all of the apostles in Matthew 18:18.
Finally, note that at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-29) , Peter gives a speech but it is James (the brother of Jesus, whether you believe it or not) who provides the closing. James says "It is my judgment..." Peter is not the one pronouncing the judgment of the first Council but rather James! This also meshes with secular documents which describe James the brother of Jesus as the head of the church, which is based in Jerusalem.
That's what my Bible says; don't know about yours. Jesus said "Upon this Rock (Peter) I will build my Church." Now you can say Jesus didn't talk about succession, but Peter and the Apostles made sure that Jesus's mission continued on this Earth, just as Jesus intended that they do. As a matter of fact, they held on tight to that for well over a thousand years, fighting off many attacks from within and without, before some folks decided they knew better and went their own way. I think Peter and his successors have done a pretty good job; your mileage may vary.
So you believe that the rampant simony and the selling of indulgences had nothing to do with large numbers of people leaving the Catholic church? Please read your history.You've probably heard people say, "The Democrat party left me; I didn't leave the Democrat party." Well, the same thing is true of the Catholic church. It left us during the Middle Ages and still refuses to return to its apostolic roots.
I don't have the time at the moment to refute your belief that Jesus made Peter the head of the church, but you still haven't explained how, if Peter was head of the church, James led the Council of Jerusalem. Secular documents are in agreement with the Bible.
I await your explanation.
Reading from a gospel (which, to the Catholics' credit, is done at every single mass) is not the same as presenting the Gospel of salvation.Why read the gospel when the priest, during the homily, is just going to tell people that they have to work to get to heaven, that they can lose their salvation at any minute, that they're going to spend hundreds or even millions of years in purgatory to work off their sins -- the same ones that Jesus paid for on the cross -- and that if they don't receive last rites, they may lose it all in the end anyway.
The problem is not that the Catholic church doesn't read a few verses from the gospels during each service; it's that a different gospel from the one Christ preached is taught from the pulpit.
Many tens of thousands of ex-Catholics in this country alone can verify that they attended mass every week for half a lifetime before they actually heard preached the gospel of the Bible. That's why there are so many angry ex-Catholics.
You have a complete misconception of the doctrine of salvation as taught by the Bible. Have you ever met a real Protestant or are you just talking from the Catholic equivalent of Jack Chick tracts?
Nope, I'm sure it had a lot to do with it, I'm just saying that there WERE reforms within the Church, but some folks decided they wanted something different and went with it. If you'll look at the most widely known of those 'splits', it had to do with a King deciding that the Church was cramping his style, and he wanted to be able to live his life the way he wanted without the Church telling him that what he wanted to do was sinful. Ironically, the most recent Eposcipal flap is similar in nature to the one that started the Anglican church.
I'm not EVEN gonna get into it with you about the Primacy of Peter vs the Council of Jerusalem. I'll stick with Jesus's decision.
Didn't figure you'd want to get into it because an awful lot is read into just a few words to Peter that, in reality, say very little. Besides, you'd lose. :-) Suffice it to say that scripture, early church documents, and contemporary secular documents tell us that Peter, James, and John were the leaders of the Apostles while James, the physical half-brother of Jesus, was the overall head of the church.Just curious: Do you agree with Jesus' teachings on how we obtain salvation or do you stick with the Catholic teachings?
Agree with you on Henry VIII and the split that ultimately formed the Anglican church. The Anglicans and the Episcopals are rapidly going down the tubes, and I say that as one who attends (happily) a conservative, evangelical Episcopal church -- a rare things these days.
The reforms were too little, too late, and to this day, the problems are still mostly denied. You'll find people posting on these threads who will swear up and down that the selling of indulgences didn't really officially happen. What folks wanted different was a church that held to apostolic teachings, not the "traditions of men" that Jesus criticized.
It is in the best interests of the "enemy" to intermingle and admix the two.I don't believe the Boston Globe would have ever started this,had they recognized that at a certain point in their unrelenting reports on the "pedophile" priests people might start noticing that there was a correlation between so many homosexual priests and the sin/crime.
Abundant information available in the secular world,clearly shows that homosexuals are particularly attracted to beauty and youth. It satisfies their sexual desires and comcommitently recruits new homosexuals,thus keeping the supply steady.
Now on the other hand pedophilia is a horse of a diffent color,it is a disease that is considered to be incurable and the abusers are most often warped heterosexuals and their target is little children.The intended end point of the media blitz was to show that Catholicism,s moral positions supressed "nature" and turned priests into sexual predators who abused "the children,the innoce3nts".
Had this worked,which it almost has,it would have effectively silenced the ability of the Church to speak with any moral authority in this country.Additionally,they hoped it would have lead to a mass defection of the Catholic faithful to other churches or to their own private worship,thus using the diabolic technique to divide and conquer.They had planned that the outcome of the above,attaining the first two objectives, would wield a death blow to the largest and most prominent Christian voice in the Western World.
In the interest of Truth it is wise to separate the two offences. One is the result of demonic influence and/or human frailty. The other is the result of ordaining men who have CHOSEN to sexually relate to men. There is a difference.
The figure that seems to be playing out as most accurate is that 90% of the abusing priests were homosexual.It also seems that actual incidents of pedophilia are about 10% of the total of abuses.
A German psychologis by the name of Reich,wrote in 1926,that if children were introduced to sex before they were introduced to God,they would never find Him. The enemy read that and knew it was true. This craziness of silencing the voice of Christianity by trying to destroy the Catholic Church while simultaneously introducing sex as the "life force" of humanity in the schools,movies,media and government is the plan. What they lose sight of,in addition to the fact that "God is",is the fact that a "life force" that is dead on arrival fails to regenerate and will kill those who espouse it.
It is indeed strange that the very people who dedicate themselves to so many causes championing freedom and conserving nature don't see the incredible disconnect between their causes and the eventual end point.
Catholics and nonCatholics who see the cultural crisis with regards homosexuality should take the time to send a postcard to the Catholic bishop in the diocese that they reside in. It would probably be most effective to keep it dispassionate and objective and mrely state "Could you please breakdown the number of abusers who were homosexual and how many were heterosexual the next time you comment to the press and/or to your parishes.I think factual information is of utmost importance. Thankyou." Something like that would support the good Bishops,and there are more of them than the others and infuriate the bad ones.That is how I hope we can work together to save Christianity.It is only by living in truth,telling the truth and demanding the truth while praying unceasingly that we will win,In America.
I'm not disputing the medical and/or psychological differences between pedophiles and other child molesters, although I vehemently disagree with your differentiation in this excerpt above. BOTH of them choose to victimize. Pedophiles know right from wrong, and can choose to remove themselves from temptation, they can choose to ask for help, but they choose to gratify their obsession instead.
But that was never my point. Morally speaking, they are both perverts who have no business being anywhere around impressionable youth, and I say this as someone who doesn't believe the required celibacy vows or other moral positions have a thing in the world to do with it. My point was, and is, that if you continue to split hairs over which pervert is worse, the perception that you are attempting to minimize the problem will arise in the minds of detractors and casual onlookers alike.
It's hard to understand how much the world has changed since the 50s. The priest who taught me Latin in the 1990s was ordained in the late 40s. He'd attended the same church-run high school I attended. Into the 60s, the only students allowed to leave the school's grounds were the 20 year olds who were about to graduate, and even they were only allowed two hours of freedom on Sunday afternoons, and even then, only in groups.
When the time came for him to be ordained, rumors that he'd been seen walking next to two girls in town several years back almost had lead to him being refused ordination. He, and and the priests of his generation, were simply aghast at the very thought of homosexual behavior. They would not have tolerated such a person living among them, and would have banished them for life, lest they further embarass them.
I am not writing to people who haven't figured that out yet. They will understand that when they are ready,I guess. I am also not posting to convince people that the Catholic clergy,priest and bishops,are not culpable,most of the acccused are guilty.
I am trying to reach the folks who recognize there is a problem even in the institution that prides itself in keeping pure the deposit of faith passed on,directly from Jesus Christ. And,even if this is but a microcosm of American culture,it does replicate,to a lesser degree,the situation in all society.
I was hoping to prepare people,who see that,for the next stage of reclaiming America and Christianity. If we can examine a smaller segment of the culture,we may be able to prove to the public at large that certain programs,policies and "designated" populations may be more responsible than others. Then maybe they will start saying "no more resources dedicated to assisting groups that do not support the 'common good'".
Currently scarce public and community resources,men and money and time,are being wasted on causes that are killing us. Some people clear the field,others till the soil,yet others plant seeds,water the plants,pull out the weeds and again others reap the harvest. And at different cycles,we often have different roles.We just need to do our part to do His Will while speaking truth and praying for discernment to know His Will for us.
I like that idea very much -- except that Bishop Grahmann of Dallas is a big part of the problem. To their everlasting credit, many prominent and not-so-prominent local Catholics are putting pressure on Bishop Grahmann to resign. He's not listening to them though. His protection of the molester Fr. Rudy Kos has cost the Dallas diocese millions of dollars and incalculable goodwill.
I am trying to reach the folks who recognize there is a problem even in the institution that prides itself in keeping pure the deposit of faith passed on,directly from Jesus Christ. And,even if this is but a microcosm of American culture,it does replicate,to a lesser degree,the situation in all society.
I believe your efforts would best be served trying to reach the folks who DON'T recognize there is a problem within the Church, (or should I say DON'T recognize the magnitude of the evil perpetrated on many young lives over many decades, made possible by allowing false priests to infiltrate its seminaries), and who are more worried about the Church's reputation than protecting the innocent. The problem in the Catholic Church is not with child-molestors and gay activists. It's even worse than that. The problem is with child-molesting priests, and gay-activist priests and the priests who cover for both by remaining silent. That's the most immediate problem, but many lay people and clergy can't see it. They keep trying to look outside to fix the problem, rather than inside. They won't listen to me; they'll think I'm trying to make more trouble, they'll accuse me of being anti-Catholic. But they might listen to you, and people like you. It might be boring, and you might get tired of repeating yourself, but don't preach to the choir...try to reach those within the Church who are still in a certain amount of denial over this whole thing, and who can't bring themselves to admit that a good deal of the criticism of the Church is well-deserved, and the undeserved, scurrilous attacks were made even more possible by the actions of priests. Because once the problem is honestly dealt with, head-on, from within the Church first, then your efforts to move on to the "next stage", as you put it, will be much easier and much more fruitful.
And,as I said before the good bishops will appreciate knowing that people want factsand answers,they do too. The bad ones just want this to fade away so they can get back to whatever they have been up to.I've never been into beating and punching but I like to tweak,pinch and slap it can be pretty effective.
Although some of the Freeper catholics keep the fire burning by woefully shaking their heads saying "we need married priests,we need women priests,we need more catholics to participate,we need more paid staff to help train the ministers to minister to all the ministers we are training".
I believe you must be misinterpreting Catholics who try to give facts and supported data to more fully inform other Christians as to the truth or falseness of reported information.
I think you said once you were Baptist,if that is so,would you have remained silent when Clinton left his Baptist church,bible clutched to breast and gave interviews,saying he couldn't find anything against abortion or homosexuality in scripture? I think not,and after a while of explaining that Baptists did not believe what he believed,and having the same people say the same things would you not have finally said,"okay,he's a jerk,but a jerk formed by the prevailing zeitgeist,what are we gong to do to change that"?
Baptist churches are run congregation by congregation; there is no hierarchy beyond the individual church level to be responsible for what happens within an individual church. Besides, the same type of person who would judge other Baptists by what Clinton does would also judge other Catholics by what Ted Kennedy does.
FWIW, I don't think married priests, women priests, or more lay control is going to do anything to solve the problem; it would make things worse, as a matter of fact. I think laypeople should exert their influence, though. Control, no. Influence, yes. Such as witholding of funds, and attending a different church to put pressure on a tainted bishop to resign. Also, you can press for things such as requiring a priest's entire 'permanent record', for lack of a better term, follow him wherever he is sent, so that it would be much harder for a bishop to send a priest who he knows has problems to a different area, where the bishop has no idea about the problems. If a priest moves into a different diocese, the bishop should know about every single complaint or disciplinary issue that has ever been brought against that priest. If the new bishop finds out that the old bishop held something back or covered something up, the new bishop should be required to report the coverup to whoever the old bishop's boss is, and so on, and there should be severe discipline brought to bear against bishops who knowingly cover the crimes of a child molesting priest. The higher up they are in the food chain, the more severe the discipline. If I've gotten details wrong, I apologize. Of course, I don't have the inside track on how things work. But whatever processes and procedures are in place (or were in place) to prevent a bishop from knowing everything he needs to know about a priest in order to protect his flock obviously isn't working, and still isn't working, because Catholics are stuck with a dirty bishop in Texas (mentioned a few posts ago) with no way to get rid of him or hold him accountable for his actions.
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.