| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
The pope(s) will stand to be judged...
Stand by for the postings out of
both sides of their fingers
of their encyclicals
of their exhaustive catechism and its endless footnotes.
What group of heretical Catholics do you belong to that don't put much stock in the writing of Paul???
As a mental exercise, even presuming that Jesus meant what the Catholics say He meant and Peter really does have the power to allow or deny people access to heaven, just what kind of man would do that?
Join my church or go to hell?
nice.......
Do you people even read this stuff? Or just swallow it whole?
###
I think they take it IV . . . through some mysterious other dimensional hook-up that the rosary beads must be a part of.
/s
And all the more harshly to boot.
Those with greater knowledge have greater responsibility.
NOT SO.
I don’t recall how many times I’ve shared such a sentiment with a Roman Catholic et al Sister in Christ.
IIRC, Betty Boop gets them from me with reasonable frequency.
I could name some others but won’t bother.
But the truth of those translations does not serve Rome well.
- -
Abundant truth in that assertion.
What is the purpose of that question? I have stated a number of times that it is my opinion. Did you just skip over those posts?
I have explained, also, exactly why I have that opinion. Did you miss those posts?
There are no groups of heretical Catholics. Heretics aren't Catholic.
***I wish you heretics would get your act together. Of course, there aren’t that many OPCers, so maybe they don’t count.***
Frankly I am not sure that there are any currently on the GRPL.
So why are you bringing them up?
Oh, did you snap your fingers? Did I fail to jump? LOL!
Hmmmmmmm . . . he sure had a way with words.
Thx.
You either have to accept the fact that all scripture is God-breathed and fits together, or simply reject it. Paul’s view cannot be contrary to the rest of the scriptures.
- - -
INDEED.
THX.
although, what exactly they are hoping to accomplish is not clear.
= = =
Psychodynamically . . .
Methinks it’s a kind of a . . . fixation at the teddy-bear stage . . . dreamily hoping to land in THE GREAT MOMMY IN THE SKY’s lap, on the other side . . . to receive a lot of missed-out-on existential nourishment?
Shame on those who denigrate Paul. Peter didn’t explicitly espouse a verbatim “trinitarian formula” either, but no one doubts him or casts aspersions in his direction.
- - -
Now, now.
When one’s club & Catechism has as many facets as there are grains of sand on the seashore . . . one can enjoy the luxury of talking out of as many sides of one’s fingers as the situation may call for! LOL.
/s
Fertilizer! Balderdash! Pseudo-Freudian Hogwash!
However, there are no Catholics who try to build a religion out of just the writings of Peter.
- -
To my understanding, Catholics built a religion on a misunderstanding of “the rock” meaning Peter instead of Jesus Christ, and so this statement appears to be somewhat of a misstatement. Perhaps you meant to say not “just the writings” but the writings as well as the person himself.
- - - - -
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Well put.
INDEED TO THE MAX:
- - -
The only one capable of making us worthy of heaven is Jesus Himself, the one who died for us in our place and to whom we go for forgiveness.
Mary has no more power to do anything to help someone get into heaven than anyone else on the planet.
Besides, God is very clear in the Bible that we are not to be trying to contact the dead.
Deuteronomy 18:10-12 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
Most of it was, yet was not incorporated into the Bible that was agreed upon at Carthage. The Church has always had a separate set of documents (the Didache e.g.) that was considered to be Church teachings, but not Scripture. Luke in Acts is rather specific, only concentrating upon certain events and people. Why was the Didache not considered Scripture? Don’t know. Why was each specific version of each specific book included? Don’t know.
None of these are Catholic, any more than saying that the Church is a Jewish sect. Sorry.
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.