| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
Paul's letters as bishop to his flock were chosen by the Church as Scripture, the same as James and Peter. We cannot throw them out - if you read the Catechism, much of the proofs come from Paul (although not, as with the Reformed Confessions, from Paul and the OT to the almost total exclusion of the Gospels).
Judith, seriously, what Christian says things like that or believes such anti-Christian remarks?
Not even the Vatican's Bible ends with the Gospel of John.
Actually, if you read back through the entire subthread you would see that in post 435 Judy said that St. Paul got a few things right. Is that your stand on St Paul? That he got a few things right? Or is Scripture inspired?
Easy...The same way I reject Izlam...I walk by faith, not by sight...And being indwelt with the Holy Spirit who guides me certainly doesn't hurt either...
I believe the book is true...And if it's true, as it is written, there is no Apostolic Tradition...
Prove it. Chapter and verse please.
Just as the Gospels are God breathed words written to the Jewish people
The quotes of Jesus are God breathed to all men. You're welcome.
Paul's mission was only to spread the Word to the Gentiles. It was not to reform, revise, extend, modify or introduce. Why don't you explain what Christ meant when he said "blessed".
Digesting.
No, he doesn't.
I never heard of a Christian that didn't like Paul or what Jesus showed him to tell us.
Well, you have now.
Sadly, Roman Catholic apologists appear ignorant of these facts. To call Paul a "crazy saint" is just...crazy.
Whereas to call deranged perverters of Bishop Paul's letters to his flock crazy is just...correct.
Wow. Does your local "alter Christus" know you believe this?
Perhaps someone who "despises" Paul just doesn't understand Paul, if they've read him at all.
(Paul's) level of sophistication does not impress me.
lol. So that's it. Paul is too rough-around-the-edges for you. He probably eats his peas with the dessert spoon.
Black-hearted bounder. What fools those Gentiles were to listen to him and be converted by the Gospel he was preaching.
Is this what Rome has come to? Is this the Christianity Rome declares? Does Rome "despise Paul" while pandering to pederast priests who think they are "another Christ?"
Do you “despise Paul,” as Judith says she does?
Early in Acts we see the life of the Church as teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, prayers. Deacons are appointed to RELIEVE the apostles of administrative duties, because, the twelve said, it was not right for them to leave the word of God to wait on tables.
So, I'm winging it here, but it SEEMS that the deal is the twelve teach, break bread, say prayers. It's pretty much consistent with Catholic thought, I'd venture that that's what we expect of our popes and bishops.
In the actual history what seems to happen is that a Patrick, Dominic, Francis, Ignatius Loyola, and so forth, go to the Pope and say, pretty much, "Here am I, send me." (or "Here are we; send us.") So in terms of the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers, we're doing that. We've been doing it, with bumps in the road, all along. Protestants don't even hear of Francis Xavier, Bartolome de las Casas, of the martyrs and missionaries of Vietnam, Japan, China, Korea, Uganda, and up and down North (Isaac Jogues), Central (Dominican Sisters, inter alia, NOT part of a clerical class) and South America (Peter Clavier).
Given a choice, if that is the choice, between a long established structure of reverends, cardinals, eminences, nuncios, prelates, on and on, And...and accomplishing the feeding and shepherding of Jesus’ sheep....no contest.
I'm sorry, but Protestants just don't get it, by and large.
Look. I ran sheep. I feed them, medicated them, vaccinated them. I took care of them. I didn't watch them all the time. I couldn't. And so sometimes some of them got too sick for me to help before I noticed there was a problem.
Some Protestants get all wrapped up in cultural differences and terminology, they judge the past by the standards of the present. So let's say "respectables, leaders, notables, messengers, principles."
I know only one archbishop, and that only slightly. But my friends who know him better say he is a remarkably devout and down to earth guy who also happens to be really, really smart and well educated. So when these friends learned that he was to be ordained bishop and made an arch-bishop they already thought him notable or eminent.
The deal, or part of it, is that Protestants think in terms of a top-down, corporate or dictatorial culture and system. But the Church is actually a lot more like a very large family. For a long time, the younger brothers, the diocesan bishops, were trusted to handle the homosexuality crisis.
Only when it was clear they were going down in flames did Cardinal Ratzinger (leader Ratzinger? notable Ratzinger?) say, that these cases had to come to the Vatican. When the little brothers mess up, the older brothers step in. That's all.
And I disagree with your analysis of the I Cor 5:1-5 incident.
But before we get into the time sequence of forgiveness and repentance, how long had the incest been going on before Paul found out about it? Do you KNOW there weren't other perversions in the congregation that the locals thought they could handle themselves? Do you KNOW they handled them correctly? Do you KNOW that they guy who repented committed no further perverted acts? If tomorrow they discovered a text which conclusively showed that he fell again, would you accuse Paul of failing in his apostolic duty?
I think the forgiveness was always there, from God and from the Church. The only way the sinner could take that forgiveness to h8imslef was to repent. His repentence did not cause the forgiveness. It may even have been prompted by the forgiveness. For it is written, "There is forgiveness with you, therefore you shall be revered."
Jesus did not wait for me to repend to forgive me. He said, "I forgive you," and one day I both heard the love and knew my need. But the love was first.m Moreover, as I grow in receiving that love, I understand ever more deeply my permanent need for forgiveness.
I don't know if you drink beer. I don't much anymore. But what I know is that on a day of great thirst, when a good beer hits the back of your throat, well there are few pleasures to match it.
For me, life in Christ is to grow in thirst as I also grow in the experience of that thirst being quenched. With a beer, the next gulp won't be as good as the first. With God, for whom my soul thirsts, my greater perception of my need for Him is always met and overwhelmed by his eager response.
Glory to Him, to the God who quenches thirst, forever!
Just to clarify: NEXT Lent I am giving up verbosity, this Lent I gave up chocolate.
Those shins must be black and blue, given the expressions of faith posted here.
I believe the book is true...And if it's true, as it is written, there is no Apostolic Tradition...
Negative. If it is true as written, then the Catholic Church is as right as we are claiming; and every church of man created afterwards from the Judaizers through the Reformation and past the Restoration to today is wrong.
some people who call themselves Christians reject Paul and John altogether. I find that troubling because Paul and John are the ones who most clearly reveal that Jesus Christ is God the Creator.
AMEN! As they were, we hope to be.
I have posted many times, including a few posts up this page, that the Catholic Church reverences Paul, along with Peter, as the greatest of the Apostles. The church and the school that I attended as a child, for instance was called Sts. Peter and Paul. I think highly of Paul - he was instrumental in saving the fledgling Church from extinction, and was able to to sell Christianity to the Greeks.
I remember Frumanchu telling the story that when he was younger he didn't understand some of the Gospel and his mother told him to read Romans 8. He came back to her with some understanding but more questions. She told him to read Romans 9.
He did. And then he understood.
God's word has that kind of power - to shine light into the darkness of our minds and bring forth faith.
I agree with Judith Ann.
As a member of a hierarchical denomination it is illogical to take the sins of the few or of the one and to apply it to the entire membership and even to the entire organization.
Personally, I don’t even consider it appropriate to take the missteps of the organization and apply them to the membership that stands in opposition to the misstep.
Please read what many here say against us and about the crucifix. That is where I get my information. I get it from the attacks of some Protestants.
Among Protestants there is disagreement about the rapture. Since that is so it is not clear that it is the "being Catholic" aspect which leads Catholics to disagree with the popular understanding of the rapture.
I know the rules -- or some of them -- but personally I think the kind of nonsense which passes for debate here is a disgrace to Christians, a scandal to Gentiles, and the work of the devil. Please don't tempt me to play the gotcha game. Vicious attacks among those who agree with Holy John that God is Love play into the adversary's hands.
Pronto.
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.