So, are you saying that Moses and Elijah were alive or were they just an illusion?
If Moses represented the Law and Christ fulfilled the Law (and we are in full agreement on this) why the insistence on keeping the Law with respects to speaking to those who are no longer alive on earth?
If the saints who are no longer alive on this earth are to be "forgotten" or something, why do Protestants continue to name churches after them? Why do Protestants continue to make statues of them? Why do Protestants continue to make stained glass images of them? Why do some Protestants even ask them to pray for them?
The hubris of some Protestants is astounding. To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY thing that Protestants are in complete agreement on is the rejection of papal primacy, after that they go in all different directions.
I could blindfold a great many Baptists or Calvinists and take them into a mass where they would be unable to tell me whether they were in a Catholic, Lutheran or Anglican church.
I have posted pictures in this forum that have been dismissed as idolatry, when in fact, they were of the very church where the Reformation began, pictures that were left at Luther's tomb and certainly not by relatives.
I have been told on this forum that some would rather agree with the Nestorians than the Catholic Church. Do any of you even realize what Nestorianism is? Nestorianism is the belief that our Lord's Human and Divine Natures are TOTALLY SEPARATE.
I have seen more times than I can count on this forum anti-Catholics applauding a fellow anti-Catholic who OPENLY DENIES the Trinity. I cannot help but wonder what sort of hatred drives this.
This thread was intended to be about the desire of some to condemn the Catholic Church before all of the facts are even known. But what have we seen after more than two thousand posts? We have seen the same old litany of reasons why some on here will insist on hating the Catholic Church no matter what.
Innocent until proved guilty is a legal concept that is to protect people accused of crimes from being declared guilty without a proper trial and to keep someone from taking action to imprison them.
Even if they are found not guilty in a court of law due to lack of evidence they could still be guilty as all get out. All that happened was that there was not enough evidence to convict.
And the legal presumption of innocent until proved guilty does not prohibit people from talking about it and arriving at their own conclusions. It just prohibits them from taking action on it.
There have been enough cases of priests being found legally guilty that it does give credibility to other accusations.
And the major criticism is really that the Catholic Church has not been as proactive in addressing the issue as it ought. It’s not that there have been priests who have managed to get in position and do such horrific deeds. It happens everywhere and everyone realizes that it is virtually impossible to prevent. But it is not impossible to deal with.
So, while the innocent until proved guilty applies to the individual men accused of such behavior, one can still observe the Catholic Church and its behavior, and rightly conclude that it didn’t address the issue as expediently or properly as it ought to have.