I suspect that the ridicule is caused by the fear that the Inquisition is correct by God, and the individuals who ridicule are motivated by more than scorn and less than assurance...
Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Today’s New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that America’s most influential newspaper has declared an editorial jihad against this pontificate. Abandoning any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic, the Times looses a 4,000-word barrage against the Pope: an indictment that is not supported even by the content of this appalling story. Apparently the editors are relying on sheer volume of words, and repetition of ugly details, to substitute for logical argumentation.
The thrust of the argument presented by the Times is that prior to his election as Pontiff, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not take decisive action to punish priests who abused children. Despite its exhaustive length, the story does not present a single new case to support that argument. The authors claim, at several points in their presentation, that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Ratzinger had the authority to take action. But then, again and again, they quote knowledgeable Church officials saying precisely the opposite.
The confusion over lines of authority at the Vatican was so acute, the Times reports, that in the year 2000 a group of bishops met in Rome to present their concerns. That meeting led eventually to the change in policy announced by Pope John Paul II the following year, giving the CDF sole authority over disciplinary action against priests involved in sexual abuse. By general consensus the 2001 policy represented an important step forward in the Vatican’s handling of the problem, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for that policy change. How does that sequence of events justify criticism of the future Pope? It doesn’t. But the facts do not deter the Times.
The Times writers show their bias with their flippant observation that when he might have been fighting sexual abuse, during the 1980s and 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger was more prominent in his pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy. But then, while until 2001 it was not clear which Vatican office was primarily responsible for sexual abuse, it was clear that the CDF was responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. Cardinal Ratzinger’s primary focus was on his primary job.
After laying out the general argument against the Vatican’s inaction—and implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his efforts—the Times makes the simply astonishing argument that local diocesan bishops were more effective in their handling of sex-abuse problems. That argument is merely wrong; it is comically absurd.
During the 1980s and 1990s, as some bishops were complaining about the confusion at the Vatican, bishops in the US and Ireland, Germany and Austria, Canada and Italy were systematically covering up evidence of sexual abuse, and transferring predator-priests to new parish assignments to hide them from scrutiny. The revelations of the past decade have shown a gross dereliction of duty on the part of diocesan bishops. Indeed the ugly track record has shown that a number of diocesan bishops were themselves abusing children during those years.
So how does the Times have the temerity to suggest that the diocesan bishops needed to educate the Vatican on the proper handling of this issue? The lead witness for the Times story is Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: a former auxiliary of the Sydney, Australia archdiocese, who was hustled into premature retirement in 2004 at the age of 66 because his professed desire to change the teachings of the Catholic Church put him so clearly at odds with his fellow Australian bishops and with Catholic orthodoxy. This obscure Australian bishop, the main source of support for the absurd argument advanced by the Times, is the author of a book on Christianity that has been described as advancing “the most radical changes since Martin Luther started the 16th-century Reformation.” His work has drawn an extraordinary caution from the Australian episcopal conference, which warned that Robinson was at odds with Catholic teaching on “among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching." Bishop Robinson is so extreme in his theological views that Cardinal Roger Mahony (who is not ordinarily known as a stickler for orthodoxy) barred him from speaking in the Los Angeles archdiocese in 2008. This, again, is the authority on which the Times hangs its argument against the Vatican.
And even the Times story itself, a mess of contradictions, acknowledges:
Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.
It is not clear, then, why the Vatican bears the bulk of the responsibility for the sex-abuse scandal. Still less clear is why the main focus of that responsibility should be Pope Benedict. On that score, too, the Times blatantly contradicts its own argument. Buried in the Times story—on the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the article—is a report on one Vatican official who stood out at that 2000 meeting in Rome, calling for more effective action on sexual abuse.
An exception to the prevailing attitude, several participants recalled, was Cardinal Ratzinger. He attended the sessions only intermittently and seldom spoke up. But in his only extended remarks, he made clear that he saw things differently from others in the Curia.
That testimony is seconded by a more reliable prelate, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide:
“The speech he gave was an analysis of the situation, the horrible nature of the crime, and that it had to be responded to promptly,” recalled Archbishop Wilson of Australia, who was at the meeting in 2000. “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”
The Times story, despite its flagrant bias and distortion, actually contains the evidence to dismiss the complaint. Unfortunately, the damage has already done before the truth comes out: that even a decade ago the future Pope Benedict was the solution, not part of the problem.
Negative. The seal was put upon something as a sign or signature. Anyone could open a wax seal. It is just that once opened, it was apparent that the seal had been broken. Please provide Biblical examples of seals that cannot be opened except by the addressee or addressor.
Your Paulian examples say that the seals are marks. Not ziplock baggies.
True. There is a Titus 1:5. Sorry.
The indigenous peoples certainly fared better in Catholic territories than in Protestant territories. Whereas the Catholic Church recognized the Indians as persons and sought to save their souls the settlers in Protestant territories saw them as reprobate and obstacles to their heaven on earth. As such they were ethnically cleansed. Slavery was disproportionately resorted to in Protestant territories too.
..hiereus 1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites And the word archiereus which is the word for High Priest..
The writers knew the greek word for priest.. yet it is never listed as a role in the new church ..That is because the priesthood was a type of Christ fulfilled at the cross..there is no longer a need for a priesthood as Christ is the fulfillment of that OT type
Our high priest is Jesus the Christ. The NT outlines the merging of the 'elder' with 'priest'. I showed that Paul expressly tells us of a priestly class; with the addition of the Eucharist:
1 Corinthians 10: 14 7 Therefore, my beloved, avoid idolatry. 15 I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
1 Corinthians 11: 23 11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12 28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
then the wisdom of the elder and worship of the priest come together. Presbyter is bishop; Paul replaces himself with Timothy. Timothy appoints various presbyters (subordinate to himself, as he is subordinate to Paul) as he also travels. Priest becomes a subordinate to bishop as the Church grows, but remains superior to deacon. Which is as it is today.
Matthias may show the church has a right to fill a vacant position.. God never gave the apostles the right to pass on the special authority Christ bestowed on them to found the church
The Apostles never founded the Church. Jesus did and the Holy Spirit commissioned it at Pentecost. Philip baptized the eunuch. Stephen worked great signs and wonders amongst the people that he was evangelizing. Special authority? Scripture is clear.
God assigned peter as the apostle to the Jews.. not the gentiles.. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.. James was in charge of the home base of the new church Jerusalem and so was in a sense the chief of the apostles ..
Count the number of times that Jesus speaks to Peter in the Gospels and vice versa, compared to all the other Apostles put together. Peter walks on water. Peter receives the keys. Peter is the focus of mortal man facing the Passion of Christ. Peter is the chief spokesman at the founding of the Church. Peter raises the first man from the dead. Peter also converts the first Gentile.
James was the bishop to the Jews. Peter was the bishop to the world.
If we say, "We are without sin," we deceive ourselves, 3 and the truth is not in us. 9 If we acknowledge our sins, HE is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. 10 If we say, "We have not sinned," we make him a liar, and his word is not i
Who is the HE here?? If you are in doubt it is Christ.. it says nothing about a priest
Not in this passage, no, but in the previous proof I have posted it is.
St. Luke, Gospel writer, disciple of Paul and physician wrote the first icon that we have knowledge of.
Could I have the scriptural reference..
There are none. However, we know beyond Scripture that Thomas evangelized India, for instance. If you wish to restrict yourself to Scripture only in any matter of Christianity, then please say so. I shall ask you first to prove the Nicene Creed from Scripture, the Nicene formula for the Trinity, and then the content of the Bible from Scripture.
Calvinism may well fade into the history of men..but the Gospel of Christ will never fade but as long as the word remains and men to preach it men will continue to be saved from the false teaching of the tradition men
Exactly so. And the Church will remain for the duration of the entire Earth and the life of humanity.
I was not saved by Calvinism, I was saved by the death of Jesus Christ... no by my efforts, not by my law keeping, not by my works...but by Christ
Funny, we Christians are saved by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Dying, You destroyed our death; Rising, you restored our life....
You say that you were Catholic. Do you remember this?
In a spare moment, you all might read a little about Father DeSmet, a Jesuit explorer. He was quite a man and VERY well respected by Native Americans. His name was "Black Robe."
Excellent point. Slavery was practiced mostly by Protestants and not by Catholics. England and Holland come to mind. The French did, for a short time, to their shame, but they never did to the extent that the English and Dutch did. Calvinist theology relegates the unworthy to hell. Therefore, since the elect are going to heaven no matter what, anything that they do in the maltreatment of the slaves doesn't matter. Or didn't matter, anyway.
However, our apostate friends seem to have discovered American history to the point where disputing the barbarism of Calvinist American colonies is no longer worth it...
Let us also not forget Father Jean de Brebeuf, who gave his life willingly.
Let's not forget the role of the Spanish mission system and ask for a Protestant explanation why the population of Latin American countries is both largely indigenous and Catholic.
You left out the Crusades. ;O)
In the second century, all of the Middle East and North Africa extending to the west of Libya, Turkey and much of Asia Minor and southern Europe were Christian. Are you happy that the Muslims now occupy much of that territory and are gaining what they lost in the 1200s-1600s? Perhaps an earnest negotiation would have been the ticket?
Since Islam and Calvinism are only superficially different there is no reason to be unhappy. The Reconquista and the subsequent de-islamification, know as the Spanish Inquisition are ridiculed ad naseum by the anti-Catholics.
It is also reckless and irresponsible to throw out numbers like "millions" killed by the papacy without offering a single bit of corroboration beyond something cut and pasted from a discredited website. It is equally dishonest to completely ignore the millions killed as a result of the pogroms, purges, ethnic cleansings and religious wars initiated and conducted by the so-called reformers and their descendants. I am absolutely gobsmacked by the lack of shame some liars will go to in Charles Manson-like attempts to revise history to rationalize their cults.
I suspect that the ridicule is caused by the fear that the Inquisition is correct by God, and the individuals who ridicule are motivated by more than scorn and less than assurance...
There is no parade because there is little incentive to go public with Protestant abuse, since usually there is no one with money to sue.
How is your work on James 2 coming?
That is really a shame. Don't knock what you don't try.
Perhaps, whoever registered the name wanted to point out in what direction proper reform lies.
our “ hope “ is not wishful thinking or chance or dependant on an institution; it is a person and in a person
That is true as well. But what I said is that "you can have the resonable hope of salvation if you do what the Holy Catholic Church proposes for your salvation and stay away from sin". Obviously, the first step toward the state of hope is baptism, or else why would one skip the regeneration of new birth and yet obey the rest of the Church's proposition? It is true that were the Catholic Church merely a human institution, hoping in her guidance would be "wishful thinking".
works will be judged but not his salvation, (1 Cor. 3:13-15)
That passage explains that the elect undergo purgatorial cleansing before entering Heaven, because not all their works are perfect. It does not explain how the elect are separated from the reprobate; that is according to their works. The Mt 25:31:46 passage does not apply to believers. Jesus is talking about the judging of the “nations”.
Nations feed the hungry and clothe the naked, express surprise that it is Jesus they are being kind to, and then go to hell or heaven wholesale? Are we saved by the right citizenship, and not by faith, after all?
Note that Romans 2:6-10 repeats the same teaching in condensed form, and speaks of "every man".
Given the followers of the lord of this world, I'd say that's about right.
so we avoid the Catholic Faith at all cost
Given the followers of the lord of this world, I'd say that's about right. Why, Iscool, we agree absolutely on your actions and inactions...
Should be finished in another hour or sooner.
A rough day.
Will ping you again when I’m done.
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.