UPDATE: QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
"Secondly, the ECLJ wants to recall that the concept of “defamation of religions” is incompatible with Human Rights. More than that, that concept is a threat to Human Rights, in particular to the rights of religious minorities.
"To accept the use of the concept of “defamation of religions” would give an international legality to repressive laws working against religious minorities, such as the laws against proselytism and blasphemy. We should not forget that in many countries, the simple public expression of the content of a minority religion, most of the times Christianity, can be considered as an offense, a “defamation” of the State’s official religion. Thus, to accept the concept of “defamation of religions” would in fact, reinforce, straighten, the arsenal of repressive laws directed against religious minorities.
As a conclusion, it should be greater respect for religious freedom, as provided by the existing international law. Only respect of religious freedom can effectively help to combat the growing “bipolarization” of the world." From Presentation to UN Human Rights Council by European Centre for Law and Justice,
The above quote and the current post below may seem unrelated, but with all the push by the Alliance of Civilizations, The European Union, the World Economic Forum and others for a type of "New World Religion" where everybody in effect bows down to everybody else's god, it was refreshing to see that others recognize the dangers inherent in this type of forced syncretism and are boldly and eloquently pointing them out.
Constance
Nothing seems to have gone that well for the European Union since Javier Solana "retired" or maybe "laid low" in December 2009. Things haven't been going all that great on this side of the Atlantic either and the global governance crowd is making real hay over both. This is what a hard hitting editorial in THE GUARDIAN (United Kingdom) said today:
Europe is in a mess. The European Union is in trouble. Today's summit in Brussels is unlikely to do much to help. David Cameron, like his fellow leaders, can only hope to limit the damage: and even as he does so he can hear the ghoulish sound of Tory Euroscepticism rising from the grave.
The summit faces trouble from three directions. The first is the enfeebled condition of many European governments. To pick the news almost at random, this week the Romanian government narrowly survived a confidence vote; talks on the Portuguese budget collapsed and President Sarkozy was battling (successfully) to pass his pension reforms. Ireland is preparing for another round of spending cuts; Belgium hardly exists at all. These are not promising times for effective deal-making between strong leaders.
Second, the European Union is in the middle of an indulgent institutional upheaval. The Lisbon treaty was necessary, but some of its consequences were not. Lady Ashton, Europe's new foreign minister, announced the other day that she will spend £10.5m a year on new offices; the European parliament has voted for a 6% increase in EU spending next year, including a 4.5% rise in administration costs. At a time when most EU governments are cutting their domestic budgets, such things are provocative – and British Tories have been duly provoked. Yesterday Lord Tebbit warned Mr Cameron that he risked a "Vichy-style surrender" if he agreed to a budget rise. Last week 37 Tory backbenchers voted against one. The coalition provides some ballast: Mr Cameron is playing a more co-operative role at the summit than he ever could have done as a purely Tory prime minister. But his freedom is limited: even conceding a 2.9% increase in the EU budget will bring him trouble in his party at home.
Third, and most serious, is the European Union's response to economic crisis. Germany, with a growing economy and unemployment now below 3 million for the first time in 18 years, fears being dragged down by its EU partners. Germans bailed out Greece and stabilised the eurozone. Now the German government wants to overhaul the rules to prevent future budgetary implosion. But the existing rules were not the reason Greece went bust and Ireland overspent. Changing them – which could require a controversial reopening of European treaties – is a distraction.
Britain is still hoping to secure a freeze in the EU budget – which would be a success for Mr Cameron. He could tolerate the more probable 2% rise. But these things are trifles compared to Europe's search for economic growth. That is the challenge the EU is facing – and failing.
I can't irreverently wonder if things are going badly because Javier picked up his marbles and went home? OR, did he pick up his marbles and go home because he saw the trouble coming and wanted others to take the blame for it? $64 question!!!
Well, I wonder if anybody is going to come to rescue the "European Project"? I suspect I know somebody who'd like to, provided, however, he isn't already too, too busy with the CRISIS=OPPORTUNITY global government, whoops, GOVERNANCE, front. Wonder how the cell phones are going between Strobe Talbott, George Soros, Lord Malloch-Brown, Maurice Strong, and Javier Solana?
Well, I wonder if anybody is going to come to rescue the "European Project"? I suspect I know somebody who'd like to, provided, however, he isn't already too, too busy with the CRISIS=OPPORTUNITY global government, whoops, GOVERNANCE, front. Wonder how the cell phones are going between Strobe Talbott, George Soros, Lord Malloch-Brown, Maurice Strong, and Javier Solana?
If only I were a mouse in that corner?
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
428 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 428 Newer› Newest»Does everyone here now 'get it'?
It's not important for John Chingford to understand others...so much as it is for him to be UNDERSTOOD himself.
According to Matthew 8:14, Peter was married!!! Apostolic succesion shot down! Temporal power? NONE!!! The walls come tumbling down! So whats left?
Truth be told, you can not have a site exposing the new age, with out dealing with the catholic cult.
To John Chingford,
Please read this:
http://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/why%20not%20investigate%20the%20catholic%20Church.htm
I hope you will pray for humility, as you seem to think you know it all. If you pray with a SINCERE heart to be led to the Truth you will be. If your primary motivation is to please God you will be open to Truth - whether or not it agrees with what you have been conditioned to believe.
Nor, for that matter, new age influence with in the protestant church as well.
To Anon. 7:45
The Catholic Church does not deny that Peter was married. However, note her general absence in the New Testament texts. We do not even know her name. We only encounter the mother-in-law, never his wife or any children. Indeed, throughout the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, references are made to Peter’s activities and travels; but, only a vague intimation by Paul in 1 Cor. 9:5 that he had a right to travel with his wife. If it were not for this mention in the epistle, one might suppose that Peter was a widower. Could he have been married more than once? We just do not know. Tradition suggests that his wife was martyred. It is peculiar that although the wife would ordinarily have cared for the needs of guests, Peter had to rely upon his wife’s mother.
However, even if she was still alive, she evidently assumed a secondary role in his life behind his leadership of the infant Church. Indeed, her insignificance in the biblical witness would seem to provide weight to the supporters of priestly celibacy. Like Peter, bishops and priests might do better to serve God’s people without the distraction of wives and children. Jesus gives his sheep to Peter. Pastors similarly love Christ and care for their flocks. This is the emphasis of Catholic ministry, our family in faith.
Catholics and Protestants arguing for a married Priesthood (or worse those who propose that Mary was not a perpetual Virgin) miss the point with their literal interpretations.
Catholics are not literalists (although most Protestants are). We hold the Bible as no more or less important than Church tradition and teaching. Remember who put the Bible together – the Catholic Church. Who better to understand and interpret the meaning?
The important part of the message about St. Peter is that he – Peter – represents the Church. Christ was returning to the Father and so he gave Peter a duty as the first Pope and left us with the Church as the visible symbol of his love. He specifically said that he would be with the Church until the end of time and gave them the “keys to heaven”- what the bind on Earth is bound in Heaven.
He knew Peter was not perfect – after all, he denied he knew Christ three times. He did expect and continues to expect that we follow him and that means that unmarried persons should remain celibate – as he did.
Only the Catholic Church has the keys to the kingdom. Pope Benedict says that the tradition will not be changed. The Church isn’t a democracy and those that don’t agree are simply not Catholic. So he’s the boss and that discussion is closed!
The differece here, is that John Chingford has the Savior in his heart. His protestant basher critics, have religion in their heart.
Message from the devil:
(protest-ants do not read this, I already have you fooled!)
And if you see HER, it's game over. SHE is the one non-deity human we never could get to, not even once. It's just not fair the way SHE shows up at the last minute in so many of our cases. HE delegates a lot of the battles we fight to HER, just so HE can humiliate me even more. So make sure you incite hatred and indifference toward HER in all of your humans, even though the Bible says that her soul magnifies the Lord in Luke 1:46 (magnifying HIM is the last thing we want. He's already too big for us). Just like a magnifying glass can cause a fire by focusing the sun's rays onto an object, The Son can cast fire upon the earth, as it says in Luke 12:49, by using her spirit-filled soul to magnify HIMSELF, something we don't want. Rather, we don't want the humans using HER at all, so that they will be cast into our fire in hell instead. By not accepting HER as their mother, as it says in Revelation 12:17, they will never become HIS brother. Make sure that they never completely understand Gabriel's greeting to her in Luke 1:28, "Hail Full of Grace, The Lord IS with you". This was said before the incarnation, which should be a hint to the humans that she was pure and holy before HE came to live in her for 9 months, but a lot of humans really believe that if SHE had said no to Gabriel, rather than "Be it done to me according to thy will", that HE would have just picked some other girl. Ha! The word "IS", of course, creates confusion in their minds, like when we got the former president of the US to redefine it for everyone, and he made a lot of them actually believe that it meant something entirely different than its synonyms of subsists, transpires, amounts to, equals, or comprises. Make the humans think that that particular greeting of Gabriel's really says "was with you", instead of "is with you." A lot of the humans think that the spirit left HER after the incarnation, which, if they read their bibles, they would discover is not in there anywhere. Otherwise, John the Baptist wouldn't have leaped for joy as a fetus (don't let them catch on that fetuses experience human emotions, like joy and pain) in Elizabeth's womb. This wordsmithing is also very important training for later, when you must make the humans think that when HE said about the Eucharist - "This IS my body"- that he really meant "This SYMBOLIZES my body". Word-twisting - It's what we do! And if you do see HER, call me on my hellphone at 1-666-DVOUREM right away so I can make a fast getaway.
Message from the devil:
(protest-ants do not read this, I already have you fooled!) And if you see HER, it's game over. SHE is the one non-deity human we never could get to, not even once. It's just not fair the way SHE shows up at the last minute in so many of our cases. HE delegates a lot of the battles we fight to HER, just so HE can humiliate me even more. So make sure you incite hatred and indifference toward HER in all of your humans, even though the Bible says that her soul magnifies the Lord in Luke 1:46 (magnifying HIM is the last thing we want. He's already too big for us). Just like a magnifying glass can cause a fire by focusing the sun's rays onto an object, The Son can cast fire upon the earth, as it says in Luke 12:49, by using her spirit-filled soul to magnify HIMSELF, something we don't want. Rather, we don't want the humans using HER at all, so that they will be cast into our fire in hell instead. By not accepting HER as their mother, as it says in Revelation 12:17, they will never become HIS brother. Make sure that they never completely understand Gabriel's greeting to her in Luke 1:28, "Hail Full of Grace, The Lord IS with you". This was said before the incarnation, which should be a hint to the humans that she was pure and holy before HE came to live in her for 9 months, but a lot of humans really believe that if SHE had said no to Gabriel, rather than "Be it done to me according to thy will", that HE would have just picked some other girl. Ha! The word "IS", of course, creates confusion in their minds, like when we got the former president of the US to redefine it for everyone, and he made a lot of them actually believe that it meant something entirely different than its synonyms of subsists, transpires, amounts to, equals, or comprises. Make the humans think that that particular greeting of Gabriel's really says "was with you", instead of "is with you." A lot of the humans think that the spirit left HER after the incarnation, which, if they read their bibles, they would discover is not in there anywhere. Otherwise, John the Baptist wouldn't have leaped for joy as a fetus (don't let them catch on that fetuses experience human emotions, like joy and pain) in Elizabeth's womb. This wordsmithing is also very important training for later, when you must make the humans think that when HE said about the Eucharist - "This IS my body"- that he really meant "This SYMBOLIZES my body". Word-twisting - It's what we do! And if you do see HER, call me on my hellphone at 1-666-DVOUREM right away so I can make a fast getaway.
Message from the devil:
(protest-ants do not read this, I already have you fooled!) And if you see HER, it's game over. SHE is the one non-deity human we never could get to, not even once. It's just not fair the way SHE shows up at the last minute in so many of our cases. HE delegates a lot of the battles we fight to HER, just so HE can humiliate me even more. So make sure you incite hatred and indifference toward HER in all of your humans, even though the Bible says that her soul magnifies the Lord in Luke 1:46 (magnifying HIM is the last thing we want. He's already too big for us). Just like a magnifying glass can cause a fire by focusing the sun's rays onto an object, The Son can cast fire upon the earth, as it says in Luke 12:49, by using her spirit-filled soul to magnify HIMSELF, something we don't want. Rather, we don't want the humans using HER at all, so that they will be cast into our fire in hell instead. By not accepting HER as their mother, as it says in Revelation 12:17, they will never become HIS brother.
cont...
cont...
Make sure that they never completely understand Gabriel's greeting to her in Luke 1:28, "Hail Full of Grace, The Lord IS with you". This was said before the incarnation, which should be a hint to the humans that she was pure and holy before HE came to live in her for 9 months, but a lot of humans really believe that if SHE had said no to Gabriel, rather than "Be it done to me according to thy will", that HE would have just picked some other girl. Ha! The word "IS", of course, creates confusion in their minds, like when we got the former president of the US to redefine it for everyone, and he made a lot of them actually believe that it meant something entirely different than its synonyms of subsists, transpires, amounts to, equals, or comprises. Make the humans think that that particular greeting of Gabriel's really says "was with you", instead of "is with you." A lot of the humans think that the spirit left HER after the incarnation, which, if they read their bibles, they would discover is not in there anywhere. Otherwise, John the Baptist wouldn't have leaped for joy as a fetus (don't let them catch on that fetuses experience human emotions, like joy and pain) in Elizabeth's womb. This wordsmithing is also very important training for later, when you must make the humans think that when HE said about the Eucharist - "This IS my body"- that he really meant "This SYMBOLIZES my body". Word-twisting - It's what we do! And if you do see HER, call me on my hellphone at 1-666-DVOUREM right away so I can make a fast getaway.
Anonymous 7:52,
We are all to painfully aware of distractions to catholic ministry. Just read the paper!
Anon 7:53 PM:
Correction....
NONE of the antaganists on this blog have 'the Savior in their hearts.'
By their fruits ye shall know them.
The Protestant Reformation
"For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths." 2 Timothy 4:3-4
In the 16th century, there was a great upheaval in the Church. This period of time in Church history is known as the Reformation. There were many factors, some valid and some invalid, that led to fragmentation. Although some factors were valid concerns, the fragmentation was an extreme course of action started by some with selfish motives, some with questionable mental stability, and some who were just misguided. Today there are about 33,830 denominations within Christianity. The largest denomination is Catholic. The second largest is non-practicing Catholics.
To understand the impact of the Reformation period we should first understand how the Church was established by Christ. Matthew 16 provides a thorough explanation of this event.
When entering the region of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The disciples then offered various answers - "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." But the question that Jesus then asked was crucial: "But who do you say that I am?"
The answer provided by Simon Peter set in motion the formation of the Catholic Church by Jesus. "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
With this answer, Jesus established the Catholic Church with Simon Peter designated the first Pope.
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
There have always been rivalries in the Church. Divide and conquer. Divide and conquer. Divide and conquer. Evil knows that division is the path to conquering. Although Jesus ensures that the netherworld will never prevail against the Church he created, I often pray for those misled by some people, and for those unaware of the Catholic Church in relation to Christ. Paul (Saul) had a pretty good point in 1 Cor:10
"I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."
When we think about the Church and what Christ asked of us, we should look at the prayer by Jesus in John 17
Beginning Verse 11
"And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are."
Beginning Verse 20
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me."
The Protestant Reformation
"For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths." 2 Timothy 4:3-4
In the 16th century, there was a great upheaval in the Church. This period of time in Church history is known as the Reformation. There were many factors, some valid and some invalid, that led to fragmentation. Although some factors were valid concerns, the fragmentation was an extreme course of action started by some with selfish motives, some with questionable mental stability, and some who were just misguided. Today there are about 33,830 denominations within Christianity. The largest denomination is Catholic. The second largest is non-practicing Catholics.
To understand the impact of the Reformation period we should first understand how the Church was established by Christ. Matthew 16 provides a thorough explanation of this event.
When entering the region of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The disciples then offered various answers - "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." But the question that Jesus then asked was crucial: "But who do you say that I am?"
cont...
With this answer, Jesus established the Catholic Church with Simon Peter designated the first Pope.
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
There have always been rivalries in the Church. Divide and conquer. Divide and conquer. Divide and conquer. Evil knows that division is the path to conquering. Although Jesus ensures that the netherworld will never prevail against the Church he created, I often pray for those misled by some people, and for those unaware of the Catholic Church in relation to Christ. Paul (Saul) had a pretty good point in 1 Cor:10
"I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."
When we think about the Church and what Christ asked of us, we should look at the prayer by Jesus in John 17
Beginning Verse 11
"And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are."
Beginning Verse 20
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me."
Many profess "The Bible, The Whole Bible, and Nothing But The Bible". If it were that simple, how can you explain the over 33,000 Christian denominations. The truth of the matter is that each has their interpretation of what "The Bible, The Whole Bible, and Nothing But The Bible" really is. We have many thousands of different interpretations.
cont...
I know in my heart that the "Living God" demands a "Living Church". If the law and word of God began and ended with Jesus and the Bible, why would Jesus appoint a successor with the authority to mediate between man and heaven. We must understand that Jesus knew that faith was a living, breathing and delicate gift. He knew that new challenges brought forth in an evolving world would require someone to determine the moral path. Jesus created a single Church and gave it the apostolic charter to spread the word and "bind" and "loosen" strings of the relationship between man and heaven.
After much prayer, I know by the grace of God that I could not find salvation outside the Mother Church. At some point in the maturation process we should realize that we can't continue to create new "churches" just because we don't agree with the teachings of THE CHURCH. Simply moving to another "church" doesn't alter the universal (Catholic) realities of right and wrong.
Jesus established a single Catholic Church with a single leader to ensure a single message would lead every single person on a single path through the single narrow door to salvation. Its that simple........
If you are not accepting the sacraments of the Church and living by its teachings, it is time that you spend a considerable amount of time in prayer and answer as to WHY you are not. What ever the conclusion of your prayer may be, be aware that you are still bound by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church regardless of any other affiliation you claim. Walking away from the Church and ignoring its teachings does not render you guiltless. It is the teachings of the Church that are "bound" in heaven and earth...........
Why are you proclaiming the name of Jesus and yet refuse the message from his Church? The Church to which gave the keys to the kingdom.
Wouldn't you like to experience the complete Christian Faith as created by Jesus? To better understand the heritage and faith given to the world by Christ, I invite you to contact a Catholic friend or the local Catholic Church and inquire about RCIA sessions. They are free, painless, and there is no obligation.
There is nothing to fear and you have everything to gain. I pray that your heart will be opened, that your fear will vanish, and that you will come to experience the joy of Jesus Christ, as manifested in HIS Church.
cont...
How Did Your Church Begin?
33 A.D.
Roman Catholic Church (moved to Rome by Peter after he fled Jerusalem) was founded by God-made-man, Jesus Christ. He said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it... Feed my lambs; feed My sheep" (Matt. 16:18,19; John 21:15,17). He also said: "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who gathers not with me scatters" (Matt.12:30).
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
9th Century Marked The First Official Schisms Within The Church
827: Eastern Schism began by Photius of Constantinople. The primary difference in Faith at the heart of the schism was the argument over the addition of the filioque statement (Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, not just the Father) to the creed. This schism eventually healed.
900
1000
1053: Eastern Schism began by Michael Caerularius of Constantinople. The primary argument was the Latin practice of fasting on Saturday and the use of unleavened bread for the Holy Eucharist. Theses two points were more for challenging the authority of the Roman Pontif. This schism eventually healed.
1100
1200
1300
1378: Death of Pope Gregory XI on 27 March, 1378 began the Western Schism. The schism came to an end in 1417.
1400
1472: Present Schism of the Eastern Church begins with the repudiation of the Council of Florence.
1500
cont...
1517: Lutheran Church was founded by Martin Luther, a former priest of the Roman Catholic Church. This marked the beginning of the Protestant Reformation
1521: Anabaptist first appeared in Zwickau, in the present kingdom of Saxony. Initially, they were primarily against infant baptism.
1525: Schwenkfeldians were founded by Kaspar of Schwenkfeld, aulic councillor of Duke Frederick of Liegnitz and canon. At first he associated himself with Luther, but later opposed the latter in his Christology, as well as in his conception of the Eucharist, and his doctrine of justification.
1531: The Socinians and other Anti-Trinitarians attacked the fundamental doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. Chief founder of Anti-Trinitarians was Laelius Socinus, teacher of jurisprudence at Siena, and his nephew, Faustus Socinus.
1536: Mennonites founded by Menno Simons, a former Catholic priest and later an Anabaptist elder. They deny infant baptism and the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
1534: Church of England (Anglicanism) was founded by King Henry VIII when he threw off the authority of the Pope and proclaimed himself the head of the Church in England, because the Pope refused to declare invalid his marriage with Queen Catherine.
1560: The Presbyterian denomination was begun by John Knox who was dissatisfied with Anglicanism.
1600
1608: The Baptist church was launched by John Smyth in Amsterdam, Holland.
1620: The Swiss Mennonites split into Amish or Upland Mennonites and Lowland Mennonites.
1671: Quakers were founded by John George Fox of Drayton in Leicestershire. He favored a visionary spiritualism, and found in the soul of each man a portion of the Divine intelligence. All are allowed to preach, according as the spirit incites them.
cont...
1744: The Methodist church was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England.
1774: The Unitarians were founded by Theophilus Lindley in London.
1784: Episcopalian denomination was begun by Samuel Seabury who was dissatisfied with Presbyterianism.
1787: The founder of The Salvation Army is William Booth, who quit the Anglicans, and then the Methodists, and set up his own version of Christianity.
1800
1822: Mormons founded by Joseph Smith, who made his appearance with supposed revelations in 1822.
1872: The Jehovah's Witness Church was developed by Charles Russell.
1879: Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy began the Christian Scientist religion basing it upon an outright denial of Original Sin and its effects.
1896: Ballinger Booth, the son of William Booth, quit The Salvation Army and started his own church.
The Seventh-Day Adventists, the Church of Christ, The Church of the Nazarene, or any of the various Pentecostal Churches, etc. are also among the hundreds of new churches founded by men within the past 150 years or so.
1900
2000
Over 33,000 Sects "Scattered" Outside The One Church Founded By Christ
I think we should crown John Chingford the
KING OF QUOTING SCRIPTURE OUT OF CONTEXT!!
Go back, read the ENTIRE bible (including the Old Testament). Only after reading the OT can you understand the New Testament.
You are playing a dangerous game, John.
Anonymous Dorothy said...
Doing some web searching I came upon two interesting sites in line with this one.
http://www.truthxchange.com/article/71-what-ever-happened-to-the-new-age/
http://tinyurl.com/23pjpvs
In addition to the above article, there are other articles of interest.
The Paganization of New Testament Studies
New Testament Response to Greco-Roman Pagan Spirituality
As I was looking over the site, I came across an interview with David Loye on Integral Evolution. Remember before the 2008 election when I did an expose on the connection between Obama and high level New Age leaders, Loye was one of them. They were promoting a New Age version of Darwin's theory, which is now called Integral Evolution.
http://www.marcgafni.com/?p=2293
Other buzzwords connected with the movement and around which websites and networks are formed are
Nonduality
Oneness or the One movement
World Purificationism
If you want to start where I did, read
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=221421
http://tinyurl.com/264n6vt
Boo! Kinder, gentler demon possession now PC
Yes, New Age paganism continues to grow and others are writing about it.
Dorothy
3:04 PM
4:31 PM
On being anonymous: I am anon only because i can't get Google to put up my name. I sign my name at the end of a post.
I think it's a good idea to not have any more REAL anonymity. It is making for incredible confusion since there are so many.
And this blog is no longer about New Age. It is a debating society on various denominational beliefs among Christians, with one or two Jews also present.
Constance's posts are on topic but the comments are not particularly so. I realize it IS relevant that New Age beliefs have infected the churches. And to combat that one has to know what the various churches believe. I think the Nicene
Creed is a pretty good central statement of belief. If a church adheres to that, they are pretty adherent to the gospel.
One may find adherence to the creed in every denomination as far as I know, and also apostasy from the creed in every denomination. Nothing in the creed is contrary to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, one thing in its favor.
The world is about to explode and it would be good to think about that instead of fighting over points of doctrine...but I realize of course that NewAge in the church HAS undermined points of doctrine, and that is the bottom line about NewAge in the church.
Mariel,never anonymous
To Anon of 7:52pm, who wrote "bishops and priests might do better to serve God’s people without the distraction of wives and children."
St Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, doesn't think so! He wrote to Timothy that episkopoi (the word translated as bishop, although back then there were several episkopoi per congregation rather than vice-versa) should be "the husband of one wife... he must manage his family well and see to it that his children obey him... for if anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he manage God's?" (from 1 Timothy 3)
All this New Age Catholic talk. Protestants should know that it's the Protestant churches that are being hijacked because you are all too busy fighting each other over Sola Scriptura. The New Age reads it's own teachings into your Sola Scriptura as do other groups.
So we have a conservative sola scriptura, a liberal sola scriptura, a pagan sola scriptura, a new age sola scriptura. Thanks to you any idiot can pick up the Bible and start interpreting it.
Catholics have other issues, such as priests/bishops refusing to teach the faith, but you will won't find us fighting over what the Bible says until the cows come home.
The New Age runs on subjective experiences/knowledge. How is this different from Protestants claiming to have the Holy Spirit, so they can see things in Scripture that the unsaved cannot.
Anon@10:44,
Instead of this constant scripture ping pong with Catholics. The Question is why should we trust your interpretations? You claim that it's at face value, but this is what ALL Protestants say, yet you drastically differ on the same scriptures from each other.
So why should we trust your interpretations?
ALL denominations face a battle to keep the New Age out, because the New Age is now part of Western culture and the church recruits from the culture. What worries me is when it gets into doctrine.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of Roman theology is its devotion to Jesus’ mother. In the 5th century Nestorius was called a heretic after complaining about Mary being given the title Theotokos (‘bearer of God,’ in contrast to the scriptural ‘mother of Jesus’ as at Acts 1:14). In the 7th century Rome pronounced Mary’s perpetual virginity, contrary to the Hebraic view of a blessed marriage; it is nowhere deducible from scripture and is against the normal inference from it. (See Matthew’s words at 1:18 and 1:25, that Joseph “had no relations with her until she bore him a son,” which although stating nothing about what happened afterwards is not how Matthew would have written if the couple had continued to abstain. The gospels also refer to Jesus’ adelphoi and adelphai – ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters,’ which in John 2:12 & 7:5 cannot refer to the spiritual sense; the words most commonly imply the same mother since delphys means ‘womb’.) Later came Mary’s own ‘immaculate conception’ (19th century) and direct assumption into heaven (20th century). There she is said to reside as Queen of Heaven. These dogmas all parallel aspects of Jesus’ life, and they date back to the era of gnostic gospels about Jesus which the church rejected. (Popes Gelasius (d. 496) and Hormisdas (d. 523) condemned Mary’s assumption as heretical.) Mary’s immaculate conception and direct assumption respectively imply in Catholic theology that she entered and left the world without sin (no time spent in ‘purgatory’). The Catholic Catechism (para 493) even asserts that she lived without sin. Mary is a descendant of Adam, who cannot avoid the stain of sin (Genesis 3:22, Romans 6:23); Jesus alone did that (Romans 3:10,23). Upon a core of scripture has been imposed a potent myth. Together with St Augustine’s negative view of sexuality, stemming more from horror at his own lust than from scripture, and which influenced Rome to see marital sex as a regrettable procreative necessity rather than a gift from God, the effect has been to promote the virgin-or-whore view of woman. This view damages the institution of marriage, subtly denigrating married women and making their men more likely to ‘play away’. Many Catholics even address prayers to Mary, although prayer in scripture is addressed directly to God. Catholics say they pray through Mary, but their prayers are not phrased like those addressed to God through the sole mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5), which petition God and then end “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Most Marian prayers cannot be distinguished from prayers to God if the names are blanked. Many prayers ask Mary for things reserved in scripture for God; if the prayer is answered, Catholics tend to say that Mary, rather than her son, answered those prayers. A book has even been written called She Shall Crush Thy Head, mistranslating the male sense of the Hebrew in Genesis 3:15, which warns of the satanic threat of political and spiritual globalisation, yet claims Mary will defeat it. John Paul II took as motto “Totus Tuus” – totally yours – meaning that he was totally Mary’s (not totally Christ’s?) Rome’s Mary is a spiritual antichrist (i.e., alternative Messiah). Much Catholic imagery suggests this, and Rome partitions the text of the Ten Commandments so that the anti-idolatry command (do not make and bow down to graven images – most of which involve Mary) is the ‘small print’ of the preceding command; this ‘small print’ is omitted from traditional Catholic catechisms – unlike the other commandments. (Another command is divided, keeping the number at ten.) Today there is a push to declare Mary co-redeemer. If co-redemptrix status can be contemplated for Mary, why should the drive to elevate her stop there? Will it culminate in her deification by Rome? I believe that Mary the Blessed looks in horror at what is done in her name.
Constance, I would suggest you or someone else put together a quiz on the New Age movement. My guess is that most of those who consider themselves religious academics don't have a clue other than the very basics what the New Age movement is about. If they did, they would be able to talk about it. Instead they come here to do missionary work for their brand of Protestantism. For all of their efforts since this blog was started, my guess is that they've converted no one.
The reality is that they don't consider the topic of the New Age movement very important and they don't want readers here wasting their time learning and sharing information about it while we can sit at their stinky feet.
Dorothy
I am not at all convinced that "Allah" was "Moon God." Clearly, Islam was a cult based on a syncretistic application of Judaism, Christianity, and perhaps Mohammed's own ideas. Ishmael was Abraham's first son and he remained in contact with many of Abraham's other descendants. I do agree with what Dave Hunt said in past that Buddhism was a cult based on Hinduism and the Moslem faith was one based in part on Christianity. I will note that the Arabic versions of our bible translate God as "Allah."
A significant number of the people I have heard referring to "Allah" as "Moon God" (Pat Robertson for one) have clearly had their own agenda.
Again, I go back to the Alice Bailey / Peter LeMesurier agenda of pitting the target groups (Jews, Christians, Moslems all of fundamentalist stripes to their own religions) off against each other, and then they being the Phoenix to rise from our ashes to build the new society.
There may be evidence out there to the contrary, but so far, I have not seen really convincing evidence that "Allah" is not God. It may well be a misrepresentation of God as most heretical teachings are, but I do believe that the Moslems (apart from the clearly New Age mystical Sufis) believe their Allah, the Jewish Jehovah, and "Our Father which art in Heaven" are one and the same.
CONSTANCE
Indeed Constance, I've never found a reference to any ancient document that asserts Allah was a moon god.
The word is a concatenation of "al illah" which means "THE god", but it has become a name.
It is a terrible mistake to translate Yahuweh (and Adonai, Elohim etc) as "Allah" in Arabic Bibles. I hope ther are some Arabic translations that avoid this. Allah is not Yahuweh because Allah denies that Jesus (Yeshua) is his divine son.
Javier Solana and his pals (and their master) are chess players, no? And, I think, of 3-D chess. Certainly Europe was intended to be in a mess, as is America. So we can be saved by the Son of Perdition. Of course, that could be several moves away.
On the denominational controversy, Constance Cumbey is, as always, so to the point. At last - a lawyer one can love!
And this from Paul always comes to mind when I read the 'bashing' posts:
'But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.'
2 Cor. 11:3
Anon@11:33 p.m.
Luther and Calvin had essays on Mary. They clearly agreed with the Catholic doctrines, as did the early church fathers. Your knowledge is very limited and you should read the Catechism first because you are accusing Catholics with falsehood, which has become routine on this blog.
So there we have it in Cumbey's own words. She accepts the ancient pagan deity Allah as her God. Cumbey has proven she is infected with New Age teachings as well in that one statement. Now we know why she can't get along with REAL Watchmen.
Now we know Cumbey's response to the Catholic New Age teaching that Islam worships the same God, even though the facts of history demonstrate Allah to be a pagan idol. Far more astute academics than you Cumbey have verified the pagan origin of Allah, and Muhammed's interaction with Gnostic and Arian cults, not legitimate Christianity. You do realize that this makes you a syncretist Cumbey, do you not?
And the issue of you broadcasting on a network that hosts anti-semitic programming when you have free alternatives has still not been addressed. You're dodging I suspect.
We can now add to that list of Catholics and Anti-Semites the Muslims.
Strange bedfellows indeed.
Anon@8:17am,
You wrote "Luther and Calvin had essays on Mary. They clearly agreed with the Catholic doctrines, as did the early church fathers. Your knowledge is very limited and you should read the Catechism first because you are accusing Catholics with falsehood..."
I navigate by the scriptures and by historical items of information undisputed betweeen Catholics and protestants (not by the writings of Luther or Calvin). Those are common premises, so that there is a chance of constructive dialogue, which I welcome. Please note that I actually quoted the Catholic catechism.
Anon@11:33pm
Anon 8:40 AM:
Please stop twisting Constance Cumbey's words to fit your own transparent agenda. By insulting people's intelligence, you have only succeeded in making a fool of yourself....and the rest of the people on this blog are laughing at you.
As far as I can recall, nowhere in the Bible does it advocate an enormously wealthy church based in its own State and led by a single person rated high above all others. Neither does the Bible advocate this leader of the Church zipping around the world negotiating with non-believing world leaders. Not to mention all the various practices and traditions which led to the Protestant Reformation. Now we see the current incumbents bent on reversing the Reformation with the pope assuming primacy over all. I have read that it was this current pope who was once in charge of the section in the Vatican (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) that was supposed to investigate claims of sexual abuse of members of the flock (usually children) by his clergy. Unfortunately for the abused not a lot was done. So much for attempting to force the clergy to remain celibate.
Yes, we know this happens elsewhere in other organizations but not on this scale and in supposedly THE only true Church.
I am not being critical of the membership of those in the Church but of those who wield power and abuse that power. However one might think that, with all this abuse going on, the members might find the moral courage to vacate their Church for one that doesnn't force celibacy on it's priests. Especially the members who are parents with children. Or perhaps they don't mind all that much. Perhaps they live in hope that it will all go away. I can't figure it out.
I haven't read all that John Chingford has written here but in general I support his position.
I too write in love but sometimes these very serious issues require a more spirited presentation.
Anon 9:43
Nobody has twisted Cumbey's words. She clearly states that the pagan Meccan deity Allah is the same God she worships. No twisting needed. That is syncretism and New Age teaching through and through.
In fact, if we apply her "logic" we can say Mormons, JW's, Mooney's, and a variety of other cults worship the same God as Christians do. Following Cumbey's line of thinking leads to New Age syncretism.
To add to Anonymous of 9:54am:
It is a matter of notorious public record that many Roman Catholic paedophile priests in the current scandal were shifted, after being accused in one parish, to another parish. So much for the 'oversight' argument for hierarchy! Even more to the point, many of them were shifted not merely within dioceses, but between dioceses and even continents. That must have been arranged at a higher level than bishops, since a bishop controls only his own diocese. Who did it? For more two decades Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, insisted that every case cross his own desk at the Congregation for the Defence of the Faith in Rome. There, he insisted that each case be "subject to the Pontifical secret," a technical phrase in Ccatholic Canon Law which has the consequence that the police in a country were never to be notified of serious breaches of their criminal law.
It is not in doubt that Ratzinger/Benedict wants the Roman Catholic church cleansed of paedophile priests. But does he want it to *be* clean before God or to *appear* clean before man?
Anon 9:54 AM:
To make such a statement:
"I haven't read all that John Chingford has written here but in general I support his position."
clearly reveals your bias.
There is no 'love' coming through in your comments.
Constance Cumbey has accomplished more in nearly 30 years of fighting the New Age Movement than a few of you trolls can ever succeed in doing damage by sprinkling your venom on a few threads.
(Replying to you is kind of like swatting flies....really more of a nuisance than anything else.)
Constance wrote:
"I do believe that the Moslems (apart from the clearly New Age mystical Sufis) believe their Allah, the Jewish Jehovah, and "Our Father which art in Heaven" are one and the same."
That is correct. Muslims do believe there is only "one" god. They assert that the Bible, and ALL that it says about God, has been corrupted by Jews AND Christians alike, and is therefore unreliable.
According to Islam, the Koran offers us the only "correct" view/description of God (Allah). However, the contradictions between the nature of God as described in the Bible, and Allah as described in the Koran, are strikingly different. The two cannot possibly be the same entity because they have completely opposite natures.
Constance says that she has "not seen really convincing evidence that "Allah" is not God". That is really sad. Incredible even. The evidence is overwhelming.
If some of you would spend more time on your knees praying - and asking for forgiveness for being absolutely obsessed with judging others - this world would be a better place.
Dear Constance
You wrote at 1:11am that you had "not seen really convincing evidence that "Allah" is not God."
May I offer you some? The qur'an was written down by Muhammad. Either he wrote it down out of his own spirit in which case it is a fraud, or he faithfully recorded what he heard from a spirit called Allah. In that case any Christian who accepts the Bible should conclude that Allah is not Jehovah, because Allah denies Jesus' divinity (qur'an 4:157 and others) and “every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not of God, and is an antichrist” – 1 John 4:3.
Whatever her past accomplishments, on this issue she has succombed to religious syncretism. i.e. New Age thought.
As for judging others; that message is a bit late to be mentioned at this blog. About six threads back it was all about attacking, now when we have REAL reason to be concerned about someones teaching, positions, and associations..suddenly we need to stop judging. As I said-too late for that.
Dear Constance
Would you please clarify your position by a simple "yes" or a "no" to these questions.
1) Do you presently believe that Allah is or could be the same God (Jehovah)that Christians and Jews worship?
2) Do you presently support the Monotheistic faith as the ONE way that leads to God.
From your last statement, it gives us that impression. In fact, if we do not receive an answer to these questions we will assume that your answer is "yes".
With respect, we ask you to please answer with clear answer so that we all know where you stand.
But bear in mind that if you fudge the question we will have to assume that you have something to hide.
Hey Anon1147, you've got a cheek telling Constance on her own blog that if she fails to reply to *your* question then you will assume what her answer is. As far as I can discern she is a committed Christian who just might possibly have fallen, without realising it, for the argument that since Allah and Jehovah both claim to have created the world and humanity, then since there can be only one creator, they must be the same. (In fact, one might be a liar.) But this is guesswork of mine and unless she chooses to reply, we must not presume to know what she believes.
To Anon 11:58
From Anon 11.47
I am asking these questions because a number of comments are assuming that the answers are yes and will continue to speculate. It is better if Constance can clear this matter up for us, so that there are no further speculations. Everyone has the right to defend themselves from speculations.
But not the obligation!
Anyway, let's see...
Take this as a part answer until Constance answers. Constance is an expert on the New Age movement. Because of the language barrier it is difficult to learn about New Age actions in the Islamic community.
Based on my years of knowing her, she is an expert on New Age in a legal way rather than in an emotional way.
She has a major weakness in that she wants to see the good in all people rather than viewing them realistically or in a common sense way. She has given the benefit of the doubt to many posters here rather than challenging them. Working in the Detroit area, she has worked with Muslims in her law practice and probably isn't judging them either.
To suggest that she is a stealth New Ager is just foolish. Not a single one of us has no weaknesses.
Again, this answer will be superceded by her answer.
Dorothy
Yes, there is no obligation. She can leave it out there just as it is if she prefers, and we'll take her at her word that she accepts Allah as the same God of Christianity and thus, is a syncretist.
While we're at it, I found a profile claiming to be Constance, wherein she considers Fr. Seraphim Rose one of her favorite theologians. At least that is what the profile says at Theologica.ning:http://theologica.ning.com/profile/ConstanceECumbey
This little blurb on Fr.Seraphim Rose is a bit frightening:
"Rose studied under Alan Watts at the American Academy of Asian Studies before entering the master's degree program in Oriental languages at the University of California, Berkeley, where he graduated in 1961 with a thesis entitled 'Emptiness' and 'Fullness' in the Lao Tzu.While studying at Watts' Asian institute Rose discovered the writings of French metaphysicist René Guénon, and met a Chinese Taoist scholar, Gi-ming Shien. Shien emphasized the ancient Chinese approach to learning, valuing traditional viewpoints and texts over more modern interpretations. Inspired by Shien, Rose took up the study of ancient Chinese so that he could read early Tao texts in their original tongue. Through his experiences with Shien and the writings of Guénon, Eugene was inspired to seek out an authentic, grounded spiritual tradition of his own. Though he had previously focused on Eastern religions, Rose's spiritual journey ultimately led him back to Christianity and into the Russian Orthodox Church, partly as a result of his friendship with Jon Gregerson, a Californian of Finnish ancestry whom Rose met in the summer of 1955 while attending Watts' academy.In 1956 Rose came out as a homosexual to a close friend from college, after his mother discovered letters between him and Walter Pomeroy, Rose's friend from high school."
The guy also taught what apparently is Gnosticism. There is lots more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_Rose
Is this really your favorite theologian Constance? Is this your profile?
http://theologica.ning.com/profile/ConstanceECumbey
There is a strange fragment of Scripture which is not easy to understand until you see it in that background, the apostle says: “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ but by the Holy Spirit.” That sounds strange in itself if you take it out of its context, its historical context. Anybody can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ without the Holy Spirit; anybody can say that, you need not be a Christian to say that. But here it is, “No man can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ but by the Holy Spirit.” You have to put yourself right into the Roman and Jewish world as it was at that time, and you stand up and say, ‘Jesus is Lord’; you’ll need all the power and courage and boldness of the Holy Spirit to do it. You put your very life into jeopardy when you use those words about Jesus! All the forces of evil, spiritual and temporal, will make you a marked man or woman in that world. If you say, ‘Jesus is Lord’ the cross waits for you and you will need the Holy Ghost for that. No one, in that realm, could dare to say it but by the power and support of the Holy Spirit.
H.E
Thats nice. Doesn't change the facts everyone has presented though.
H.E again.
For those of you who might appreciate the above, it was from Theodore Austin Sparks (1888-1971).
http://www.austin-sparks.net/index.html
His work is not copyrighted and can be shared with others free of changes, free of charge and free of copyright.
Many people embrace self-help books and want to become life success coaches. Anthony ‘Tony’ Robbins is one of the American life coach gurus. Life coaching is a growing industry in the UK.
See: Youth Coaching Academy, UK
Youth Peer Coaching Course (YPCC)
Life coaching training for 12-17 year olds
Equivalent to a GSCE
‘Have the confidence and competence to inspire other young people to shine’
According to a 1994 article in the New York Times President Bill Clinton invited Robbins, Marianne Williamson and Dr. Steven R. Covey to a meeting at Camp David. However, all parties "refuse to divulge the substance of their meeting with the Clintons".
http://tinyurl.com/38b9ek4
Does anybody have any thoughts?
H.E
Anon @10:11 a.m.
The CNN hatchet job on what the Pope knew has been debunked plenty of times. The Church is made up of saints and sinners. Nobody is holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to be a priest and you should know that eastern catholic churches do have married priests.
The point we are trying to make is that despite all this church teaching cannot be changed because God is in charge. Even the corrupt Popes could not change the teachings of the church.
Napolean once told a Catholic cardinal "I will destroy your church" The Cardinal replied "You will not succeed, even we have not succeeded in doing that."
You still haven't explained how you can prove the Bible only rule using the Bible only?
"Does anybody have any thoughts?"
Although the New Age is working hard on it, it has not yet prevented everybody in the world from having thoughts, so the answer is Yes...
Anon at 9:54
There are plenty of Protestant prosperity gospel preachers too. The wealth of the Catholic Church has been vastly exaggerated. Most of our money is in church property and in art work that is open to all and not just Catholics.
We can't sell our churches and celebrate Mass behind a bush, so be reasonable.
To: Anon @2:34pm
From: Anon @10:11am
"The CNN hatchet job on what the Pope knew has been debunked plenty of times."
Didn't know it existed, I live outside CNN-land. It is a matter of record that paedophile priests were often shifted across diocesan boundaries, even to different continents. Mere bishops could not have done that, since they run indivdual dioceses, so who - of necessity higher up - did? Would you agree it is a reasonable inference that the man who insisted on handling all such cases himself, at the CDF in Rome, is responsible? Who, for more than two decades, was that?
"You still haven't explained how you can prove the Bible only rule using the Bible only?"
I'm not trying to prove it to you. Scripture is something that I and Roman Catholics have in common, so it is a basis for discussion between us. Disputing matters without first establishing common ground is a way to higher blood pressure and wasted time.
Anon @2:48 pm.
The CDF did not handle abuse cases for decades. They were handled on the local level. The Pope does not appoint priests. Bishops are responsible for the priests under their jurisdiction.
The CDF only started handling abuse cases in 2001 and we all know that swift action was taken after that.
It was the on the local parish level that all the cover-up took place. I am in full favour of blaming Bishops because they failed to do their job.
The thing is unlike what you think, the Pope is not an army dictator. Bishops have a certain autonomy of their own, and even the Pope has to prove they are guilty before he can fire them. This takes a cannonical court to do so and just like in a general court case, someone cannot be convicted until proven guilty.
The secrecy covered canonical cases, but there was nothing that said they could not be reported to the authorities.
That, they did not do so is not the Pope's fault.
You should also know that 90% of the victims were male, implying a strong case of homosexuality. Straight men do not start running behind boys, just because there are no women around.
To: Anon @2:59pm
From: Anon @2:48pm
"The CDF only started handling abuse cases in 2001... "
No. Cardinal Ratzinger's May 2001 letter Sacramentorum Sanctitatus Tutela made it *compulsory* for such cases to go to the CDF. But a great many had been before that. How else, for one thing, did Ratzinger realise the magnitude of the problem and decide to issue that letter?
..."we all know that swift action was taken after that."
But precious little defrocking. I gladly acknowledge that Ratzinger hates paedophilia and wants it out of the Catholic church, but he consistently put Canon Law above the laws of the States where these things have happened, notably by invoking Pontifical Secrecy. The effect has been to deny any justice to the victims and, until recently, to keep the problems from public exposure. What were his motives?
And, again, who but the CDF could have overseen the transfer of paedophile priests across diocesan borders? It had to be arranged at a higher level than bishops.
Please don't make assumptions about what I know about Canon Law. Also, I am not disputing over whether this is a homosexual issue. It makes precious little difference to the victim.
Note: Although the following commentator does not necessarily ascribe to the ENP(I)/WEU/Rec.666 theory, he makes some very astute points.
*****
"More news from the EU:
The next article is interesting because it shows the growing power of the EU Council, and their ability to make decisions that do not require a parliament vote - an ominous trend:"
(Article begins.)
"'Small, small, small' EU treaty change to deliver 'quantum leap'
European leaders have given way to German demands for a change to the European treaties, but the procedure for the change and its size has been calculated explicitly to avoid the danger that it could provoke referendums in some EU states.
The method EU leaders chose to achieve the change will be via what is called the 'special revision procedure,' introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, under which the treaty can be amended by the European Council alone, so long as there is unanimity and the changes do not extend the competences of the European Union.
Caught between the need for a structural change and their fear of both the activism of Karlsruhe and the growing euroscepticism of citizens, the other leaders signed off on the move only so long as the change envisaged was 'small, small, small - the smallest possible ... in order to ensure there is no possibility of referendums,' in the words of a Danish diplomat speaking to EUobserver.
In this way, a full Intergovernmental Conference, normally required ahead of a treaty change and which involves consultations with the European Parliament and negotiations amongst the different member states, is also to be avoided.
'This leaves out the parliament and the possibility that different countries would come to the table with different things they want to add or take away from the treaty,' the Danish diplomat continued. 'We had to make sure that we did not open the Pandora's Box.'"
(Article ends, commentary continues.)
"Who will determine what represents a 'small change' to the Lisbon Treaty?
Lets not forget that the EU Council is essentially run by the 10-member 'Western EU' group; that powerful bloc of countries who have remained together since their initial formation in 1948. Lets also not forget that the EU Council building in Brussels has the infamous 'Woman on the Beast' structure in the front of the building, that has received so much attention in prophecy circles.
Now we have a convenient method in which a future ruler can make changes to the original treaty without even having to bother with the rest of the EU or their member states for approval.
How interesting. "
*****
http://tinyurl.com/2el4a3f
http://www.prophecyupdate.blogspot.com/
Link for EU Observer article:
http://euobserver.com/9/31163
Apologies for the double post.
Note 7-year clause in following Jerusalem Post article.
'PM agreed to lease Jordan Valley from Palestinians'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
11/01/2010 11:29
'As part of negotiations, US reportedly proposes Israel lease border region for 7 years; MK says, "Why do I need to lease land that belongs to us?"
(cont'd)
http://tinyurl.com/23nhd56
or
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=193524
Oldmanoftheski said: According to Islam, the Koran offers us the only "correct" view/description of God (Allah). However, the contradictions between the nature of God as described in the Bible, and Allah as described in the Koran, are strikingly different. The two cannot possibly be the same entity because they have completely opposite natures.
Constance says that she has "not seen really convincing evidence that "Allah" is not God". That is really sad. Incredible even. The evidence is overwhelming.
11:22 AM
This came as no surprise to me, and as I've commented to OMOTS and Paul's' own negative posts on Islam and its false representation on this blog (the false paradigm that Islam is just one of the monotheistic religions), but received no further comment, which was a hint that these two posters did not understand that Constance Cumbey either is compromised or is sadly ignorant of the Fifth Column that Islam represents. Maybe they just wanted not to believe her unchristian view of Islam? This is not the first bomb-shell to befall this site, nor will it be the last, I suspect.
Just look at how quickly the discussion is being buried and ignored.
Anon @ 3:37 p.m.
Q: Does the Church have its own laws against the sexual abuse of minors by members of the clergy?
A: Yes, the Church has long had laws on the books that address this crime. Even before the majority of the Church laws were collected into a single code of laws (in 1917 and in 1983), sins against the Sixth Commandment with a minor were also considered criminal acts. From 1917 onwards, the Church promulgated concise legal norms that stated this and that imposed penalties on clergy that offended in this terrible way.
Q: Which Church authority is responsible for addressing these offenses?
A: In April 2001, Pope John Paul II issued a law stating that, from then on, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome, headed at the time by Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, would have sole Church authority over this crime. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is one of the offices that assist the Pope in fulfilling his mission as Supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church. Prior to 2001, the crime was generally to be dealt with on the local level by the diocesan bishop. The CDF would have been involved if the offense had occurred on the occasion of the celebration of the Sacrament of Penance (confession). Otherwise, the case would have gone for a second hearing (appeal from the diocese) to the Congregation for Clergy or the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, offices that assist the Pope, depending on how the allegation had been resolved on the local level.
Q: What does canon law now require a bishop to do when he receives an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor committed by a cleric (priest or deacon)?
A: The Code of Canon Law stipulates that the first steps after receipt of an allegation of the commission of an ecclesiastical crime are usually taken by the local bishop. If the priest against whom an allegation is brought is a member of a religious order, his superior might take the first steps instead.
Any allegation that has the semblance of truth (it is not manifestly false or frivolous) undergoes what is referred to as a preliminary investigation. During the preliminary investigation, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and his good name must not be illegitimately harmed. According to the Essential Norms, which constitute law on sexual abuse of minors for the dioceses of the United States, the investigation should be conducted promptly and objectively. The Essential Norms also require the bishop to follow all civil reporting laws when the allegation concerns the sexual abuse of minors. Church officials are also to cooperate with civil authorities in their own investigations. Moreover, the bishop exercises his power of governance in other ways to make sure no harm comes to children during the phase of the preliminary investigation.
Q: Does the Holy See become involved at this point?
A: Usually not. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does have sole competence in resolving allegations of sexual abuse of minors committed by clerics. But this competence does not yet “kick in.” The Congregation exercises its authority once a case is referred to it by the local bishop. The bishop makes the decision as to whether a case will be referred. In most instances, unless the allegation proves manifestly false, it must be reported to the Congregation. The Essential Norms require a bishop to report all cases to the CDF once he has sufficient evidence that the sexual abuse of a minor may have occurred. The Congregation would normally have knowledge of the accusation only when it is reported to the Congregation by the bishop or religious superior.
Q: Is the priest or deacon still in ministry while all of this is being considered?
A: No. A bishop may at any time withdraw a cleric from active ministry pending the outcome of an investigation of the allegation. This is done primarily to assure that children are not in danger should it prove true that the cleric had committed acts of abuse. At the same time, it must be emphasized again that the cleric enjoys the presumption of innocence. This should be made clear by the diocese to the public. If the allegation is unfounded, the bishop must strive to repair any illegitimate damage to the good reputation of the priest or deacon.
Q: Does the Pope become involved in the consideration of how best to proceed with addressing an allegation?
A: No. The CDF handles these cases. The Pope does not supervise the daily activities of the Congregation nor become involved in particular cases as they are being processed.
Q: Does the Church conduct the legal proceedings mentioned above in secret?
A: The word “secret” is a literal translation of the Latin word “secretum.” The better translation would be “confidential.” Church law does require that formal trials and other processes that lead to the imposition of penalties be dealt with confidentially. This is meant to protect the accused, the witnesses, and the integrity of the Church process. For instance, general members of the public are not admitted to the court proceedings. Although these proceedings are confidential, that does not forbid or even discourage anyone from reporting the underlying allegations to civil authorities. In fact, the opposite is true when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors. The Essential Norms strictly mandate that bishops will follow civil reporting laws, and that they advise a person of his or her right to make a report to public authorities and support the person in doing so.
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/catholic/2010/05/catholic-bishops-canon-law-and-clergy-sexual-abuse/
Nobody said Constance was a stealth new ager, Dorothy, but she has become involved without even realizing it what she is intending to expose.
Dorothy, you are one of the most egotistical, insulting know it alls I have witnessed on any blog.
Constance, if you would get your head out of wherever it is and stop relating everything to javier Solana you might server others better. yes, Solana is one to watch indeed but, I think Satan has you taking your eye off the ball. Oh, and by the way, please stop trying to fit your FAILED prediction (and that is what it was)of the ENP and just admit you were wrong.
JD, I am waiting, for you to jump in and defend Constance and Dorothy just like you always do. I am also waiting for you to jump in and tell some of the catholics that their responses are downright nasty instead of claiming they are "defending themselves" and have a right to do so. I KNOW that you KNOW the truth, and yet you still won't speak out. When God asks you one day why you did not speak out for truth, Constance, Dorothy or any of the other groupies here will not be able to help you.
Is the language of my post strong, YOU BET IT IS! Somebody needs to speak out against these phonies.
Anonymous 7:08
And your credentials are........?
Dorothy
Anon @ 7:08 p.m.
If Constance defends any religion other than Evangelical Protestanism, she is accused of being part of the New Age. Leave the poor Lady alone.
If some of you would spend more time on your knees praying - and asking for forgiveness for being absolutely obsessed with judging others - this world would be a better place.
Dear Constance,
My wish is that I had a really great link for you to post so you could start a new thread and get past all of this divisiveness!
You have my appreciation and deep respect for all you do. You have always come across to me as a very humble, fair, and clear thinking individual.
May God bless you!
Lisa
Constance,
In order to believe that Allah is GOD, the Father, the Creator of all things, the first and last, alpha and omega, etc.... you would have to believe the entire Bible is a lie, a hoax perpetrated by the Jews and Christians.
Your silence is deafening. Answer your critics...you have much to explain.
Actually, if I were to change the name of this blog, it might be, given my present mood to DISTRACTED SQUABBLERS ANONYMOUS.
Lee Penn is my radio guest tomorrow night.
I would remind John Chingford and so many others that self-righteousness is as evil a spirit as most of the others.
Constance
A MISREPRESENTATION of God does not necessarily in and of itself imply they are worshiping a DIFFERENT God -- they may be however, worshiping something created in their own image. One other thing most of you have not addressed, maybe you don't know enough Arabic to do so, is that the CHRISTIAN BIBLES that are translated into Arabic use the word ALLAH for God. Are we now going to accuse all Middle East Arabic speaking Christians of worshiping a MOON GOD?
Constance
All I know is that Alice Bailey, David Spangler, Peter LeMesurier all seem to concur in their respective crowing fashions that JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND MOSLEMS are "Peoples of the Book" scheduled for extinction as to their respective fundamentalist elements. How will this be accomplished? We kill each other off and then they, the NEW AGERS, are the PHOENIX to arise from the ashes to build the "new society" for the "new golden age."
Constance
To say that I believe the Moslems believe their Allah (as well as Eastern Christians which use the same word "Allah") is God is NOT to say I believe their teaching is an ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF GOD.
I can see on days like this how Anne Rice was chased back out of Christianity saying she had never seen such backbiting! There is so much backbiting and mischaracterization here!
Constance
You know, I'm thinking out loud. I do not accept Moslem theology, just as I do not accept Mormon theology. However, God judges hearts. It is hard for me to get so excited about a Moslem or a Mormon with convictions based on how they were raised when I know for certainty that there was far more serious Evangelical compromise with Rev. Moon who claimed he was the LORD OF THE SECOND ADVENT. There was evangelical compromise with PAUL N. TEMPLE (Institute of Noetic Sciences). The Moslems and the Mormons may have been operating in good conscience based on their lifelong conviction, but that Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye and so many others compromised with Rev. Moon because of MONEY to me is far more serious.
Constance
So we can all keep our real aims in perspective, I suggest you watch and digest this youtube video:
http://tinyurl.com/25jq89w
Constance
Texe Marrs has an article entitled "Obama Tells Jews "No More!" which explains all the upheaval and resignations hitting the White House here -
http://tiny.cc/b4jcs
P.
Constance,is there some one telling Muslims that they are being manipulated by New Agers to turn against Jews and Christians. Just today there was a news story dealing Muslims killing 58 and wounding 75 more Christians in a church. Since this has been going on for hundreds of years, it can't all be attributed to instigation by New Age leadership.
I do not trust websites such as http://www.unionoffaiths.com/
Dorothy
Dear Constance
Thank you for clarifying your views re Allah. The question is, how did the qur'an get written, because that is the key book of Islam. Muhammad said that it was dictated to him as the word of Allah. Either he is telling the truth, in which case Allah is not Jehovah because the qur'an denies the divinity of Jesus and a loving father does not deny his own son; or Muhammad made it up himself and is telling a whopper.
In increasingly Islamic Malaysia some Christians are 'helpfully' referring to their God as "Allah". It is telling that Muslims are objecting. I hope that Arabic Bibles which refer to Jehovah as 'Allah' are soon superseded.
The testimony of converts from Islam to Christianity is worth listening to. I know sesveral and they do not believe that Jehovah is Allah. In particular, they regard Allah's claim to be the Creator as a falsehood.
Constance, I don't know if you have come across the online book "The Rainbow Swastika" by an Orthodox Jewess called Hannah Newman. It is as excellent and deep an expose of the New Age as yours. She says that the New Agers target Jews and Christians but NOT Muslims. I think she lives in Israel itself where things might be a bit different (and maybe sharper-edge?) Her book is at
http://philologos.org/__eb-trs/
3) VATICAN NEGATES HEBREW SCRIPTURES; CLAIMS THERE IS NO CHOSEN PEOPLE
A two-week Vatican conference assembled to discuss the plight of
Christians in the Middle East ended last Saturday with a bold
declaration by the bishops in attendance that stated, among other
things, there is no longer a chosen people (all mankind has become the
chosen people); God's promise to Israel was "nullified by Jesus"; the
Abrahamic Covenant is null and void; Christians cannot speak of the
"promised land" as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people;
the Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel;
Israel should end it "occupation" of Arab lands; and Israel "uses the
Bible to justify injustices against the Arabs".
VW:
It would be 'curious' to know what Scripture they use to claim that
Jesus "nullified" God's promise to Israel. I'm wracking my brain and not
coming up with anything that might even be 'twisted' (2Pt3:16) to say
such a thing.
I wonder if the Vatican knows how to "nullify" this...
Ezk 36:5 therefore thus says the Lord Jehovah: Surely I have spoken in
My burning jealousy against the rest of the nations and against Edom,
all WHO GAVE MY LAND TO THEMSELVES as a possession, with whole-hearted
joy and spiteful minds, in order to plunder its open land.
Joe 3:2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into
the valley of Jehoshaphat. And I will enter into judgment with them
there, on account of My people and My possession, Israel, whom they have
scattered among the nations; and DIVIDED UP MY LAND.
not any of the other anons
Constance
we asked you to give a clear and concise answer yes or no without fudging it. Anonymous said that if you did not we would assume you were Monotheistic supporting all 3 religions as ONE equal religion.
As you HAVE fudged the question and not denied this, we HAVE to accept that you DO believe in Allah as being the SAME God that we worship and Christianity as equal with Islam for reaching God,
Let me remind you that Jesus said
"I am the way, The Truth and The Life, NO-ONE comes to the Father except through HIM"
It is clear where your allegiance is. This site is actually a smoke screen pretending to be something it is not, ie it is really another Jesuit or maybe Illuminati attempt to confuse protestant Christians into joining the ecumenical apostate movement which is Catholic inspired.
True Christians of the TRUE BOOK be aware.
Hi Anon 6.34
I think you meant to say:
"None come to the Father except through ME" ie through Jesus
Dear Constance
I notice that you attack John Chingford.
Why? all i can see is that he has showed how the Bible disagrees with the views of commentees on this site.
How does that make him self righteous? If quoting scriptures makes him self righteous then every author in the Bible or the writing of the fathers could be considered as self righteous because they are telling the church what they should do or believe.
Again, you make no sense whatsoever in your responses. Every time your views are challenged you resort to nastiness or Bible Believers bashing.
Another clear indication of your hatred for bible believing Christians.
Constance said "but God judges hearts" which implies that if a Muslim heart is good (even though they reject Jesus as the Son of God and only saviour) they will be accepted by God.
Where in the New Testament does it say that a person rejecting Jesus as the ONLY way to heaven can still be accepted into heaven?
Some of you Evangelicals are unbelievable. You think you have the corner on the "correct interpretation" of the Bible, and that anyone whose interpretations diverge from your own are not "True Christians."
Setting themselves up as "true Christians" and Catholics up as "apostates" is part and parcel of most Evangelical platforms. This dynamic has been going on for years at this blog. A lot of Protestants have left because Constance wouldn't "play along."
John Chingford's problem isn't that he quotes the Bible. His problem is that he thinks his interpretation of scripture is the final one and that everyone else's is false. He acts like he has a direct line to Jesus Christ.
Sounds like a cult to me.
To Anon 7.01
I read through John Chingford's comments. I see very little interpretation. Almost everything he put together were quotes from the scriptures. Why do you "interpret" quotations as being his "interpretations of scriptures"? He is simply quoting scripture FULL STOP.
If you can quote scriptures to contradict what he wrote then please speak up or be silent with your criticisms.
What I see is Catholics quoting from extra biblical sources to counter his argument and not quoting from the Bible.
Anon 7:08,
You are assuming a Rule of Faith, Sola Scriptura, that is not Biblical. In other words, you are asking me to "play by rules" that are man-made and not even in the Bible itself. Why would I play by rules that are not supported by scripture?
Please quote the section in the Bible that states the Bible is the sole source of authority, and that the Bible is self-interpreting.
Anon 7:01
PS - if the Bible was self-interpreting there would be one denomination of Protestantism not 30,000 +.
I believe the quotation (in answer to that question was given several times.
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:15-17
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Throughout the Bible it instucts people to obey the scriptures and not the word of man. For example
Galatians 1:8-9
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Why does St Paul mention it TWICE?
Mu=ch of scriptures are very clear what they are saying and are self interpreting. For example is there more than one interpretation of "no one comes to the Father except through me" All traditional protestant churches interpret that in the same way because it is transparently clear.
The reason there are many denominations is (sadly) because of minor points of doctrines. These verses could be interpreted differently if the verse is taken, as it is, without comparing with what the rest of the bible says on that subject. But these differences are not vital for our salvation.
But, we all do believe in the vital issues of our faith regarding the divinity, death and resurrection of Jesus and how to be saved.
Besides most denominations originated because the main church of the time threw Bible believers out, so they had no alternative but to worship on their own. The originators did not give themselves a label, it was outsiders who labelled them.
To the most part evangelical believers still join together in fellowship ignoring their minor differences and focussing on the majors of the faith as shown us through the Bible.
Anon 7:08
I agree, I see nothing in John Chingford's comments that are self righteous and I still have yet to see anyone refute the scripture he quoted.
Dear Anonymous,
It's okey to talk to yourself.
It's when you answer yourself
that I get confused.
Dear other anonymi,
Do you think that anyone can
follow your train of thought,
or see the clarity of your posts,
when your posts are mixed
together with, ah, Anonymous?
I know I can't.
I'm really beginning to believe
that you're deliberately
muddying up the waters,
even when your comments
are scripturally sound.
God is not the author of
confusion and you shouldn't
be either.
To Paul
Which anon are you referring to?
To: Anon of 6.42pm & 6.43pm
From: Anon of 3.37pm, to whom you were responding
Thank you for your summary of Canon Law regarding sexual abuse. These tribunals do not meet the standard of impartiality of mainstream legal systems, for they are procedures *internal* to the Roman Catholic church - which is therefore investigating itself. The judge and the accused are both ordained Catholics who derive their living from the Catholic church. The persons alleging sexual abuse do not appear. There is no opportunity for cross-examination. The penalties for being found guilty are internal church sanctions which the guilty paerson is free to ignore if he chooses to walk away from the church.
As for the meaning of Pontifical Secret, this is defined in the Instruction of the Congregation of the Holy Office and has been unchanged since 1866 as follows:
"In handling these cases, either by Apostolic commission or the appropriate ruling of the bishops, the greatest care and vigilance must be exercised so that these procedures, insamuch as they pertain to faith, are to be completed in absolute secrecy, and after they have been settled and given over to sentencing, are to be completely suppressed by perpetual silence. All the ecclesiastic ministers of the Curia, and whoever else is summoned to this proceedings, including counsels for the defence, must submit oaths of maintaining secrecy, and even the bishops themselves are obligated to keep the secret..."
No wonder that the criminal authorities in the various countries involved were not informed! No wonder that paedophile priests were often spirited out across national borders and ergo diocesan borders - actions which must have been arrranged at a higher level than bishops, presumably the CDF and its then head Cardinal Ratzinger.
View this from the point of view of the victim, like Christ did. Justice?
To Anonymous 6:59
¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of me
CONSTANCE
Let's be VERY clear; Arabic Christians actually use the words "Allāh al-ʼAb" to distinguish their worship of the God of the Bible from Allah the pagan Meccan deity. While it may be true that the word Allah today only means "god" in Arabic, the fact of the matter is that Islam is based on Allah as a pagan deity and one of the pantheon of pagan Mecca who had deity daughters and sons as well. For Cumbey to pretend ignorance of this, and then to further obfuscate on her answer demonstrates that she is NOT a watchman, but is a compromised syncretist, and thus just as troubling as the New Age movement. Anyone who continues to support this place is a sychophant, not a researcher.
Also, why does she continually avoid answering the question of why she cannot use another free resource to broadcast her message, rather than continue to compromise and broadcast at a network that allows anti-semitic programming?
Also, why the deafening silence on Cumbey's stated favorite theologian from Theologica.ning? Fr. Seraphim Rose, an eastern mystic and homosexual.
All of these contradictions,dodgings, etc. leave me to suspect that all is not as it seems in Cumbeyland.
Yeah funny that the usual loudmouths who jump on anything slightly outside the real of Christianity wont touch the fact that Constance Cumbey thinks that an eastern mystic and homosexual is one of the most influential people in the church history outside people in the bible. (just quoting her profile at Theologica)AND her whole thing about Allah. weird...
That tells us all we need to know about these supposed seekers of truth. LOLOL
Anonymous 7:08 AM
Re:"What I see is Catholics quoting from extra biblical sources to counter his argument and not quoting from the Bible."
Let's do talk about "extra-Biblical."
Apparently, you are one of those "enlightened" people who assumes that if you make the same statement often enough, it will cease to be your own opinion and become an objective scientific/historical fact.
You claim to see "very little interpretation" in Chingford's comments?
Surely you jest!
First of all, if the "Bible only" is the Christian rule of Faith, I don't need Chingford, you or anyone else to tell me what the Bible means to begin with.
And since you and your confreres started this debate, you are not going to be allowed to get away with steering it away from the $64,000.00 question which is generally avoided like the plague by people of your ilk because you know you can't answer it.
You talk about "clear" statements from the Scriptures???
Where in the Bible does it clearly and explicitly state that the "Bible only" is to be the Christian Rule of Faith???
The truth is that Martin Luther - who became a priest because of a rash promise he made to save his own hide when he was terrified of being killed by lightning in a storm - exploited the need for reform in the church and went about "reforming" the wrong things according to his own particular tastes.
Among these "reforms" was the invention of "sola Scriptura" by Martin Luther who merely sought to get rid of the Pope who wouldn't go along with Luther's inventions.
Ergo, whoever follows the "sola Scriptura" rule is following an unbiblical "rule of faith" to begin with and nothing more needs to be said by any Catholic here until "sola Scriptura" can be irrefutably proven FROM THE BIBLE ONLY!
In other words, Mr. Chingford and his pals can be safely ignored.
The reason why they like to send other people to hell is because in terms of their meanness and lack of charity they are probably halfway there themselves!
They are the "Father Leonard Feeney" bigots of Protestantism who take more delight in sending Catholics to hell than in preaching the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ!!!
By the way, Father Leonard Feeney was a Catholic bigot who was excommunicated for "sending Protestants to hell!"
Anonymous 7:08 AM
Re:"What I see is Catholics quoting from extra biblical sources to counter his argument and not quoting from the Bible."
Let's do talk about "extra-Biblical."
Apparently, you are one of those "enlightened" people who assumes that if you make the same statement often enough, it will cease to be your own opinion and become an objective scientific/historical fact.
You claim to see "very little interpretation" in Chingford's comments?
Surely you jest!
First of all, if the "Bible only" is the Christian rule of Faith, I don't need Chingford, you or anyone else to tell me what the Bible means to begin with.
And since you and your confreres started this debate, you are not going to be allowed to get away with steering it away from the $64,000.00 question which is generally avoided like the plague by people of your ilk because you know you can't answer it.
You talk about "clear" statements from the Scriptures???
Where in the Bible does it clearly and explicitly state that the "Bible only" is to be the Christian Rule of Faith???
The truth is that Martin Luther - who became a priest because of a rash promise he made to save his own hide when he was terrified of being killed by lightning in a storm - exploited the need for reform in the church and went about "reforming" the wrong things according to his own particular tastes.
Among these "reforms" was the invention of "sola Scriptura" by Martin Luther who merely sought to get rid of the Pope who wouldn't go along with Luther's inventions.
Ergo, whoever follows the "sola Scriptura" rule is following an unbiblical "rule of faith" to begin with and nothing more needs to be said by any Catholic here until "sola Scriptura" can be irrefutably proven FROM THE BIBLE ONLY!
In other words, Mr. Chingford and his pals can be safely ignored.
The reason why they like to send other people to hell is because in terms of their meanness and lack of charity they are probably halfway there themselves!
They are the "Father Leonard Feeney" bigots of Protestantism who take more delight in sending Catholics to hell than in preaching the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ!!!
By the way, Father Leonard Feeney was a Catholic bigot who was excommunicated for "sending Protestants to hell!"
"Let's be VERY clear; Arabic Christians actually use the words "Allāh al-ʼAb" to distinguish their worship of the God of the Bible from Allah the pagan Meccan deity. While it may be true that the word Allah today only means "god" in Arabic, the fact of the matter is that Islam is based on Allah as a pagan deity and one of the pantheon of pagan Mecca who had deity daughters and sons as well. For Cumbey to pretend ignorance of this, and then to further obfuscate on her answer demonstrates that she is NOT a watchman, but is a compromised syncretist, and thus just as troubling as the New Age movement. Anyone who continues to support this place is a sychophant, not a researcher.
Also, why does she continually avoid answering the question of why she cannot use another free resource to broadcast her message, rather than continue to compromise and broadcast at a network that allows anti-semitic programming?
Also, why the deafening silence on Cumbey's stated favorite theologian from Theologica.ning? Fr. Seraphim Rose, an eastern mystic and homosexual.
All of these contradictions,dodgings, etc. leave me to suspect that all is not as it seems in Cumbeyland."
I'd like to know too.
Anon @ 10:03 p.m.
You are twisting the facts I have posted about cannon law. There is nothing that says that they cannot be reported to the authorities.
Q: Does the Church conduct the legal proceedings mentioned above in secret?
A: The word “secret” is a literal translation of the Latin word “secretum.” The better translation would be “confidential.” Church law does require that formal trials and other processes that lead to the imposition of penalties be dealt with confidentially. This is meant to protect the accused, the witnesses, and the integrity of the Church process. For instance, general members of the public are not admitted to the court proceedings. Although these proceedings are confidential, that does not forbid or even discourage anyone from reporting the underlying allegations to civil authorities. In fact, the opposite is true when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors. The Essential Norms strictly mandate that bishops will follow civil reporting laws, and that they advise a person of his or her right to make a report to public authorities and support the person in doing so.
So it's the Bishops who did not do it. Ratzinger did not even preside over all the cases of the CDF back then. You are giving him more more than he has.
Anonymous 1:07
All you are doing is showing the weakness of the Protestant position that you have faith in. First, you have faith in the exact words of the book you believe to be the word of God as if no human translations of words stood between your ear and God's thoughts. Second, you have been taught to have enormous faith in your intellectual ability to use those words to judge others where you do not have access to their brains and souls. In other words, you believe you alone are speaking for God when judging others. Is that what Christianity is about. I don't think so. See John 8:7.
This is a weakness of Islamic teachers and many cult leader operations. They have their books and cult leaders who also think that they have been given direct access to God's thoughts.
Your weaknesses appear to be the human ones of pride, conceit with no humility in your challenges. Is that Christianity or something else you believe in?
The followers of Islam have faith in their belief in their connection to God. With that they have faith that every individual life they destroy is in line with God's will. They are also full of pride and conceit which leads to great destructiveness. They also believe that their connection to God's thoughts is in line with believing no one is correct except they alone are.
I suggest you study the words Constance has posted for their deeper meaning.
Dorothy
Anon @1.32pm
How can I be twisting facts if I am quoting the Vatican's own documents?
Please state which official documents of the Catholic church you are drawing your comments about Canon Law at 6.42pm & 6.43pm from, and when they came into force.
Nobody here has yet answered the question I have asked repeatedly: Since paedophile priests were commonly shuffled across diocesan and national boundaries, who did this and why? It must have been arranged at a level higher than bishops (since a bishop runs a single diocese), and many such cases were reported to the CDF even before 2001 at which time it became mandatory. What is your answer, please?
Anon @10.03pm
From Anonymous 7.28
to Suzanna
Dear Suzanna,
This question of yours has already been answered at least 3 times, but I will answer it again.
Here is the answer to the question " show us from the bible where it says the bible is the Christians authority" Here it is as per my previous comment quoting from 2 Tim 3:15-17
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:15-17
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Throughout the Bible it instucts people to obey the scriptures and not the word of man. For example
Galatians 1:8-9
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Why does St Paul mention it TWICE?
"Let's be VERY clear; Arabic Christians actually use the words "Allāh al-ʼAb" to distinguish their worship of the God of the Bible from Allah the pagan Meccan deity. While it may be true that the word Allah today only means "god" in Arabic, the fact of the matter is that Islam is based on Allah as a pagan deity and one of the pantheon of pagan Mecca who had deity daughters and sons as well. For Cumbey to pretend ignorance of this, and then to further obfuscate on her answer demonstrates that she is NOT a watchman, but is a compromised syncretist, and thus just as troubling as the New Age movement. Anyone who continues to support this place is a sychophant, not a researcher.
Also, why does she continually avoid answering the question of why she cannot use another free resource to broadcast her message, rather than continue to compromise and broadcast at a network that allows anti-semitic programming?
Also, why the deafening silence on Cumbey's stated favorite theologian from Theologica.ning? Fr. Seraphim Rose, an eastern mystic and homosexual.
All of these contradictions,dodgings, etc. leave me to suspect that all is not as it seems in Cumbeyland."
I'd like to know too.Not letting this go since the so called "astute researchers" here seem to have no problem looking the other way on this Seraphim Rose issue, and the Catholic New Agers love Allah too and neither group will seek answers.
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
This does not support Sola Scriptura. It says that the Bible is holy and inspired and is profitable for doctrine, and these things are all true. It does not, however, say that the Bible is self-interpreting or is the only source of truth.
Sola Scriptura is a man-made doctrine that is not contained in the Bible. More Protestants (including many learned former Protestant pastors) are realizing this fact all the time and coming to realize that Jesus didn't leave us a book, he left us a Church. As you can see here:
http://www.chnetwork.org/
Dear Constance re 11:34AM
From Anon 6.59am
You are obviously referring in Romans 2 specifically to verses 14-15
"14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
In this chapter Paul was talking to Jews and Gentiles and explaining that the Law written in hearts was more important than the external Law. This is apparent when you read chapters 1 to 8
Take into consideration Jeremiah 31:33-34
"33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
Although this was referring to a time when the Jews will "look upon Me who they have pierced" it is very appropriate to all people.
However, this law in the heart is put there by the Holy Spirit "the law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, has set me free from the Law of sin and death" Romans 8:2
Those who have received Jesus fulfil the law within their hearts.
Those verses you quoted are referring to Christians. It is not saying that those who live good lives (who have not heard of Jesus) like muslims will go to heaven. These verses do not say this. Those particular verses do not say with clarification "the unsaved who have not been saved by Jesus will go to heaven". You have to do somersaults with those verses and ignore many other scriptures which say opposite to what you are suggesting.
Constance, you should not quote scripture verses out of context but compare with the whole message of the Bible, that says for example:
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
I assume none of you have read Seraphim Rose's book, ORTHODOXY AND THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE. I understood his history from which as I understand it he completely repented long before his deep religious search and settling into Orthodox Christianity. I am very sorry that in the mean spirited version of Christianity I am seeing with some of the "anonymous" cowards here that there is no room for repentance and redemption.
Constance
Constance,
His repentance is hollow considering members of his own religion denounced his teachings as Gnostic. He taught that we pass through spiritual realms known as "toll houses" in order to get to heaven. This indeed was an Egyptian Gnostic teaching. Nice try though.
And there is still the matter of Allah being the same God you worship.
And there is the issue of you not using a free resource such as blogtalk radio, rather than remaining on a network that YOU admit is anti-semitic, and which subject you continue to avoid discussing. Why can't you use a free one?
You've not answered anything really, you've just left a lot more questions. I must say you've left me amused at claiming to be a fundamentalist.
Anon@ 10:03 p.m.
You questions have been answered. The CDF was not handling abuse cases before 2001. The CDF was only involved in certain cases.
Prior to 2001, the crime was generally to be dealt with on the local level by the diocesan bishop. The CDF would have been involved if the offense had occurred on the occasion of the celebration of the Sacrament of Penance (confession). Otherwise, the case would have gone for a second hearing (appeal from the diocese) to the Congregation for Clergy or the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, offices that assist the Pope, depending on how the allegation had been resolved on the local level.
So the allegation has to be first resolved on the Local Level before going to the CDF. A Bishop decides what cases should be referred to the CDF.
Q: Is the priest or deacon still in ministry while all of this is being considered?
A: No. A bishop may at any time withdraw a cleric from active ministry pending the outcome of an investigation of the allegation.
Q: Does the Pope become involved in the consideration of how best to proceed with addressing an allegation?
A: No. The CDF handles these cases. The Pope does not supervise the daily activities of the Congregation nor become involved in particular cases as they are being processed.
All I see here is people fighting back and forth about scripture verses. Taking others to the electric chair over the meaning of words.
STOP IT NOW!
What is BLOGTALK RADIO? This is the first I have heard of it?
Constance
Just who is Constance's GRAND INQUISITOR here and what is she/he/it's credentials?
Disgusted and wondering
In my opinion, the ONLY way ORTHODOXY AND THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE could have been written was by inspiration by the Holy Spirit. I definitely do not agree with his concept (and I don't know how long he held it) of "Toll Houses." The TOLL HOUSES are not in ORTHODOXY AND THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.
Constance
Well, I just looked into the Blog Talk Radio. Discovered I must have signed in once. My first and disturbing observation was that there was an ad for PSYCHIC -- evidently they use keywords to finance. THE FREEZE DRY GUY is much more to my liking as sponsorship. I will have to learn more. THEMICROEFFECT.com is on some radio stations beyond mere internet radio and reaches, probably, a larger audience.
Constance
Anonymous 2;29 pm
No....you have NOT answered it. Not even once!!! You are like all the rest of the Catholic-bashers here who try to make the Bible say things that it simply doesn't say.
None of those quotes from 2Timothy CLEARLY say that the Bible only is is the Christian rule of faith.
Moreover, the Scriptures Paul IS referring to in the 2Timothy quote are the Old Testament because the WRITTEN New Testament as we know it did not yet exist. The Gospel was PREACHED.
Remember "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God???" Romans 10:17
Even where people were able to read, people didn't own their own copies of the sacred Scriptures. The Gutenberg press wouldn't be invented until the 16th century.
So please spare me and the rest of the Catholics here your tiresome and false claim that you have answered my question. Because your answer is merely your own interpretation of a passage of Scripture that doesn't clearly and explicitly say what you claim it says.
The following is the Catholic case against Sola Scriptura
DEFINITION of Sola Scriptura given by Greg Krehbiel:
"Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and practice" -- hence, all "churches" and any "traditions" (today) are fallible.
COROLLARY (and necessary implication) of Sola Scriptura:
The only interpretation of Scripture that is binding on the Christian conscience is that of the individual exegete (a.k.a. "private interpretation) (assuming normal adult intelligence) since all "churches" and any "traditions" are fallible.
********************************
Here is the Catholic response:
I. Sola Scriptura is UNBIBLICAL
(1) There is no direct teaching of Sola ScripturaS in Scripture (OT or NT)
Although some claim it is implied by 2 Tim 3:15-17; 1 Cor 4:6; etc), it is denied by 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; etc)
(2) There is no statement that apostolic oral revelation would cease to be a rule of faith (although Protestants argue that it has in fact "passed away")
(3) or at least Sola Scriptura is "non-biblical" since the NT is silent about the "passing away" of the apostolic oral revelation (cf. Matt 24:35; Acts 2:42; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 3:2; etc)
Anonymous 2;29 pm
No....you have NOT answered it. Not even once!!! You are like all the rest of the Catholic-bashers here who try to make the Bible say things that it simply doesn't say.
None of those quotes from 2Timothy CLEARLY say that the Bible only is is the Christian rule of faith.
Moreover, the Scriptures Paul IS referring to in the 2Timothy quote are the Old Testament because the WRITTEN New Testament as we know it did not yet exist. The Gospel was PREACHED.
Remember "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God???" Romans 10:17
Even where people were able to read, people didn't own their own copies of the sacred Scriptures. The Gutenberg press wouldn't be invented until the 16th century.
So please spare me and the rest of the Catholics here your tiresome and false claim that you have answered my question. Because your answer is merely your own interpretation of a passage of Scripture that doesn't clearly and explicitly say what you claim it says.
The following is the Catholic case against Sola Scriptura
DEFINITION of Sola Scriptura given by Greg Krehbiel:
"Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and practice" -- hence, all "churches" and any "traditions" (today) are fallible.
COROLLARY (and necessary implication) of Sola Scriptura:
The only interpretation of Scripture that is binding on the Christian conscience is that of the individual exegete (a.k.a. "private interpretation) (assuming normal adult intelligence) since all "churches" and any "traditions" are fallible.
********************************
Here is the Catholic response:
I. Sola Scriptura is UNBIBLICAL
(1) There is no direct teaching of Sola ScripturaS in Scripture (OT or NT)
Although some claim it is implied by 2 Tim 3:15-17; 1 Cor 4:6; etc), it is denied by 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; etc)
(2) There is no statement that apostolic oral revelation would cease to be a rule of faith (although Protestants argue that it has in fact "passed away")
(3) or at least Sola Scriptura is "non-biblical" since the NT is silent about the "passing away" of the apostolic oral revelation (cf. Matt 24:35; Acts 2:42; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 3:2; etc)
cont...
Anonymous 2;29 pm
No....you have NOT answered it. Not even once!!! You are like all the rest of the Catholic-bashers here who try to make the Bible say things that it simply doesn't say.
None of those quotes from 2Timothy CLEARLY say that the Bible only is is the Christian rule of faith.
Moreover, the Scriptures Paul IS referring to in the 2Timothy quote are the Old Testament because the WRITTEN New Testament as we know it did not yet exist. The Gospel was PREACHED.
Remember "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God???" Romans 10:17
Even where people were able to read, they didn't own their own copies of the sacred Scriptures. The Gutenberg press wouldn't be invented until the 16th century.
So please spare me and the rest of the Catholics here your tiresome and false claim that you have answered my question. Because your answer is merely your own interpretation of a passage of Scripture that doesn't clearly and explicitly say what you claim it says.
The bottom line is that the Bible does NOT teach Sola Scriptura.
So before you go around accusing Catholics of being "unBiblical," you need to spiritually take a good - and honest - look in the mirror.
THE HOLY CITY
Thank you Constance for posting that beautiful video and for reminding us of the Faith that unites many who post here, regardless of denomination.
And once again the scene was changed,
New earth there seemed to be.
I saw the Holy City
Beside the tideless sea.
The light of God was on its streets,
The gates were open wide,
And all who would might enter,
And no one was denied.
No need of moon or stars by night,
Or sun to shine by day;
It was the new Jerusalem
That would not pass away,
It was the new Jerusalem
That would not pass away.
Jerusalem! Jerusalem!
Sing for the night is o'er!
Hosanna in the highest!
Hosanna forevermore!
Anonymous Catholic
cont....
II. Sola Scriptura is UNHISTORICAL
(1) The early Church (1st century) functioned without the NT -- this is granted -- all special revelation was oral from Christ to His apostles to the early Christians -- no written Scriptures besides the OT
(2) Even after the New Testament was written the Church functioned without a complete New Testament canon (various books were questioned or not known or not included in some canon lists in the early centuries)
(3) The Church Fathers denied Sola Scriptura -- although this is challenged by such Protestant apologists as James White and William Webster.
http://www.americancatholictruthso
ciety.com/jwsola.htm
_____________________________
(4) The Church councils and early Creeds do not mention Sola Scriptura -- ("I [We] believe in one holy catholic apostolic Church" rather than "I believe in the one holy Scripture alone")
(5) Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (all "ancient" Churches that trace back through apostolic succession) deny Sola Scriptura today
III. Sola Scriptura is ILLOGICAL (or incoherent)
(1) Scripture alone does not teach "Scripture alone" (see I. above)
(2) Scripture alone can't tell us what "Scripture" is (New Testament canon)
(a) To argue from "fallible knowledge" and historical testimony directly to inspired Scripture is not possible by reason -- Protestants must simply accept this "by faith alone."
This is called FIDEISM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fideism
____________________________
(b) To argue from "fallible knowledge" and historical testimony to an infallible Church founded by Christ and protected from error by the Holy Spirit according to Christ's promises -- which same Church ultimately decided the canon -- THEN to inspired Scripture is reasonable (Catholic solution)
(c) Or Calvinist R.C. Sproul's "solution" to the "incoherency" problem in terms of Scripture being "a fallible collection of infallible books" --but how does he know these books are inspired if the canon is "fallible?")
(3) Scripture alone can't resolve the differences in Old Testament canon
cont.....
cont....
(4) Scripture alone -- being an inanimate object -- can't make any infallible and binding decisions concerning either canon or any (mis)interpretation -- According to Sola Scriptura Protestants, Scripture is simply assumed by definition to be "self-interpreting" and "self-authenticating" without need of any infallible Church -- this begs two important questions
(a) How do I know the Bible *IS* the Word of God?
(b) How do I know *MY* interpretation of Scripture is correct?
(5) Scripture alone can't function as the sole rule of faith for a Christian populace that was entirely illiterate and Bibles were inaccessible before the age of printing (ante 1450 AD)
IV. Sola Scriptura is INCONSISTENT
(1) The Church recognized the New Testament canon through "tradition" alone and every Protestant today is the beneficiary of that tradition.
(2) To argue the "infallibility of God's special providence" Catholic - turned - Protestant Eric Svendsen allowed the Church to recognize the NT canon can't be limited to just the canon -- i.e. the same providence of God should protect the Church in general from officially teaching error since she is guided by the "Spirit of truth" (Jn 16:13)
(3) Everyone has a "tradition" (although Protestants insist it is fallible) when interpreting Scripture so the question is which tradition should one use and why?
(4) Also inconsistent to attack the beliefs of that very Catholic Church that gave us the Bible -- I would argue of course that the Catholic Church of 400 AD is the same Church of 2010 AD
V. Sola Scriptura is IMPROBABLE -- follows directly from II. 3) to 5) above
VI. Sola Scriptura is UNWORKABLE (and impractical)
(1) The fact of over 20,000 Protestant denominations and sects in contrast to the unity of faith (Eph 4:5) in the Catholic Church shows this to be true.
(2) Scripture alone is not perspicuous enough (cf. 2 Peter 3:16) to resolve major doctrinal disputes or moral teachings
(3) How can the individual Christian know today who is right?
(4) Sola Scriptura implies that nobody is bound to any interpretation but their own since all "churches" and any "traditions" are fallible
(5) Each individual Christian is fallible but the historic Christian and Catholic solution is the Magisterium that teaches God's Word infallibly ( i.e. in Ecumenical Councils)
Hi Constance
I am amused that whenever anyone refutes your comments with solid answers you just DO NOT answer the questions or just quickly skim over them, dodge the questions or simply change the subject.
You have been rude to those(imo) have shown humility in their answers by yourself lacking humility. I have never heard you admit you were wrong when proved so or apologise for your unfair accusations.
You have not answered even the person (who showed your interpretation of Romans 2 was faulty). Do you not have any further scriptural ammunition to use or was that the only verses you could use?
By the way, the reason people comment as anonymous is because they get viciously attacked when they do. You call them cowards, but what do you expect them to do?
Susanna,
This question of yours, “show us from the bible where it says the bible is the Christians authority" is why smug intellectuals can rationalise that the heinous act of sodomy is merely a 'lifestyle choice' on a menu of options open to all and not a heinous act condemned by God as revealed in Scripture and thus why the concept of sola Scripture, when Scripture speaks God speaks is false.
................................
The Teddy Shaped Potato Snack
Paul,
I used to sign my names to my comments but you and a few of your anti-Catholic buddies here were so gratuitiously nasty to me simply because I was Catholic that I stopped signing my comments and in fact, rarely comment here anymore at all.
So if you don't like anonymous comments perhaps you should have been kinder to people. As the saying goes, you reap what you sow.
Constance has left for Siberia. She said it was warmer there than with too many here!
Potato Snack,
Sodomy is explicitly prohibited in the Bible. Sola Scriptura, however, is not found in the Bible at all. It doesn't take an intellectual to see that, merely the ability to read.
Hot Chicken Wings
Hot Wings,
Yes there are other books, granted. But my point was that such breathtaking arrogance by Susanna, despite the Bible's explicit claim as God's Word and thus the ultimate authority on all things pertaining to the human condition, is an arrogation of authority on His part.
Can you imagine the nerve!.. to have greater authority to tell us the scope of scriptural revelation than does the Bible itself, which is not only presumptuous but also sacrilegious.
I do NOT take for granted that the books of the Bible are nothing more than human documents.
Pot Snack
JD, I am waiting, for you to jump in and defend Constance and Dorothy just like you always do. I am also waiting for you to jump in and tell some of the catholics that their responses are downright nasty instead of claiming they are "defending themselves" and have a right to do so. I KNOW that you KNOW the truth, and yet you still won't speak out. When God asks you one day why you did not speak out for truth, Constance, Dorothy or any of the other groupies here will not be able to help you.
Well, well...someone here appears to be psychic and seems to know JD better than JD knows himself. Maybe you should report him to "Evangelical Christianity Central" and see if they will revoke JD's "Ticket to Heaven."
Potato Snack,
Holy smokes! Where did Susanna EVER claim that the books of the Bible were merely "human documents?"
You are blithely reading into Susanna's post the exact same way as you are blithely reading into scripture itself. I will admit this much - in this respect you are consistent.
Finally, I am sure we can both agree that God is the God of all creation - and this includes intellectuals like Susanna.
Hot Chicken Wings
Anon 7:40 PM
Awwww, shucks!!! You got us all excited for nothing. We thought you were giving us a couple of good recipes for Potato Salad or Chicken Wings.
Anon 7:44,
Are you looking for Protestant Potato Salad or Catholic Potato Salad?
Hot Chicken Wings
WOW...I had no idea that Constance, Dorothy, JD, Susanna, etc. were on TRIAL here!!!
Who died and made YOU people God???
Anon 7:46 PM
Oh, Catholic Potato Salad of course. It won't have such a BITTER taste.
Hey, Pot Snack 7:34 PM:
You need to stop smokin' that stuff. It's frying your brain.
Anon 7:50,
ROTFLMAO!!!
Seriously though, there is no such thing as Protestant Potato Salad. If it did, the recipe would surely be in the Bible. Since it isn't in the Bible, it must not exist!
Hot Chicken Wings
Anon @4.58pm,
You are saying that before 2001 it was the Congregation for the Clergy (CC) or the Roman Rota (both based in Rome) which those cases that went up the line ended up at, not the CDF. That would make the heads of those organisations the ones responsible for the shuffling of paedophile priests over bishops' heads across diocesan and national borders - not the then head of the CDF, the present Pope.
Certainly the head of the CC for some of that time is a likely suspect. This was Cardinal Castrillon Hojos, a man who wrote a letter of congratulation to Bishop Pican of Bayeux after Pican refused to inform French police of a paedophile priest and even gave him parish work. ("I congratulate you for not denouncing a priest to the civil authorities...") These facts emerged after the priest had been sentenced to 18 years jail after his victims went to the police, and the bishop received 3 months suspended for failure to report. Pope John Paul II read Hojos' letter congratulating Pican and told him to copy it to all bishops. (Hojos was applauded by senior churchmen at a conference for divulging all this, at a conference last March.)
But some cases DID end up on Cardinal Ratzinger's desk at the CDF before 2001. Whether this was because abuse took place in the context of Confession, as you assert, I don't know; but the point is the CDF's response. Fr Lawrence Murphy raped 200 deaf boys and Ratzinger's CDF declined to defrock him; see
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html
Also, the defrocking of Fr Stephen Kiesle was recommended to the CDF by his bishop in the 1980s after he had been convicted of tying up and molesting two boys. The CDF did nothing for 4 years then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter stating that the "good of the universal church" needed to be taken into account in questions of defrocking; this letter made no order of defrocking. (Kiesle was eventually defrocked in 1987.)
The culture of cover-up runs, unhappily, right up the Catholic hierarchy.
You also wrote: "Q: Is the priest or deacon still in ministry while all of this is being considered?
A: No. A bishop may at any time withdraw a cleric from active ministry pending the outcome of an investigation." That means the answer is Maybe. The answer would be No only if the rule was "the bishop MUST withdraw the cleric...".
Anon @10.03am/1.52pm
My apologies for posting the above three times; I inferred that the first two postings failed. The software can be misleading at times.
If some of you would spend more time on your knees praying - and asking for forgiveness for being absolutely obsessed with judging others - this world would be a better place.
If some of you would spend more time on your knees praying - and asking for forgiveness for being absolutely obsessed with judging others - this world would be a better place.
If some of you would spend more time on your knees praying - and asking for forgiveness for being absolutely obsessed with judging others - this world would be a better place.
Sorry, I didn't mean to post that last comment 3 times. The software can be so misleading at times.
Without getting into the battle lines over SOLA SCRIPTURA, here's how I believe it sorts out:
1. I believe God can and does speak to others in "diverse times and places."
2. How do we know what was of God and what was not?
3. The HOLY SPIRIT would never contradict Himself. He would never say on one day, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME and on another day say 'WORSHIP BUDDHA.'
Similarly, he would never say as he did through Jesus, "no man knoweth the day or hour" and then as William Miller did in 1844 and Edgar Whisenant in 1988, give a date certain for the coming of Christ.
Internal consistency and accuracy is how the old Church fathers prayerfully sorted it out and we should go and do likewise!
CONSTANCE
AND, there is absolutely no substitute for knowing the Bible. Otherwise, it is impossible to judge consistency and accuracy.
Constance
To 6:49 p.m.
Obviously you have read what I have posted in the past very sevectively and/or superficially.
BTW, did you ever read the Biblical passages about CHARITY?
Constance
To David in Battle Creek:
Met JD and wife today again and had a nice day with them while they were in Detroit area on other business. It would be nice if you and JD could come together one of these days.
You are both Battle Creekers!
Constance
Anon@ 8:07.
The Castrillón-Hoyos letter, posted on its website by the critical Catholic French magazine Golias, could not be clearer or more damning:
"I congratulate you for not denouncing a priest to the civil administration. You have acted well and I am pleased to have a colleague in the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of all other bishops in the world, preferred prison to denouncing his son and priest."
Consider the letter's date: September 2001. Pope John Paul II's motu proprio insisting that all credible abuse accusations against priests be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was issued in May that year.
The Vatican's statement in response to the revelation was swift and well-judged. "The document is another confirmation of how timely was the unification of the treatment of cases of sexual abuse of minors on the part of members of the clergy under the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", said Fr Lombardi yesterday.
In effect, says John Allen, "the Vatican statement suggests that Castrillón Hoyos's attitude was part of the reason that then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger ... pressed for a more aggressive policy on the removal of predator priests".
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2764
Kiesle was removed from ministry following his conviction. in 1982, while still technically a priest, Kiesle married the mother of a girl he had abused in 1973.
Last spring, in a section called "Documents Trail" posted on the website of the New York Times (alongside an article by Times reporter Laurie Goodstein) there is a revealing letter from the Coadjutor Bishop of Superior, Wisconsin, Raphael M. Fliss, to the Vicar for Personnel of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Father Joseph A. Janicki. Bishop Fliss says, "In a recent conversation with Archbishop Weakland, I was left with the impression that it would not be advisable at this time to invite Father Murphy to work among the deaf." The letter was dated July 9, 1980. So why did it take 16 years for Weakland to contact the Vatican about Murphy?
http://www.catholicleague.org/responsetocnn.p
That being said Philip Jenkins a Protestant, wrote a book on Pedophiles and Priests
"In reality, Catholic clergy are not necessarily represented in the sexual abuse phenomenon at a rate higher than or even equal to their numbers in the clerical profession as a whole."
The biggest difference between the Catholic and Protestant clergy in relation to this problem is due mostly to reporting procedures: there is no counterpart among Protestants to the highly centralized data keeping done by the Catholic Church, hence it is often difficult to make comparisons between the clergy of the two religions.
Notwithstanding the difficulties that such data comparisons hold, the available information on clergy sexual misconduct shows that the problem is bigger among Protestant clergy.
For example, the most cited survey of sexual problems among the Protestant clergy shows that 10 percent have been involved in sexual misconduct and "about two or three percent" are "pedophiles." With regard to the "pedophile" problem, the figure for the Catholic clergy, drawn from the most authoritative studies, ranges between .2 percent to 1.7 percent. Yet we hear precious little about these comparative statistics.
http://www.catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=Book+Reviews&id=29
Anonymous 6:54
Teddy Shaped Potato Snack
Are you saying that smug intellectuals never use "Sola Scriptura" and its ancillary "private interpretation" rule to rationalize their own heinous lifestyles? As in "once saved always saved" - no matter how heinously one behaves while "saved?"
Pot Snack 7:34 PM
At the end of the day, the only reason why anyone would call me "breathtakingly arrogant" for presenting well-reasoned arguments in defense of my rule of faith is because he/she has abysmally failed to come up with powerful enough arguments in defense of his/her own "sola Scriptura" rule of faith to preclude having to stoop to ad hominem attacks in order to divert attention away from his/her failure.
Constance,
Just for the record, the only reason I have participated in the religious polemics begun by Catholic bashers on this thread at all is because of your comment at the beginning of this thread.
Where is Suzanne? Did the Catholic bashers scare her off?
The reason I try to refrain from responding to Catholic bashing trolls when they attempt to hijack your blog is because I feel that since they cannot even prove their own rule of faith, they may be safely ignored when they attempt to trash mine.......especially while my fellow Catholics and I are here minding our own business and trying to stay on topic.
Taken directly from the Cutting Edge Newsletter, Nov 2, 2010 -
III. A retired San Diego superior court judge is set to release more than 10,000 documents into the public arena which will expose the horrors of the depth of sexual perversion by Catholic priests like never before!
NEWS BRIEF: "SD judge unveils horrors of Catholic church', The Daily Aztec News, November 1, 2010
"After three long years of legal procedures, a retired San Diego Superior Court judge has ruled that more than 10,000 documents from the Roman Catholic Diocese can be released into public circulation, exposing names, backgrounds and all credible allegations of sexual abuse committed by retired and active priests within the Catholic community. The existence of these documents exposes a sick reality that has gone on within this system for far too long; these religious officials have known about the occurring abuse and have done absolutely nothing to stop it."
Untold millions of Roman Catholic members have already left the Catholic Church and untold millions more are thinking about leaving. Virtually all these Catholics have one heart burning question -- how can the "only true Church on earth" have such a priesthood so filled, so permeated, with sexual perversion in the priesthood?
How can the teachings about compassion of the Virgin Mary and of hundreds of saints be reconciled with the image of priests raping children within the confines of a Catholic Church?
Does the Bible speak to this issue? Can we find any answers in the Holy Bible?
Yes, we can, and former Satanist, Bill Schnoebelen, reveals this Biblical, this most serious doctrinal reason, in his newest DVD, "Catholicism: The Church On Haunted Hill". There is a doctrinal foundation for the sexual perversion of the Catholic priesthood and it is not the fact that they are forced to be celibate!
If you think the cover and the title is is too harsh for your Catholic loved ones, we have created a new title and a slightly modified master DVD, and have entitled it, "Catholicism: Two Horns Like A Lamb"!
continued -
Both videos have a Salvation Plan at the very end, written especially for Catholics. These videos are a real soul-winning tool, designed to lovingly bring a Roman Catholic out of this false church and into the reality of Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
Let us return now to our featured article for more facts:
"Coincidentally, on the night when the whereabouts of these documents came into public scrutiny, the Diocese filed for bankruptcy. This legal decision froze the court cases and allowed for the investigation to be put off even further. This calculated plan solidifies concerned citizens' speculations, and the shady antics conducted in this network of cover-ups clearly shows us all exactly what we are up against. The Roman Catholic Diocese has changed its target from hopeful churchgoers to our own legal system. This blatant disregard of the law is a long overdue awakening for our public, and exposes this manipulation of religion for the meaningless business it has become to this network of 'fathers'."
In NEWS1675, we revealed that one of the psychological devices priests used to get their female penitents to have sex with them was the threat to lie to the 'Holy' Inquisition, so the woman would be torturously murdered. Since history books have been largely rewritten, few people know specific details of this murderous campaign that lasted over 1,200 years, killing 75 million people. But, once you understand the unprecedented horrors of the Inquisition, you will never look at Roman Catholicism the same way again."
With this quote in mind, let us now return to our current news article so you can see that not much has changed since 1710!
"And if you thought it couldn't get any worse, these detailed files depict numerous cases in which sufficient evidence was found against offending priests and they were still not prosecuted. Instead, they was simply transferred to other institutions outside of the immediate area, or irresponsibly shipped overseas. We have no way of knowing how many more foreign children were scarred for life by the appalling desires of these priests because of this legal negligence. This complete disregard for public safety destroys any sense of credibility these establishments hold, making me wonder: If these religious figureheads aren't there to serve their believers, then why are they there at all?"
continued -
As you read our articles written many years ago, you will discover that the sexually predatory priest was not punished, not turned over to secular authorities, but simply transferred to another parish so many miles away that the new parishoners would have no idea that the new 'father' in their midst was a sexualy predator! Nothing has changed in all these past centuries!
"It has nothing to do with stereotypes anymore; it has to do with facts. The cases that have flooded San Diego's legislative desks are proof enough of how sick and abusive this "religious" corporation has been performing throughout the years. Their frantic legal scrambling makes their officials look like a bunch of guilty children who are finally caught in their messy webs of lies. By failing to protect the 68 million devout followers within this religious community, the credibility, respect and value of this faith has been permanently tarnished, and has been reduced to nothing more than another manipulative system with a focus solely to protect its own disturbing agendas."
We concur wholeheartedly! You will discover that the information contained within our videos which we have created, you will discover that this current news is identical to the news from 200, 300, and 1,000 years ago.
Truly, the Vatican is correct when it states: "Rome never changes"!
Finally, the author of this news article states what we have said, above.
"The Diocese has thoroughly destroyed the "safe place" mentality that Catholic followers believe in."
Tens of millions of ordinarly Catholics simply cannot reconcile the harsh reality of sexual perversion with the kindness and compassion which they were taught when growing up in the Catholic faith. This mental conflict is answered by our videos, which is why we placed a Salvation plan at the end of ""Catholicism: The Church On Haunted Hill" and of "Catholicism: Two Horns Like A Lamb".
Once a Catholic understands the Biblical reason this sexual perversion has always existed within the Catholic priesthood, their minds will be opened and they will be ready to receive Jesus Christ as their Savior!
Ms Cumbey
you said
"3. The HOLY SPIRIT would never contradict Himself. He would never say on one day, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME and on another day say 'WORSHIP BUDDHA.'
Similarly, he would never say as he did through Jesus, "no man knoweth the day or hour" and then as William Miller did in 1844 and Edgar Whisenant in 1988, give a date certain for the coming of Christ."
Does this mean that if the writings of the Fathers contradicts the Bible we should reject those writings?
If you are saying that, then are you saying the Bible is our text book for testing all extra writings. Are you saying that?
Are you also saying the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit through the hand of humans?
Please let me know because am trying to grasp this.
Thanks
Susanna said....
Constance,
Just for the record, the only reason I have participated in the religious polemics begun by Catholic bashers on this thread at all is because of your comment at the beginning of this thread.
Where is Suzanne? Did the Catholic bashers scare her off?
The reason I try to refrain from responding to Catholic bashing trolls when they attempt to hijack your blog is because I feel that since they cannot even prove their own rule of faith, they may be safely ignored when they attempt to trash mine.......especially while my fellow Catholics and I are here minding our own business and trying to stay on topic.
Apart from the usual number of garden variety clerical perverts that plague every Christian communion the late Italian Communist Bella Dodd once explained how the Communist Party had assigned agents - especially the most perverted ones - to become Roman Catholic priests in order to destroy the Catholic Church from within.
While the Jewish people bore the main brunt of Nazi hatred, it was the intention of the Nazis to start killing Catholics just as soon as they finished murdering every Jew they could get their hands on.
Whenever the Nazis wanted to make a move against the Roman Catholic Church they carefully prepared public opinion by accusing priests of financial and sexual misconduct.
The infamous "currency" and "immorality" trials were so notorious that they even merited a protest from the New York Times.
The ‘Immorality’ trials sought to destroy the reputation of Catholic religious, aimed in particular at those working in primary and secondary schools. Priests, monks, lay-brothers and nuns were accused of “perverted and immoral” lifestyles — euphemisms for homosexuality and paedophilia. The Gestapo set numerous traps in order to furnish bogus evidence. The New York Times carried a report in May 1936 describing priests who had been summoned to hotel rooms after desperate messages to administer the last sacraments were received. When the priest entered, the ‘caller’ would turn out to be a prostitute, planted by government agents. Photos would be later produced in court as irrefutable evidence of corruption.
One notorious trial in 1936 concerned the Franciscans of the Rhineland town of Waldbreitbach. This was widely publicised and parents were warned in sanctimoniously penned editorials not to allow their children to enter Catholic schools if they wished to avoid corruption of the innocent. Even children themselves were encouraged to read the lurid accounts. In several cities, newspaper stands were purposely lowered so youngsters could read salacious and pornographic stories accompanied by cartoons in the pages of Der Stuermer (the newspaper controlled by Julius Streicher, notorious anti-Semite and anti-Catholic). Witness statements from children were produced in court by secret police whose testimony was not challengeable. Threats, bribes, brutal night-time interrogations and nervous breakdowns of the accused were reported in various newspapers outside Germany.
In the USA, protest meetings and marches were organised as news of the trials spread. In June 1936, a petition was signed by 48 clergymen. “We lodge a solemn protest against the almost unique brutality of the attacks launched by the German government charging Catholic clergy with gross immorality,” they wrote. “The good name of the Catholic priesthood is to be defamed, in the hope that the ultimate suppression of all Jewish and Christian beliefs by the totalitarian state can be effected.” This protest was signed by Rabbis Samuel Abrams of Boston, Philip Bernstein of Rochester and Philip Bookstaber of Harrisburg, along with 18 other Rabbis and 27 Protestant clergymen. The New York Times reported that Christmas 1937 would see “more than a hundred Protestant pastors and several thousand Catholic clergymen in prison.”
http://www.catholiceducation.org/
articles/history/world/wh0033.html
Hmmmmmm. Looks like history is repeating itself.
Apart from the usual number of garden variety clerical perverts that plague every Christian communion the late Italian Communist Bella Dodd once explained how the Communist Party had assigned agents - especially the most perverted ones - to become Roman Catholic priests in order to destroy the Catholic Church from within.
While the Jewish people bore the main brunt of Nazi hatred, it was the intention of the Nazis to start killing Catholics just as soon as they finished murdering every Jew they could get their hands on.
Whenever the Nazis wanted to make a move against the Roman Catholic Church they carefully prepared public opinion by accusing priests of financial and sexual misconduct.
The infamous "currency" and "immorality" trials were so notorious that they even merited a protest from the New York Times.
The ‘Immorality’ trials sought to destroy the reputation of Catholic religious, aimed in particular at those working in primary and secondary schools. Priests, monks, lay-brothers and nuns were accused of “perverted and immoral” lifestyles — euphemisms for homosexuality and paedophilia. The Gestapo set numerous traps in order to furnish bogus evidence. The New York Times carried a report in May 1936 describing priests who had been summoned to hotel rooms after desperate messages to administer the last sacraments were received. When the priest entered, the ‘caller’ would turn out to be a prostitute, planted by government agents. Photos would be later produced in court as irrefutable evidence of corruption.
One notorious trial in 1936 concerned the Franciscans of the Rhineland town of Waldbreitbach. This was widely publicised and parents were warned in sanctimoniously penned editorials not to allow their children to enter Catholic schools if they wished to avoid corruption of the innocent. Even children themselves were encouraged to read the lurid accounts. In several cities, newspaper stands were purposely lowered so youngsters could read salacious and pornographic stories accompanied by cartoons in the pages of Der Stuermer (the newspaper controlled by Julius Streicher, notorious anti-Semite and anti-Catholic). Witness statements from children were produced in court by secret police whose testimony was not challengeable. Threats, bribes, brutal night-time interrogations and nervous breakdowns of the accused were reported in various newspapers outside Germany.
In the USA, protest meetings and marches were organised as news of the trials spread. In June 1936, a petition was signed by 48 clergymen. “We lodge a solemn protest against the almost unique brutality of the attacks launched by the German government charging Catholic clergy with gross immorality,” they wrote. “The good name of the Catholic priesthood is to be defamed, in the hope that the ultimate suppression of all Jewish and Christian beliefs by the totalitarian state can be effected.” This protest was signed by Rabbis Samuel Abrams of Boston, Philip Bernstein of Rochester and Philip Bookstaber of Harrisburg, along with 18 other Rabbis and 27 Protestant clergymen. The New York Times reported that Christmas 1937 would see “more than a hundred Protestant pastors and several thousand Catholic clergymen in prison.”
http://www.catholiceducation.org/
articles/history/world/wh0033.html
Hmmmmmm. Looks like history is repeating itself.
Apart from the usual number of garden variety clerical perverts that plague every Christian communion the late Italian Communist Bella Dodd once explained how the Communist Party had assigned agents - especially the most perverted ones - to become Roman Catholic priests in order to destroy the Catholic Church from within.
While the Jewish people bore the main brunt of Nazi hatred, it was the intention of the Nazis to start killing Catholics just as soon as they finished murdering every Jew they could get their hands on.
Whenever the Nazis wanted to make a move against the Roman Catholic Church they carefully prepared public opinion by accusing priests of financial and sexual misconduct.
The infamous "currency" and "immorality" trials were so notorious that they even merited a protest from the New York Times.
One notorious trial in 1936 concerned the Franciscans of the Rhineland town of Waldbreitbach. This was widely publicised and parents were warned in sanctimoniously penned editorials not to allow their children to enter Catholic schools if they wished to avoid corruption of the innocent. Even children themselves were encouraged to read the lurid accounts. In several cities, newspaper stands were purposely lowered so youngsters could read salacious and pornographic stories accompanied by cartoons in the pages of Der Stuermer (the newspaper controlled by Julius Streicher, notorious anti-Semite and anti-Catholic). Witness statements from children were produced in court by secret police whose testimony was not challengeable. Threats, bribes, brutal night-time interrogations and nervous breakdowns of the accused were reported in various newspapers outside Germany.
In the USA, protest meetings and marches were organised as news of the trials spread. In June 1936, a petition was signed by 48 clergymen. “We lodge a solemn protest against the almost unique brutality of the attacks launched by the German government charging Catholic clergy with gross immorality,” they wrote. “The good name of the Catholic priesthood is to be defamed, in the hope that the ultimate suppression of all Jewish and Christian beliefs by the totalitarian state can be effected.” This protest was signed by Rabbis Samuel Abrams of Boston, Philip Bernstein of Rochester and Philip Bookstaber of Harrisburg, along with 18 other Rabbis and 27 Protestant clergymen. The New York Times reported that Christmas 1937 would see “more than a hundred Protestant pastors and several thousand Catholic clergymen in prison.”
http://www.catholiceducation.org/
articles/history/world/wh0033.html
Hmmmmmm. Looks like history is repeating itself.
To: Anon @10.59pm
(and to the Anon who deliberately triple-posted following my accidental triple-post)
From: Anon @8.07pm, to whom you responded
Everything I’ve posted about the Catholic abuse scandal has been backed by public-domain info. (To Triple-poster: nice try at changing the subject!) Until now I have been asking a leading question: Who, if not the then-head of the CDF (ie the present Pope), was responsible for shuffling paedophile priests across diocesan and national boundaries, which must have been arranged at a level higher than bishops? I got an answer at 4.58pm: the heads of the Congregation for Clergy, and the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. This reply made good sense and I am not now aware of any evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger orchestrated this devious shuffling. His CDF was far from a model of justice and openness (Pontifical secrecy and inaction over cases such as Murphy and Kiesle), but nothing points to his responsibility for the shuffling. Friends in Ireland say the cover-up has disillusioned people more than the abuse, and I hope that the cover-up culture, which ran to the top with John Paul's congratulation of Cardinal Hojos, can be changed (big job!)
Are protestant clergy as bad? I distinguish between churches which actually have a clergy and those (like mine) which do not believe in an ordained officer class of believers. (Every Christian is a priest according to 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev 1:6, someone who represents God to the world; none of the NT letters is to "the priest" of any congregation, a baffling omission if ordination existed. As for the claim that hierarchy is needed for oversight - it was the hierarchy that covered up the Catholic scandal.) You say Philip Jenkins has written: "In reality, Catholic clergy are not necessarily represented in the sexual abuse phenomenon at a rate higher than or even equal to their numbers in the clerical profession as a whole." That’s odd, because he has also written this:
***JENKINS QUOTE BEGINS***
In an article in Sojourners, Rose Marie Berger wrote the following:
Philip Jenkins concludes in his book Pedophiles and Priests that while 1.7% of Catholic clergy have been found guilty of pedophilia (specifically of boys), 10% of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.
I regret to say that the statement is baloney. I never said it, and its not true!
In PEDOPHILES AND PRIESTS, I was attacking a statistic that claimed that a proportion of Catholic priests were pedophiles on the basis that the sample was worthless, since all the men involved were undergoing psychiatric treatment. Hence, you could not extrapolate that figure to the whole priestly population. In order to demonstrate the foolishness of the argument, I cited another study of protestant ministers UNDERGOING TREATMENT, which found that 10% of them were also pedophiles. By this argument, I remarked as a reductio ad absurdum then 10% of protestant clergy were also pedophiles...
Every time this 10% statement appears attributed to me, I try to debunk it, but these things have a life of their own. I have no idea what the actual proportion of pedophile protestant clergy is, but I would be amazed if it was more than a fraction of 1%."
***JENKINS QUOTE ENDS***
The %s quoted for Catholic priests are for assaults on sexually immature persons of either sex. Let’s include stats for RC fornication before comparing with those overall prot stats. Fornication is sinful, but it was in regard to corrupting children that Jesus gave one of his direst warnings (Matt 18:6). Unhappily the current RC paedostats now exceed 1.7%.
I count Catholic friends I have as brothers and sisters in Christ, and I regret all sin including my own. What I am discussing here is ultimately the way that the church should constitute itself, and the outworking of divergence from the scriptural model.
To: Anon @10.59pm
(and to the Anon who deliberately triple-posted following my accidental triple-post)
From: Anon @8.07pm, to whom you responded
Everything I’ve posted about the Catholic abuse scandal has been backed by public-domain info. (To Triple-poster: nice try at changing the subject!) Until now I have been asking a leading question: Who, if not the then-head of the CDF (ie the present Pope), was responsible for shuffling paedophile priests across diocesan and national boundaries, which must have been arranged at a level higher than bishops? I got an answer at 4.58pm: the heads of the Congregation for Clergy, and the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. This reply made good sense and I am not now aware of any evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger orchestrated this devious shuffling. His CDF was far from a model of justice and openness (Pontifical secrecy and inaction over cases such as Murphy and Kiesle), but nothing points to his responsibility for the shuffling. Friends in Ireland say the cover-up has disillusioned people more than the abuse, and I hope that the cover-up culture, which ran to the top with John Paul's congratulation of Cardinal Hojos, can be changed (big job!)
Are protestant clergy as bad? I distinguish between churches which actually have a clergy and those (like mine) which do not believe in an ordained officer class of believers. (Every Christian is a priest according to 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev 1:6, someone who represents God to the world; none of the NT letters is to "the priest" of any congregation, a baffling omission if ordination existed. As for the claim that hierarchy is needed for oversight - it was the hierarchy that covered up the Catholic scandal.) You say Philip Jenkins has written: "In reality, Catholic clergy are not necessarily represented in the sexual abuse phenomenon at a rate higher than or even equal to their numbers in the clerical profession as a whole." That’s odd, because he has also written this:
***JENKINS QUOTE BEGINS***
In an article in Sojourners, Rose Marie Berger wrote the following:
Philip Jenkins concludes in his book Pedophiles and Priests that while 1.7% of Catholic clergy have been found guilty of pedophilia (specifically of boys), 10% of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.
I regret to say that the statement is baloney. I never said it, and its not true!
In PEDOPHILES AND PRIESTS, I was attacking a statistic that claimed that a proportion of Catholic priests were pedophiles on the basis that the sample was worthless, since all the men involved were undergoing psychiatric treatment. Hence, you could not extrapolate that figure to the whole priestly population. In order to demonstrate the foolishness of the argument, I cited another study of protestant ministers UNDERGOING TREATMENT, which found that 10% of them were also pedophiles. By this argument, I remarked as a reductio ad absurdum then 10% of protestant clergy were also pedophiles...
Every time this 10% statement appears attributed to me, I try to debunk it, but these things have a life of their own. I have no idea what the actual proportion of pedophile protestant clergy is, but I would be amazed if it was more than a fraction of 1%."
***JENKINS QUOTE ENDS***
The %s quoted for Catholic priests are for assaults on sexually immature persons of either sex. Let’s include stats for RC fornication before comparing with those overall prot stats. Fornication is sinful, but it was in regard to corrupting children that Jesus gave one of his direst warnings (Matt 18:6). Unhappily the current RC paedostats now exceed 1.7%.
I count Catholic friends I have as brothers and sisters in Christ, and I regret all sin including my own. What I am discussing here is ultimately the way that the church should constitute itself, and the outworking of divergence from the scriptural model.
To: Susanna (12.17am)
"Once saved, always saved" was thoroughly debunked from the scriptures earlier on this thread (around post no.150 - search for the phrase).
To: Anon @10.59pm
(and to the Anon who deliberately triple-posted following my accidental triple-post)
From: Anon @8.07pm, to whom you responded
Everything I've posted about the Catholic abuse scandal has been backed by public-domain info. (To Triple-poster: nice try at changing the subject!) Until now I have been asking a leading question: Who, if not the then-head of the CDF (ie the present Pope), was responsible for shuffling paedophile priests across diocesan and national boundaries, which must have been arranged at a level higher than bishops? I got an answer at 4.58pm: the heads of the Congregation for Clergy, and the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. This reply made good sense and I am not now aware of any evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger orchestrated this devious shuffling. His CDF was far from a model of justice and openness (Pontifical secrecy and inaction over cases such as Murphy and Kiesle), but nothing points to his responsibility for the shuffling. Friends in Ireland say the cover-up has disillusioned people more than the abuse, and I hope that the cover-up culture, which ran to the top with John Paul's congratulation of Cardinal Hojos, can be changed (big job!)
Are protestant clergy as bad? I distinguish between churches which actually have a clergy and those (like mine) which do not believe in an ordained officer class of believers. (Every Christian is a priest according to 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev 1:6, someone who represents God to the world; none of the NT letters is to "the priest" of any congregation, a baffling omission if ordination existed. As for the claim that hierarchy is needed for oversight - it was the hierarchy that covered up the Catholic scandal.) You say Philip Jenkins has written: "In reality, Catholic clergy are not necessarily represented in the sexual abuse phenomenon at a rate higher than or even equal to their numbers in the clerical profession as a whole." That's odd, because he has also written this:
*JENKINS QUOTE BEGINS*
In an article in Sojourners, Rose Marie Berger wrote the following:
Philip Jenkins concludes in his book Pedophiles and Priests that while 1.7% of Catholic clergy have been found guilty of pedophilia (specifically of boys), 10% of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.
I regret to say that the statement is baloney. I never said it, and it’s not true!
In PEDOPHILES AND PRIESTS, I was attacking a statistic that claimed that a proportion of Catholic priests were pedophiles on the basis that the sample was worthless, since all the men involved were undergoing psychiatric treatment. Hence, you could not extrapolate that figure to the whole priestly population. In order to demonstrate the foolishness of the argument, I cited another study of protestant ministers UNDERGOING TREATMENT, which found that 10% of them were also pedophiles. By this argument, I remarked as a reductio ad absurdum then 10% of protestant clergy were also pedophiles...
Every time this 10% statement appears attributed to me, I try to debunk it, but these things have a life of their own. I have no idea what the actual proportion of pedophile protestant clergy is, but I would be amazed if it was more than a fraction of 1%."
*JENKINS QUOTE ENDS*
The %s quoted for Catholic priests are for assaults on sexually immature persons of either sex. Let’s include stats for RC fornication before comparing with those inclusive prot stats. Fornication is sinful, but it was in regard to corrupting children that Jesus gave one of his direst warnings (Matt 18:6). Unhappily the current RC paedostats now exceed 1.7%.
I count Catholic friends I have as brothers and sisters in Christ, and I regret all sin including my own. What I am discussing here is ultimately the way that the church should constitute itself, and the outworking of divergence from the scriptural model.
To: Anon @10.59pm
(and to the Anon who deliberately triple-posted following my accidental triple-post)
From: Anon @8.07pm, to whom you responded
Everything I've posted about the Catholic abuse scandal has been backed by public-domain info. (To Triple-poster: nice try at changing the subject!) Until now I have been asking a leading question: Who, if not the then-head of the CDF (ie the present Pope), was responsible for shuffling paedophile priests across diocesan and national boundaries, which must have been arranged at a level higher than bishops? I got an answer at 4.58pm: the heads of the Congregation for Clergy, and the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. This reply made good sense and I am not now aware of any evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger orchestrated this devious shuffling. His CDF was far from a model of justice and openness (Pontifical secrecy and inaction over cases such as Murphy and Kiesle), but nothing points to his responsibility for the shuffling. Friends in Ireland say the cover-up has disillusioned people more than the abuse, and I hope that the cover-up culture, which ran to the top with John Paul's congratulation of Cardinal Hojos, can be changed (big job!)
Are protestant clergy as bad? I distinguish between churches which actually have a clergy and those (like mine) which do not believe in an ordained officer class of believers. (Every Christian is a priest according to 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev 1:6, someone who represents God to the world; none of the NT letters is to "the priest" of any congregation, a baffling omission if ordination existed. As for the claim that hierarchy is needed for oversight - it was the hierarchy that covered up the Catholic scandal.) You say Philip Jenkins has written: "In reality, Catholic clergy are not necessarily represented in the sexual abuse phenomenon at a rate higher than or even equal to their numbers in the clerical profession as a whole." That's odd, because he has also written this:
*JENKINS QUOTE BEGINS*
In an article in Sojourners, Rose Marie Berger wrote the following:
Philip Jenkins concludes in his book Pedophiles and Priests that while 1.7% of Catholic clergy have been found guilty of pedophilia (specifically of boys), 10% of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.
I regret to say that the statement is baloney. I never said it, and it’s not true!
In PEDOPHILES AND PRIESTS, I was attacking a statistic that claimed that a proportion of Catholic priests were pedophiles on the basis that the sample was worthless, since all the men involved were undergoing psychiatric treatment. Hence, you could not extrapolate that figure to the whole priestly population. In order to demonstrate the foolishness of the argument, I cited another study of protestant ministers UNDERGOING TREATMENT, which found that 10% of them were also pedophiles. By this argument, I remarked as a reductio ad absurdum then 10% of protestant clergy were also pedophiles...
Every time this 10% statement appears attributed to me, I try to debunk it, but these things have a life of their own. I have no idea what the actual proportion of pedophile protestant clergy is, but I would be amazed if it was more than a fraction of 1%."
*JENKINS QUOTE ENDS*
The %s quoted for Catholic priests are for assaults on sexually immature persons of either sex. Let’s include stats for RC fornication before comparing with those inclusive prot stats. Fornication is sinful, but it was in regard to corrupting children that Jesus gave one of his direst warnings (Matt 18:6). Unhappily the current RC paedostats now exceed 1.7%.
I count Catholic friends I have as brothers and sisters in Christ, and I regret all sin including my own. What I am discussing here is ultimately the way that the church should constitute itself, and the outworking of divergence from the scriptural model.
The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.
The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”
Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.
Anon@ 11:45 a.m.
You argument is that Catholics are bad, so Catholicism is bad. The vast majority of Catholic priests are not pedophiles. We don't have a hierarchy because we need guidance, but because Jesus and his apostles established it. The Holy Spirit guides the church on it's teachings on faith and morals. This does not mean that people cannot be in error. It simply means that the church cannot teach error, because God would prevent this.
Sola Scriptura is both un-biblical and un-historical.
You can read the writings of the Early Christians for proof of my claims.
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
John 20:21
"What I am discussing here is ultimately the way that the church should constitute itself, and the outworking of divergence from the scriptural model."
Even if I was not Catholic, as a rational person, I would not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, because it simply has no historical basis. It's circular reasoning.
Anonymous 7:08,
What arrogance you display. My requests have only been to keep debates civil. What you fail to realize is that most of the folks you have seen me defend are others that I know as PEOPLE and not some random name on a screen. Every one of them has had some form of disagreement with me, whether it be about doctrine, false doctrine, names or players. Some of those disagreements have become rather heated. Here is the difference between us though, knowing them as people I have enough respect for them to keep my debates with them personal and not out in a public forum. It is arrogant of you to assume I have never spoken to any of them about a difference of faith. It is arrogant of you to assume what the Lord may or may not present me with as a short coming in my life. It is arrogant of you to assume anything about me as a person.
Have we ever met? Have we ever spoken on the phone? Have we ever exchanged a single communication? If we have you would have to be the first to admit that I have probably offered you something of myself. Given that I don't know who you are I can't say with certainty, but I suspect given your tone that we have. I respect this forum for it's intent. I respect those that come here that attempt to adhere to it.
I respect the PEOPLE here that I have come to know quite personally. Before you go slinging rocks in my direction, perhaps you should ask yourself if you know my actions 24 hours a day. Perhaps you should ponder what level my interactions with others who post here extends beyond this blog. Maybe you should ask some of the other people, or maybe you should just ask me instead of assuming something you have no knowledge of.
To: Anon @4.15pm
From: Anon @11:45am to whom you responded
Pardon??? I was talking at 11.45am about (in fact, against) Once Saved, Always Saved, not the current RC pedoscandal. But I'd like to take up one comment of yours: "We [Catholics] don't have a hierarchy because we need guidance, but because Jesus and his apostles established it."
Not in my definitive guide to the early church they didn't, aka the New Testament.
Believers in each town were led by a council of male presbyteroi (elders) or episkopoi (overseers, the scriptural meaning of ‘bishop’), raised from among themselves and generally married men with family (1 Timothy 3). These Greek words respectively denote maturity and function within the congregation, and refer to the same people (as at Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2). Plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 imply there were several in a congregation. They were backed up by diakonoi (‘deacons’ – servants). A congregation’s founder (an apostolos – a ‘church planter’ in today’s language) might retain authority, but once a congregation was reasonably mature his role was to start congregations elsewhere, and he would soon anyway have passed away to glory. Every Christian is a priest (1 Peter 2:9; Rev 1:6), someone who represents God to the world. Central direction of the church comes from heaven (Ephesians 1:22). In Jesus’ forthright letters to seven congregations in Asia Minor (Rev 2&3), He takes personal responsibility for congregational oversight. He does not criticise their mutual independence or order a diocesan merger.
My question: By what authority was this non-hierarchical, universal-priesthood model, described in God's word, altered? By what authority was the change made from many episkopoi per congregation to the opposite? By what authority was priestly celibacy imposed although St Paul clearly says (1 Timothy 3) that episkopoi should be family men with wives and children?
Catholics and protestants have the scriptures in common, so please don't divert into the Sola Scriptura issue. We both accept the ones I've quoted.
Anon@11:49 a.m.
I don't disagree that a lot of Catholics have lost faith in the church because of this, but they are all forgetting the fact that we have objective teachings. What we have is a crisis of fidelity, where everybody's been doing their own thing. For example, if I came across a priest, bishop or even Pope, who was going against the teaching of the church, I would confront them, however I would have to know what the teachings are first.
To: Anon @4.26pm
From: Anon @11.49am, whom you quote
I said:
What I am discussing here is ultimately the way that the church should constitute itself, and the outworking of divergence from the scriptural model.
You replied:
Even if I was not Catholic, as a rational person, I would not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, because it simply has no historical basis. It's circular reasoning.
I respond:
Where did I ever assert Sola Scriptura? If you wish to *add* to scripture, we can discuss the authority of those additions. But if you wish to *change* the way something is done from how it is done in scripture (ie, how the church is set up) then you have some justifying to do. Anon4.48pm above explains the organisation of the NT church.
To Anon at 4:51/5:01
Catholic's believe there is plenty of scriptural evidence that God has a unique role for ministerial priests in his economy of salvation. The very fact that Jesus came out of the Jewish people indicates that God did not want to throw out the Jewish way of relating to God. If Jewish history, and their ritualistic approach, was unimportant then God could have easily chosen the Moabites, Philistines, or some other non-Jewish race from which to birth the Saviour. God did not want us to completely throw out the Jewish tradition, which is the fountain of our Christian heritage. He wanted us to understand it. The rituals came from God and are written in his Holy Word, the Bible.
Obedience to The Law pleased Him. God was angry when they didn't perform the rituals. He does not want us to rip the first 1200 pages out of our Bibles. He wants us to understand the New Covenant in relation to the Old Covenant. Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Mat 5:17). Catholics believe that fulfillment does not mean total abandonment of the old way. God did not want us to destroy the foundation that He built in the Old Testament, and rebuild from scratch. He wanted to complete this structure that he began with his promise to Abraham.
In the Old Covenant, God ordained Aaron, the brother of Moses, to be a priest (Ex 38:21). He extended the spirit of Moses to seventy wise men and shared among the sons of Aaron the fullness of their father's Power. That's why Jesus called the priesthood "Moses Seat" (Mat 23:2). Their ministry passed from generation to generation through the bloodline of Levite family. In a way, they were a prefigurement of the ordained priestly ministry of the New Covenant.
Melchizedek is the only priest of the Old Testament who was not a Levite. He sets the stage for Christ as High Priest.
"Melchizedek brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and ...Abram gave him one-tenth of everything."(Gen 14:18-19)
Right after his blessing upon Abraham, Abraham's son Isaac was born and God's promise that he would father a great nation came alive (Gen 17:2). King David prophesizes Jesus as the new High Priest:
"The Lord said to my lord 'sit at my right hand' . You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" (Psm 110:1-4)
At the last supper Jesus served bread and wine (the first Mass) just as Melchizedek had done with Abraham (Gen 14:18). He said to the disciples "this is the New Covenant in my blood" (Lk 22:20), signifying, among other things, God's transfer of Priestly duties from the Levites to Jesus who was the "true priest with the others [disciples] being only his ministers" (Aquinas, Hebr. 8.4). That night Jesus washed their feet and taught them to be servants in their new ministry. He said "I have set you an example, that you should do as I have done to you" (Jn 13:15). Catholics believe that night, he conferred the ministry of the new priesthood upon them. He did not do so because the job was too much for him, (as it was when God ordained the Levites to help Moses). Jesus invites them to share this priesthood because of the overabundance of his Graces.
The early Church had central direction evidenced by the way it handled the crisis of faith over circumcision (Acts 15-16). Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules" (Acts 16:3).
Within a short time, there was a structure to this new ministerial office with bishops, deacons, and priests (1 Tit 3:1). Peter was it's head (Mat 16:18, Jn 21:17). It was not haphazard. It was very organized, even though they were often in hiding.
Anon@4:51
Priestly celibacy is a tradition not a dogma. Eastern Catholic churches under the Pope have a married priesthood.
Scripture verses valuing celibacy:
Matthew 19:10-12
...his disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."
1 Cor 7:6-9
...This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
1 Cor 7:24-35
...In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God. Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife... Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that. I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.
1 Cor 7:38-40
...So then, he who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my judgment she is more blessed if she remains as she is.
A book I would recommend is Taylor Marshall's "Crucified Rabbi: The Jewish Origins of Catholicism." It explains where the Catholic church structure and sacraments, rituals etc came from.
To: Anon @5.22pm
From: Anon @5.01 (who is not also Anon@4.51 as you suppose!)
My Bible tells me that the people addressed by Peter (1 Pe 2:9) and by John (Rev 1:6) were priests, and these writings were to entire congregations not just their leaders. At some later point in church history, beyond the closure of the NT canon, people decided that only some believers were priests, and that most were not. By what authority?
It makes perfect sense to me that the practical meaning of priesthood, derived from the OT as someone who represents God to the people, should be transferred to all Christians in the NT - because they represent God to the unbelieving world. We might bat that one about for a while, but the key thing is my question.
To: Anon@5.25pm
I appreciate that celibacy is praised in some scriptures. There are arguments and counter-arguments for celibacy of congregational leaders. In favor: they are undistracted by family cares. Against: they do not have firsthand experience of difficulties that can arise within families.
When there are strong arguments on either side I am happy to let God do my thinking for me. Through St Paul, He makes clear which side He comes down on:
An episkopos [the word translated as bishop, although in the NT there were many per congregation instead of vice-versa]... must be a one-woman man and must manage his own own family well and see that his children obey him... for if someone does not know how to run his own family, how can he run God's? (from 1 Tim 3:2-5)
It is one thing to erect, on top of scripture, a tradition concerning matters about which scripture is silent. But it is something else to have a tradition - celibate leaders - that flat-out contradicts the word of God.
Hey, Anon@5.22pm was pulled! I replied to it (at 5.41pm) then it disappeared. What's going on Constance??
To: Anon @4.15pm
You wrote: "The Holy Spirit guides the church on it's teachings on faith and morals. This does not mean that people cannot be in error. It simply means that the church cannot teach error, because God would prevent this."
Catholics believe that the Catholic church is inerrant in its official teaching. Following the Council of Trent its officially pronounced teaching was that Christians who knowingly remained outside it (ie, protestants) would not find salvation. At Vatican 2 its officially pronounced teaching was that some protestants, while their stance was regretted, would find salvation.
Was the inerrant teaching in error at Trent or at Vatican 2?
PS The dogma proclaimed infallibly by Pius XII, the direct assumption into heaven of the Virgin Mary, was formally declared a heresy by two Popes in the era of the gnostic gospels during which it first surfaced: Gelasius (d. 496) and Hormisdas (d. 523). Popes are nowadays held to have been infallible even before the doctrine was formalised, when they made formal proclamations. Which infallible declaration is right, and which infallible declaration is wrong?
Anonymous 6:26 PM
Actually the Council of Trent and Vatican II taught essentially the same thing. Those who KNOWINGLY remained outside the Catholic faith would not find salvation. But only God can determine whether or not a person acted "KNOWINGLY."
To: Anonymous @7.01 PM
Protestants in lands where the Roman Catholic church is prominent, both at the time of Trent and today, are surely making informed choice to be protestants not Catholics. According to Trent they are all damned, according to Vatican 2 not all are. You need only ONE protestant, across all of European history, to be in differing categories according to Trent and Vatican 2, to wreck the Vatican's claim of inerrancy.
So, again: Which inerrant declaration is in error?
Anon@5:41 p.m.
"My Bible tells me that the people addressed by Peter (1 Pe 2:9) and by John (Rev 1:6) were priests, and these writings were to entire congregations not just their leaders. At some later point in church history, beyond the closure of the NT canon, people decided that only some believers were priests, and that most were not. By what authority?"
Catholics certainly agree that all true Christians are priests (1 Pet. 2:9). We call this the "common priesthood."
We believe at the last supper Jesus invited his apostles to a very special role in his ministry. We call this the "ministerial priesthood" and we believe that it has been passed down from generation to generation in the tradition of the Levites through the person of Jesus. Today when people talk about a priest they are generally talking about this special kind of "ministerial priest." (The guys with the collars.)
I think Evangelicals intuitively understand the distinction between the "common priesthood" (people in the pews) and the "ministerial priesthood"(the person serving the congregation). Otherwise they would not go through the process to training, certifying, and in some cases ordaining Evangelical pastors. Here are some excerpts of the Catechism to help explain:
The one priesthood of Christ
1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet ...it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."19
Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly... Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood...
This basically means that priests serve the lay people (common priests).
Temple Judaism had an all male priesthood. We don't believe God ended the foundation he created in the Old Testament. Jesus called the priesthood, the seat of Moses.
Anon@5:55 p.m.
A careful read of these passages points to Paul's concern about remarried priests. Catholics feel the section is aimed at removing those who are on their second marriages, rather than pushing for a married clergy.
This is reflected by the Eastern Orthodox who do not allow remarriage of widowed priests. Although Paul did not expressly lay out a married priesthood he consistently held celibacy as preferable.
In Jewish law the priesthood was passed on by blood relation. Marriage was therefore necessary, but even so, Jewish priests of the Old Testament were required to abstain from sex during the periods when they were serving in the Temple for spiritual reasons. Catholic priests serve in the Temple every day.
P.S.
Wow. I haven't seen the questionable document called the Decretal of Gelasius mentioned in a dog's age. tsk tsk. tsk
In any case, what was condemned was the so-called "Transitus literature" and not the Assumption. It had nothing to do with Mariology or the Assumption.
By the way, the Orthodox also clearly affirm the Assumption of Mary.
to Anon @ 7.30pm
But the Catholic rite of ordination denies the universal priesthood, because it repeatedly refers to the candidate being "ordained (as a) priest". Nowhere does it mention that there are, as you assert, two categories of priest, unordained and ordained. Why, moreover, if this is the case, do Catholic ordained priests never correct ordinary Catholics who call them 'the priests', as they should? Colloquial usage overwhelmingly supports this distinction.
Anon@7:12 p.m.
The Catholic church objectively declares that those who know that the Catholic Church has been founded by Jesus Christ, and still refused to enter it, cannot be saved. You have to know this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
We do not subjectively claim to know who is damned and who is saved. Only God know this.
The Magisterium does not make Subjective judgements on any person.
Anon @7.34pm
"A careful read of these passages points to Paul's concern about remarried priests. Catholics feel the section is aimed at removing those who are on their second marriages, rather than pushing for a married clergy."
How then do you explain Paul's reference to the children of the episkopos?
Anon @7:45 p.m.
The rite of ordination exists because the Catholic church makes a distinction between a common priest (minister) and a sacramental priesthood. My Youth minister is not a priest, ministers of Holy Communion, are not priests and so on.
Protestants have no such distinction between regular ministry and priesthood.
Anon@7:50pm
A subtle muddying of the waters! Let me remind you of the content of Boniface VIII's bull Unam Sanctam: "outside her [the Catholic Church] there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins". Yet Vatican 2 even stated that some non-Christians would find salvation! Which inerrant teaching is in error?
"How then do you explain Paul's reference to the children of the episkopos?"
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).
Anon @7.57pm
"The rite of ordination exists because the Catholic church makes a distinction between a common priest (minister) and a sacramental priesthood. My Youth minister is not a priest..."
You just said he was a priest, albeit a common priest! The *wording* of the rite of Catholic ordination says only that the candidate is ordained as a priest. The implication is that he was not a priest before that, and every Catholic I know - that's plenty - reserves the word 'priest' for ordained men. Will you start telling Catholics in the pews the important truth that their usage is wrong and that they are priests?
Anon @8.05pm
But if he has children then he must be married, and if he is married then he should not be celibate, should he? (1 Cor 7:5)
Anon@8:01
When this was declared there was only one Church. Protestants did not exist.
" Will you start telling Catholics in the pews the important truth that their usage is wrong and that they are priests?"
They already know that they are priests. Every Catholic is baptized priest, prophet and king.
There is a reason why those who celebrate the last supper are called priests.
At the last supper Jesus served bread and wine (the first Mass) just as Melchizedek had done with Abraham (Gen 14:18). He said to the disciples "this is the New Covenant in my blood" (Lk 22:20), signifying, among other things, God's transfer of Priestly duties from the Levites to Jesus who was the "true priest with the others [disciples] being only his ministers" (Aquinas, Hebr. 8.4).
To: Anon @7.37pm
What was condemned by Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas was a work called "Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae". Do you still hold that it "had nothing to do with Mariology or the Assumption"?
As for whether Gelasius really did condemn this work in a decretal, this is accepted by the New Catholic Encyclopaedia (nihil obstat) and by Pope Nicholas I in a letter to the bishops of Gaul (c865AD). Also, nobody has disputed that Pope Hormisdas made the same condemnation.
Anon@8:14 p.m.
It refers to those who are already married, and talks about a second marriage. This tradition is followed in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches, where a widowed priest cannot be re-married. It however does not mean that priests have to be married nor does it say that marriage is mandatory.
The East and West have always co-existed with both married and celibate priests.
Eastern Catholic churches under the Pope have married priests.
Anon @8.16pm
Not so, the schism with the Eastern Orthodox remained. And there were plenty of Trinitarian Christians further east even than them, for it is a myth that Christianity got stuck at the eastern border of the Roman Empire; read Philip Jenkins' fascinating book The Lost History of Christianity.
Anon @8.22pm
I said:
Will you start telling Catholics in the pews the important truth that their usage is wrong and that they are priests?
You replied:
They already know that they are priests. Every Catholic is baptized priest, prophet and king.
I respond:
Oh no they don't! You ask a crowd of Catholics coming out of church one by one whether they are priests, no qualification, and see what they reply...
Anon@8:27 p.m.
"It refers to those who are already married, and talks about a second marriage. This tradition is followed in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches, where a widowed priest cannot be re-married. It however does not mean that priests have to be married nor does it say that marriage is mandatory."
Whatever else it means, it certainly implies that they MAY marry. Roman Catholic dogma says that they may not, in contradiction with scripture.
Anon@8:31 p.m.
Yes, there were Eastern Christians. I am not disputing this. I am only saying that they were not Protestants and did not subscribe to Sola Scriptura. They were part of the same Catholic Church.
The Roman Empire Spilt into two: Western and Eastern. The Eastern followed the Eastern rites and the Western the Western. This continues till this day.
Post a Comment