Today on the podcast, I interview Fr. Andrew Strobl, pastor of John Paul II Catholic Church in Olathe, Kansas, on the Cardinal McCarrick sex abuse scandal. The scandal surrounding McCarrick is particularly bad for several reasons:
1. Allegations Were Widespread, But He Continued to Rise.
He didn’t just remain a priest, but became a bishop and a cardinal… despite rumors of this abuse. As Ralph Martin puts it:
What has been so disturbing to so many people is the fact that there had been numerous warnings to various church officials that he was a homosexual predator, harassing many seminarians, priests, and young boys, for many years, but nothing had ever been done about it, and he was continually promoted. Even after a delegation of priests and lay people went to Rome to warn the Vatican about the situation, he was promoted. Even after a leading Dominican priest wrote a letter to Cardinal O’Malley, nothing was done. Even after lawsuits accusing him of homosexual sexual harassment in two of his previous dioceses had been settled with financial awards, he was still promoted. And not only that, he became a key advisor to Pope Francis and offered advice on whom to appoint as bishops in the United States!
2. He’s the Catholic Church’s Harvey Weinstein
Cardinal McCarrick isn’t just a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but a wolf in shepherd’s clothing. This isn’t just a case of a sexually-active homosexual priest, or bishop, or even cardinal, as bad as that would be, but of a Cardinal using his power and position (power he has only because of his public promise to live celibately) to coerce his direct subordinates into unwanted sexual activity. And McCarrick’s victims weren’t actors or actresses auditioning for a Hollywood film, but seminarians and priests trying to minister to Jesus Christ and His Church.
3. As the Former Bishop of Metuchen and Archbishop of Washington, the Corruption was at the Highest Levels
There’s a Latin phrase, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? roughly translating to “Who watches the watchmen?”
If you’ve got a bad priest, you can take him to the bishop. But imagine being an abuse victim in either of McCarrick’s former dioceses, or simply a concerned Catholic aware that your priest was living an immoral lifestyle. The idea that your only real recourse is to go to a sexual predator bishop is appalling.
4. It Doesn’t Speak Well For His Orthodoxy
Don’t get me wrong. You can be a devout Catholic and still sin In fact, you can’t be a devout Catholic and not sin. But if the reports of his behavior are true, we’re not talking about simply moral weakness, but a total disregard for Catholic morality and the rights, dignity, and purity of the men and boys in his pastoral care. That’s not an easy thing to rectify with the idea that Cardinal McCarrick really believes the Catholic faith, including its warning that unrepentant people who do what he does go to Hell.
5. He Was the (Sex-Abusing) Face of the U.S. Bishops’ Response to the Sexual Abuse Scandal
One of the things that I haven’t heard many people comment on. When the huge sex abuse scandal originally broke back in 2002, Cardinal McCarrick was the public face of the bishops’ response. In a Washington Post piece entitled “Vatican’s Man of the Hour,” we hear that:
Resplendent in their red hats and elegant black robes, the American cardinals stepped into the Roman sunshine and swept down the stairs of the fortresslike Pontifical North American College. Most passed in silence before a gaggle of TV crews and boarded a shuttle bus to their next meeting.
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick was in no hurry, however. On a shady patch of grass off to one side, the 71-year-old Washington archbishop chatted amiably with reporters last Tuesday. After a half-hour, his press secretary gently stepped in to warn him that he had to move on — or he might miss the bus.
At a time when many leaders of the U.S. Roman Catholic Church have been criticized as arrogant, secretive and uncaring, McCarrick has given the scandal-battered institution what it so badly needs: an attractive public face.
Assuming the role of leading spokesman for the U.S. cardinals during their meetings with Pope John Paul II on the sexual abuse crisis, McCarrick came across to many as candid, compassionate and committed to strong reform. In one interview after another, he spoke of a uniform national policy of “zero tolerance” toward priests who molest minors.
“I think he has emerged as a national leader, and I thought his voice was the most sensible voice,” said Scott Appleby, director of the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism at the University of Notre Dame. “He does get it, and he understands the depth of the problem and the need to address it transparently. . . . If his style of leadership were emulated, I think the church would be in better shape.”
It’s hard to overestimate just how bad this scandal is. The original sex abuse scandal was bad, but then the bishops (publicly led by Cardinal McCarrick) announced their recognition of its badness, and their desire to put better procedures in place… procedures that exempted them. Now we learn that Cardinal McCarrick was an abuser, and that at least some other bishops apparently knew this, and still permitted him to be their P.R. guy. It would be like a police department announcing their commitment to cleaning up internal corruption, but having the public face of the initiative be a crooked cop. It goes a long way towards damaging the flock’s trust in their shepherds.
6. This Scandal Hurts Evangelization and Vocations Efforts
Ralph Martin again:
One young Catholic mother with two boys who was open to the priesthood for them said to me that she now has grave concerns about ever having one of her sons enter the seminary, given the corruption that has been revealed.
Another said she could no longer see anyone joining the Catholic Church, due to such bad leadership. She lamented about the difficulty this presents for evangelization.
And indeed, scandals like this one make people imagine that the seminaries are total cesspools. As a former seminarian (having spent 5 years between Kenrick-Glennon and the North American College) and speaking with priests from both Kenrick and Mundelein, I can say that doesn’t seem to be the case. One priest, fairly recently ordained, said: “I was in seminary for six years, and there was only one guy that there were rumors about [in context, I think he meant a sexually-active seminarian], and he left.” The reality of the scandal shouldn’t be minimized, but it does seem to be the case that the seminaries are a great deal healthier (spiritually and psychologically) than they were from the 1960s to the 1990s or so.
These issues and more are the topic of today’s podcast with Father Andrew Strobl. As a priest who entered seminary shortly after the abuse scandal broke, Fr. Andrew has seen those effects as a layman, a seminarian, and now a priest and pastor. One of the points he makes repeatedly in the podcast is a crucial one: if there’s to be any real healing and reform here, the Church needs to know “who knew what, when” about McCarrick, and to respond accordingly.
The greatest argument against the Catholic Church is the sinfulness of her members. That’s true in an obvious way on days like today, when we need to reckon with the sins of Catholic clerics (both Cardinal McCarrick and all those who knew about him and covered it up). But it’s also true of our own sins. If we proclaim Catholicism true but don’t live it, that scandal does genuine harm to evangelization. So just as the greatest strike against the Church are her members’ sins and the resulting uglyiness, so we can also say with Cardinal Ratzinger:
I have often affirmed my conviction that the true apology of Christian faith, the most convincing demonstration of its truth against every denial, are the saints, and the beauty that the faith has generated. Today, for faith to grow, we must lead ourselves and the persons we meet to encounter the saints and to enter into contact with the Beautiful.
Ratzinger makes this connection himself. Preaching the Stations of Cross in Rome in 2005, he lamented, “How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him!” His response was a beautiful prayer, a prayer we pray in closing today’s episode:
Lord, your Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In your field we see more weeds than wheat. The soiled garments and face of your Church throw us into confusion. Yet it is we ourselves who have soiled them! It is we who betray you time and time again, after all our lofty words and grand gestures. Have mercy on your Church; within her too, Adam continues to fall. When we fall, we drag you down to earth, and Satan laughs, for he hopes that you will not be able to rise from that fall; he hopes that being dragged down in the fall of your Church, you will remain prostrate and overpowered. But you will rise again. You stood up, you arose and you can also raise us up. Save and sanctify your Church. Save and sanctify us all.
Joe, I’m glad your experience was positive, but when I read about the scandals at the seminary in Honduras and the one associated with the Archdiocese of Boston, I get very concerned that this is still a present problem. Also, have you read about this? http://www.awrsipe.com/Correspondence/McElroy-2016-07-28-rev.pdf. It definitely has a relation to the Diocese of KC-St. Jo.
“We are not baptized into the hierarchy; do not receive the Cardinals sacramentally; will not spend an eternity in the beatific vision of the pope. … Christ is the point. I, myself, admire the present pope [John Paul II], but even if I criticized him as harshly as some do, even if his successor proved to be as bad as some of those who have gone before, even if I find the church, as I have to live with it, a pain in the neck, I should still say that nothing a pope (or a priest) could do or say would make me wish to leave the church, although I might well wish that they would leave.” — Frank J. Sheed, from https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/on-what-really-matters-in-church/
McCarrick’s parting statement tells of his rationalizing BS: First, he says he does not remember claims of abuse! Finally, he “believes” in his innocence. That there tells a lot. One does not believe in one’s innocence. One KNOWS one is innocent. Woe to that man through whom scandal comes. I pray that God deal with him and others like him sooner rather than later. I have little compassion for the putridity this ‘man’ has apparently clung to throughout most of a lifetime. I am embarrassed for the Church, the bride of Christ, dirtied and sullied by one who ate at her table and drank of her wine for a lifetime. If there is such a thing as capital punishment for moral turpitude, let it begin.
P.S.: Heaven help my impure thoughts! The picture suggests interspecies bestiality.
Goodness no. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The wolf is quoted “Goodness had nothing to do with it…”
Sheep was unavailable for comment.
:):):)
The Sheep had plenty to ‘baa’ about in other parts of the blogosphere.
There are many prophecies from Our Lady of La Sallette, France in 1846 that warned of and predicted this sexual abuse crisis that we are now in. The book “After The Warning To 2038” contains many prophecies of future events that are going to unfold soon.
Benedict XVI said it right!
Dear Joe, great article. One sidepoint, though, having nothing to do with the topic: In 4. you write: „In fact, you can’t be a devout Catholic and not sin.” The Church strongly disagrees with this assessment: „If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Canon 18)
Why is this so? Because the statement „you can’t not sin” is logically equivalent to „you must sin”, and from „you must sin” follows „you are not responsible for your sin, since you don’t choose it, but have to do it”, and further „where there is no responsibility, there is no guilt, and therefore no need of redemption”. This would be a really scary world. Also Scripture tells us, that we don’t have to sin (1 Cor 10, 13). I know, that our life experience tries to teach us otherwise, but the evidence from both Scripture and Magisterium is clear: yes, we all are sinners, but with Gods grace we can stay in the grace (not sin). Yes, we can! 😉
CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose
grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other
hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-
except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed
Virgin; let him be anathema
I remember Joe being quite familiar with the whole De Auxiliis controversy…
Correct. The statement „you cannot sin” is equally false as „you can’t not sin”. The canones of Trent are really precise about this whole topic.
But it is a lot easier for us to agree with Can. 23 than to agree with Can. 18, as our whole human experience shows us, that we are failing God over and over again. But He doesn’t give up on us. Blessed be His Mercy!
Good catch.
Many are not wolves in sheep’s clothing, many are simply pigs; offenders and enablers, prancing around in plan sight.
At the risk of offending, dare I suggest that pigs do not prance? In any event, there is truly some type of bestiality. Look at Joe’s chosen posted picture. To truly describe the current situation, I would correct the picture too. Lowest would be a sheep, in the middle a wolf, then covering the wolf another sheep on top. Here we have what I’m emboldened to name “polyamorphory.” Makes me want to puke, to cry, to fall on my knees and implore.
Margo,
Grew up in the city, pigs I guess wallow…that is what some clergy have done wallow in filth
I believe it is meant to be a picture of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Whatever we choose to call it, it is unnatural. Animals don’t intermix their species.
A spiritual person here has attempted to unite his matter with another’s unwilling spirit, all in the false name of the Lord, and for indeterminate periods of time. He’s apparently still in denial, not recalling allegations and believing in his innocence.
No true words apply. Pictures are perhaps more apt. I only wish I could leave off with filth. Pray, Blessed and Assumed Virgin, to cleanse us.
Cleansing is what I do believe is happening right now, ground-up. My son let me know during his time at Mt. St Mary’s Seminary (Emmitsburg, MD) that any sign or indication or homosexuality was grounds for a ticket home, and the men there did not tolerate it, because they can see what it has done to the Church they love. And in my opinion, the majority (not all, but most) of the pedophile crisis started with a secretive homosexual foundation, disordered men banding together into “Lavender Mafia’s” under a cloak of secrecy, abusing the trust engendered by Church credibility and authority to do the most base and disordered things.
Everything happens for a reason, and good can come from evil (or as someone once said, never let a good crisis go to waste). This is an opportunity to clean house and toughen up the flock – clerics and lay alike – with both spiritual and moral strength, for what I fear the next few decades might bring…..
Your right, AK, regarding the ‘lavender Mafia’. And I’m from San Francisco, so I have seen some of this from a ‘front row seat’, so-to-say.
I think the whole lesson of Judas in the gospel stories was to show that there will always be some people whose religious intentions from the start are not holy, and who have their own designs in mind when they join, or work with, the Holy Church. For Judas, this might have been a desire for future power, or maybe a better paying career than was his current employment trajectory,.. or maybe even a need for some type of evil entertainment, that is, how long would it take to dupe or manipulate a bunch of idiot fishermen, tax collectors and common laborers. That is, he might have got a ‘kick’ out of his devious and ingenious plots, wherein to him it was ‘worth it’ to ‘put up’ with his fellow apostolic community so as to satisfy his devious and unholy fantasies…and possibly to some day bring to complete destruction the infant movement that Jesus was starting, which in his pride, he probably thought was ridiculous.
So, I think predators such as ‘Uncle Ted’ and the like are similar to Judas. They certainly have their own motives for conducting their ministries as they do. But one thing seems sure, that they were never in ‘true love’ with the one holy Church that Christ founded, and as has been revealed abundantly throughout Church History. Rather, they seem to desire to ‘possess’ that same Church, and to change it’s holy character to something ‘after their own image’. That is, they are working so that “The gates of Hell WILL prevail” against it… and they themselves want to be key players and servants of evil…to bring this diabolical ‘end goal’ to fruition.
So, in the end, it is all just spiritual warfare conducted between Heaven and Hell …as has been going on since the foundation of the world. God only help us to all to stay solidly on the side of Jesus and Heaven, and not to be duped by all of the mischievous machinations, and diabolical assaults, of the ‘Father of Lies’.
Hi AK and Al,
Glad you to read your weighings-in. It has been a long hot summer, and Joe’s posts have been different, but this latest shepherd’s pie-cake-bake has gotten the better of me. The latest shenanigans of PF have shaken me too; usually I’ve not been too bothered. Until now. Seems like some type of last ‘warning’ has been given. I’ve gone onto more strange web sites than ever this past week. Nostradamus, Malachy, Sheen. Sheen has said the antichrist will be a bishop. You probably know what the others have said.
AK, I’m glad to hear that your son’s seminary did/does not tolerate anything but a ticket home if one from there dare enter lavender territory.
Al, It is good to hear your words; they bring me back to earth from the shady side of hell I’ve been in lately. Reassuring words, yours.
Best of Mary’s blessings to you and yours. True men of value, both. Joe too. All of you who try. And go to confession OFTEN and at the first sign of temptation get to H.C. and adoration. Daily. That is the way, the truth, the light.
Don’t be too hard on yourself Margo. The apostles of Jesus weren’t overly concerned about the treachery of Judas, they just let such evil speak for itself. What we all really need to do is just to love God as He deserves and to try to spread that love to others by teaching them the words and precepts of our Lord Jesus Christ. Also, this warfare between good and evil is not ours, but God’s, and we should let the war between Heaven and Hell continue as God allows, desires and permits.
St. Louis de Montfort in his treatise on the “True Devotion to Mary” discusses the warfare of souls very well. We all need to just try to be like Our Lady, and to stay simple and humble, but al the while bearing witness against the lies and sins in this world which are inspired by all the enemies of God. But we should not get to obsessed with what happens in the spiritual combat happening in the world, as much of it is out of our control. But if we can do our little part, without getting too frustrated about the overall battle, then this is more productive. Just as God gives mankind free will, we must realize that some will use that free will for works of evil. We must just be joyful if God has given us even a small desire to love and follow Him….because…as Jesus said: ‘ If you have the faith the size of a mustard seed, you can say to a mountain ‘go, jump into the sea, and it will obey you’. So, this is to say we must be eternally grateful for even any speck of faith that God has provided to us in this life.
So, don’t worry to much about little things. Just continue to praise God and His holy Church…and continue growing your faith on a daily basis.
Best to you always, and keep up your excellent defense of the holy faith as the occasions provide. Your comments over the years have been very inspirational to many here on this site.
– Al
Hello Al,
Thank you for your words of wisdom. You are so right and you say it so very well. I need to keep my nose to my own grindstone and let God. I need to pray that God break our stone-cold hearts and pour his love through and through. Wishing you the best now and always.
Thank you Joe, for weighing-in on this current crisis in our Church. I look forward to more of your perspective on this; you have my complete attention. As an alumnus of Glennon myself, you’ve definitely peeked my interest.
“Piqued” – not peeked, unless you mean to have brought your interest to a summit.
“Piqued” – not “peeked,” unless you mean to have brought your interest to a summit.
Our mistakes do speak to a type of truism. Both ‘piqued’ and ‘peeked’ apply, just as you say. In another venue, someone wrote that bishops need to ‘rent’ their garments, and another person wrote to say that yes, bishops may well indeed ‘rent’ clothes since they may not have jobs or money to buy their own clothes! Above I noted that pigs don’t prance, but in hindsight, some prideful pigs have done exactly that, followed by a flat fat fall into mud.
http://www.themediareport.com/2018/08/18/rebuttal-grand-jury-report-pennsylvania/
This is an important source to access if one is to keep events in perspective
Yeah, yeah, yeah…
How does it get worse?
Coerced sex?
Sex with those he ordained and baptized? (We call that “sacrilege”)
Cover ups by other bishops who were aware of the situations?
Encouraging a non celibate homosexual atmosphere in seminaries?
Rome knowing and still elevating the man instead of deposing him?
The Penn report is awful and any defending of the bishops involved is skewed morally and betrayal of the Office of Bishop
Somewhere in the middle of “we’re guilty of everything, just roll over and die” and “dindu nothin,’ they’re just out to get us” lies the truth.
I am not a fan of either extreme.
Dear Father. The response of The Media Report is important in that it informs its readers of the nature of the report. It is not what men think it is – a report/conclusion of the Grand Jury after hearing facts – but, rather, the unproven accusations of a political operative.
Of course even one sexual crime committed by a sodomite against a young male (typically 14-17 y.o.) is one too many but it must be borne in mind that these are unproven allegations.
In the recent past more than one priest has been falsely accused and lost his reputation and good name. It is impossible to recover from such calumny and so while one must hate (hate is a necessary part of charity) what was done it helps nobody to simply accept accusations as facts.
It was a severe mistake to accept sodomites into seminaries (1960 law prohibiting such actin was in existence but ignored by AmBishops) because such men are never real candidates for Holy Orders for several reasons; sodomites are subversives and will do what hey can to subvert/undermine any and all rules, customs, canons, laws, and praxis which condemns their disordered lust.
O, and it is also an evil to place others in a near occasion of sin.
Amateur Brains Surgeon, Agreed, The problem is the bishops did not usually investigate the accusations…they just moved the priests. I am aware of false accusations they are not uncommon and I belong to an organization to help priests who have been, most likely falsely accused.
Oh wait, its all lies the liberal media is using to stick it to the Catholic Church.
I guess most of the victims are lying too.
Wow, that someone would even post this garbage shows that “false news” can be found anywhere. Obviously the editors and the poster have never worked with someone who claims abuse by clergy or anyone else for that matter.
Obviously, “Father,” you’re in the “we’re guilty of everything, no need for a trial….” camp.
Expect prudent pushback.
Gotta have a trial for both the Archbp. McCarrick and his enablers…only way to get all the poison out. Canon law guarantees the trial unless the Bishop of Rome decides otherwise.
Any pushback is opinion, the Church will do what she must but we must not try to whitewash it with out own political views…say what you will about the Penn deal and politics.
The Church kept the records the Penn report is based on, did the Church make these historical accusations up?
What the Archbishop has done is beyond the pale of politics. We all sin but his sin has entered into a depth of evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
Keep the Faith not the Fake News.
Ok, “Father,” let’s parse your response….
Gotta have a trial for …..Archbp. McCarrick..”
Probably not a bad idea.
“Any pushback is opinion,”
So is accusation, until proven.
“…did the Church make these historical accusations up?”
They recorded the accusations. Were any of them proven? I tell my parish Canon lawyer “Fr. Khouri tried to bugger me” and he’ll have to record it. Does that make it true?
“We all sin but his sin has entered into a depth of evil …”
Sure looks like it. All the more reason to avoid lynching as the tone of your post seems to advocate (“give ’em a fair trial, then hang the guilty SOBs”…right?)
“Keep the Faith not the Fake News.”
That alone speaks volumes.
Many good points in the article Joe, and in the comments.
I’d like to share one that I think would be helpful if it made its way up … I almost said the food chain. Considering the flock is being fed on by the wolves, there is a better way to phrase it.
So – when I pointed out to my wife that many priests and bishops are bound by the seal of the Confessional – and in many ways have their hands tied – it’s rough.
Ha – I still remember confessing to the dean where my cigarettes were hidden so he wouldn’t search there during a locker search…. My bad, and although the confessional was dark, I knew he rolled his eyes – and did tell me not to confess like that again.
But my wife was inspired with a great response. She said the penance for violating a vow of celibacy should in cases of Sodomy be resigning the priesthood – or absolution is withheld. Lesser sexual sins by priests could have a penance of them declining promotions – or absolution is withheld.
I think that idea has value.
Through the prayers of the Mother of God, and the fatherly assistance of St. Joseph help clean up this mess!
Oregon Rick
Call me a skeptic. Check out Luke 16:10. Do you think that priests and bishops who violate celibacy vows will tell the truth in confession?
Also, remember the flak about whether or not a pope did or not believe in hell? Perhaps a lot of priests and bishops don’t believe in it either.
Margo – I’d say, if one has been steeped in Church knowledge (including having read Matt 18:6) through seminary and the years it takes to become a bishop or cardinal, and is still abusing children (or covering up d for same) I’d say that’s a pretty clear indice that one is not worried about the afterlife.
I’d say, there’s a big surprise a’comin for some…..
AK,
I believe in Jesus, and – since you quote Him in what you say – you. But I do find it very difficult to trust in much more these days.
Thank you, AK.
How is your son?
Margo – stay the course, please, anything else is what Satan intended out of this atrocity. I have some personal experience with this, and my story might help. You are welcome if you want, to get my email from Joe and would love to chat a bit.
Andrew is doing well, and it’s looking like he has some new employment options – mostly within the Church – that might match his health issues. Again, conversation for email if you’d like. I hope the best for your son as well……
Hi AK,
I will ask Joe for your e-mail and copy your offer/.permission from here. I don’t know when I’ll write.
I am EMBARRASSED to go to Mass tomorrow. I hope I’ll be fine when I get there, but I may break down and cry throughout. I don’t trust my parish priest. I used to, more or less vaguely, but some ill wind has breezed on by.
I’ve seen a lot of anger and a lot of worry on a lot of blogs this week but not much embarrassment.
For the first time in my life, I am embarrassed about naming my church.
I am angry at myself for hiding from the truth of the last five years, since all the red flags were standing tall and blaring like trumpets (if flags can trumpet) from the beginning. And so many of us wondered why WHY Benedict left.
You are right. This is exactly what Satan wants, that we turn our backs on the Church. But she has turned her back on us. Only her eyes, only the eyes from the head are what look at me now. The eyes of Jesus as they looked at Peter after he had sinned. But what takes the G- CAKE-BAKE here and now is that those apostates are not one bit sorry. Hiding and lying. Keeping silent and gone missing. We know what’s true. It’s black-and-white. Now we cannot deny or ignore it. We are expected to FACE it. To cope, to continue the long walk up the sad lonely path. Looking for a friend along the way. Thanks, fellow traveler.
Margo – good morning.
Your feelings are your feelings, and everything else you wrote is spot-on, except (in my humble opinion) one thing only.
The Church did **NOT** turn Her back on you. I think by what you write, you recognize this. All through the long ages, those chosen by Christ to deliver the good news on earth, have turned his back on Him and those to whom they minister. Starting with a fellow named Cephas. And some earthen vessels never change, never repent, they just choose to stay earthen. Woe to them, now their presence has been made known. I can tell you, given what I see and hear amongst my fellow local Catholics, I would not want today to be the false teacher/cleric who came into the Church thinking it was going to be a lifetime gay party. Catholics are angry….
Trust your priest? Heck, Margo, I don’t trust myself. We are all fallen…..as we have seen, some have accepted the Pit and have made it their mission to take others with them one way into an evil black hole. One of the dangers here is, “alla them others, but not MY priest/bishop/cardinal”…etc. That you have not gone there is a sublime credit to you. Vigilance…..tempered with love and prayer.
God is a Catskill Mountain comedian Who delivers His gifts of correction with ironic humor. The Church could not find within itself, for all those years, a cleric who would sound the alarm publicly at the growing internal subversion and perversion. SO He says, OK, won’t do it yourself, here’s a Jewish lawyer who will do it for you. Feeling indignant? Get over it. Doesn’t matter if personally Shapiro is an angry Pharisee looking to smash the opposition, or Moses delivering the post-Golden Calf boot-camp Levitical boot-camp laws – God’s corrections are mercifully self-limiting based on the response. God here seems to be saying, I strongly advise you Catholic faithful to take the hint and visit the Halls of Truth and Humble Penitence….don’t forget to check pride at the door, your permit to carry isn’t valid in here. Because if you don’t, things **can** get worse….Babylonians are all around, awaiting their chance to “occupy….” and keep in mind what happened to not one, but two Temples. The Gates of Hell will not prevail but the further they are opened by the apostates, the harder they are for the rest of us to to push back.
So, Margo, no, your Church – the Body of Christ – did not abandon you….God has given us a painful second chance. We the faithful are going to have to be the Levites of Exodus 32: 25-29 who neither shirk nor go off to form our own breakaway, but gird our loins and pick up the sword.
You found a friend. I look forward to hearing from you.
It’s almost enough to make a person believe those crazy Protestants who think the Roman Church is the Whore of Babylon.
So your “Holy Father” Francis made this creature a close advisor? Is something a little “high” in Denmark perhaps?
But heh, maybe he “absolved” him first, right? After all, once you’re absolved you’re off the hook right?
Right?
So what you are complaining about? The pope forgave him so he’s good to go. Simple as that.
Right?
“….Protestants who think the Roman Church is the Whore of Babylon.”
Naaa. Maybe your old girlfriend from upstate New York.
“So your “Holy Father” Francis made this creature a close advisor? Is something a little “high” in Denmark perhaps?”
Couldn’t agree more.
“But heh, maybe he “absolved” him first, right? After all, once you’re absolved you’re off the hook right? ”
Maybe our visiting Protest theologian of Catholic heresy hasn’t heard of the sin of “presumption?” Presumption is just as it sounds, “presuming on God’s grace, defined here by the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:
“It may be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God’s mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them.”
So….if say, a McCarrick walks into the confessional, and wink, wink, nudge-nudge, confesses his infidelity to his Holy Orders, knowing full well that he has done so repeatedly and intends to do it again, he has committed the sin of presumption. Presumption is an outgrowth of pride, one of the seven deadly sins, considered a mortal soul-killer. If the confessor is in on the deal, both commit the same sin.
So….hope you comprehend all that. I know it’s a lot for you.
The sin of presumption is basically a closely-related variant of the imprecations and commands of Deut 6:16 and Luke 4:12.
Well AK, how do your “know it’s a lot for you”? You mean dressing up what is obvious to a person of clear mind who reads the Gospels in doctrinal verbosity might be too much for us poor heathens to catch? LOL.
Whoever wrote your Doctrine of Presumption forgot that we are all poor creatures of limited understanding – yes, I fear even you may be thus – and the God alone knows our hearts and minds, the limits of our understanding and all those other complex factors that go to shape and determine our behaviour. Only He will weigh those, because only He is able to do so. What seems to us presumption may be only another person’s lack of knowledge, perception or understanding. Of course it is the duty of every would be Christian to study the Gospels and pray for guidance and understanding. Sadly, your church has attempted to interpose itself between God and man, something that Francis has recently restated in fact. I suppose the “institutional needs” of the church come first after all?
That said of course, the child abusers in clerical collars, even those who are clinical psychopaths as this McCarrick may be, know intellectually that what they do is a crime legally and spiritually. If they had any true fear of the judgment of God, that is if they truly believed the Word of God spoken by Christ, they would be in mortal terror of the punishment of such sin. That is, if their heads had not been filled with the idiotic idea that their colleagues can forgive their sins for a few incantations, payments of money or some other little tasks.
To think that rational men can believe that the Judgment of God, the Creator of the Universe, at whose will worlds are born and die, to think that this they may bandy about like a ticket to country fair, well, what can one say? When the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.
Poor heathens? Naw…not heathens, but otherwise smart folks who are just willfully blind. History is full of examples of that.
I am of poor understanding. I have the resources of the Church Jesus Christ not interposed, but ordained – and placed as a bridge between God and man, as He knew He would not be here to act thus – at my beck, what’s more, I believe in both her and those resources.
Where does that leave you? Somewhere between a storefront and a Big Tent, begging God for personal ‘terpretashun, monitoring the internecine theological squabbling between Jim Jones, David Koresh, Pastor Ted Haggard and Joel Osteen, trying to decide which one of Greately Awakened (second variety) tens of thousands? Slickest delivery? Whitest teeth? Most comely stable of sister-wives? Grapiest Kool-Aid? Good luck with that.
Just pray the Sinners Prayer, ask Jesus into your heart, and you are Sayy-yyyyved. That’s all. Period dot. Not to worry about that sin thingy shot throughout Scriptures. You were saying something about idiotic incantations and tickets to the county fair?
Anytime you need a rope out of that pit, you let us know.
When Christ appears to one who truly seeks Him, and He does this, or when God speaks directly and audibly to a man, and He does at times do this, does He tell them they should seek out their nearest Roman Catholic church for further instruction? I’m afraid that in none of the moving and inspiring testimonials I have seen and read has He ever done so. A person of logical mind might draw some conclusions from that.
Your “shameless’ triumphalism is merely disgusting vanity; do I need to tell you it is a sin? So you have Peter for your father, do you? What about those whose churches were established before the Roman church? Are they lost souls unless they convert to Roman Catholicism? Plainly a ridiculous suggestion. But these are the traps that men fall into when they presume to parse the Word of God, when they presume to “spell out” what Christ did not see fit to spell out. Why did he not? Because the New Covenant is a covenant of spirit, not legalism. Or else Christ would have chosen twelve scribes as His disciples, that they might record ever word He spoke with independent verification. How does John append his Gospel? He says in so many words: “there was much, much more, but this much we are certain of and this will suffice for you who truly seek”.
Plainly if Christ placed His church somehow between Himself and man why would he step in Himself? Which Gospel verse was it again that said He placed His Church between man and Himself? I must have missed that one somehow, or is it in some Apocrypha somewhere?
Your commandments of men that you teach for doctrines are stumbling blocks you throw in the path of Christ and those who seek Him. I believe this blasphemy has proceeded so far that like those who elevate the Talmud above the Torah, you have some “doctrine” that the prognostications of your elders are of equal weight to Scripture? Pray name that one for our enlightenment; I can’t be bothered to look it up. Another example of doctrinal extrapolations ad absurdum.
I ask you what I have asked others without reply on this forum before: can a Christian who dies without becoming a Roman Catholic or receiving any of the “unctions” be saved? What is your answer?
You mock various preachers; but with the beam of pederasty and inquisitors, to say nothing of doctrinal abominations, in your eyes, I fear you may not see clearly enough to pull out their splinters.
And in truth, I am wasting my time debating with you here and now, for I have enough to do on my own account. But I am not here to amuse myself or to enjoy any misguided triumphalism that I am “in with the in crowd” as seems to suffice for so many. In these times, the fracture of the Body of Christ is a more painful and dangerous thing than it has ever been since the days of Nero. And yet of course, I must remember that the true Body of Christ is never fractured, for it is composed not of this or that church, doctrine or “communion”, but of those who truly and unfeignedly seek God and to do His Will, and thus are pleasing to Him.
“Your “shameless’ triumphalism is merely disgusting vanity; do I need to tell you it is a sin? So you have Peter for your father,”
Talk to Jesus about that. I merely follow Scripture.
“You mock various preachers; but with the beam of pederasty and inquisitors, to say nothing of doctrinal abominations, in your eyes, I fear you may not see clearly enough to pull out their splinters. ”
I didn’t realize David Koresh and Jim Jones were your “preachers.” Thanks for clearing that up. OBTW…when you “mocked” the Catholic clergy, the point you made here could just as easily be turned back onto you. Did you pick up on that? Not a lot gets past you I see. I have nice needle-nosed tweezers for those splinters, aka The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
“Or else Christ would have chosen twelve scribes as His disciples, ”
Bingo…. you just deep-sixed Sola Scriptura and book idolatry. Matt 11:25 applies.
You are indeed wasting your and my time, because you keep on the-same-righteous-revival-wagon speechifying, leavened with indefinable platitudes like “those who truly and unfeignedly seek God and to do His Will” as if Jim Jones didn’t think that’s precisely what he was doing as he ordered everyone to take a swig. Without the guiding Church Jesus provided – something you arrogantly and blasphemously call “triumphalism” – you are as likely to end up roasting in Waco or consulting crystals as sayin’ yea Jeezus in the big tent. Pick one….
McCarrick should have been defrocked. He was the founder of the Papal Foundation, which raised millions to be spent at the discretion of the pope. The abuse crisis broke in the pontificate of SJPII, and I can’t help feeling that the relaxation of the canon law along with the failure to maintain discipline among the hierarchy precipitated the crisis.
Money and wealth have always attracted certain members of the hierarchy. With money and with come power amd sexual power is one of the greatest forms of power.
What relaation of canon law…it has been amended to make laizcization easier and the penalties greater since 2003. The 1917 Code barely envision such abouse because the Church was in denial and clergy were put on pedestals.
Saint or not, JPII did us no favors in appointing some of these reprobates and Benedict (not to mention PVI ) are at fault too. I’m sick of hearing about “poor” JPII and B16 being surrounded by bad advisors who pushed these awful appointments through.
If the Vatican demands that all bishops be appointed by Rome then the popes have to be more willing to actually read the files on the candidates and decide for themselves. Too much is delegated to too many “shady” folks. If it is too much work for one man then the pope should give more authority to well vetted and orthodox bishops to deal with certain things.
Too many of the current crop of bishops, be they classified as “liberal” or “conservative” say they know the rage of the faithful, they might get letters, but most are simply cowards and will not meet with people of their diocese, their priests or victims. So much for men in the image of Christ, the Brave Shepherd.
The pope does not need to delegates a stranger bishop to do beatifications in a diocese, the local head of the Church can do this, who needs a stranger sent from Rome.
The bishops chosen should be chosen with some involvement of laity and lower clergy….the list goes on.
“Your “shameless’ triumphalism is merely disgusting vanity; do I need to tell you it is a sin? So you have Peter for your father,”
Talk to Jesus about that. I merely follow Scripture.
No, you don’t, and that is the whole point, but you dodge it because the implications which are inescapable, will deprive you of your self-satisfaction and your church of it’s spiritual protection racket. Christ told Peter that he was the rock on which He would build His church, and that He would give him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ didn’t say that privilege would be given to anyone else. Peter has left this world and his mandate went with him. That is what Scripture ACTUALLY says. Christ could easily have said something else, but he didn’t. Do you think perhaps Christ meant to say, “and your heirs and successors for ever”? Sorry, but He didn’t and He doesn’t make mistakes, does he?
In fact Christ specifically said that none but he stands between man and the Father. But then he said some other things your “holinesses” have ignored for quite a few centuries now, such as “Thou shalt call no man father, for one is thy Father in Heaven”. As for the “His Holiness” part, well, if you’re going to blaspheme you might as well go the whole hog I suppose.
The sort of stuff you can get away with when you hide the Word behind a Latin veil and prohibit the faithful from reading it themselves. What was the “doctrine” behind that again? The sort of thing you could get away with when dealing with medieval peasants and aborigines, but once men started to read…
“You mock various preachers; but with the beam of pederasty and inquisitors, to say nothing of doctrinal abominations, in your eyes, I fear you may not see clearly enough to pull out their splinters. ”
I didn’t realize David Koresh and Jim Jones were your “preachers.” Thanks for clearing that up. OBTW…when you “mocked” the Catholic clergy, the point you made here could just as easily be turned back onto you. Did you pick up on that? Not a lot gets past you I see. I have nice needle-nosed tweezers for those splinters, aka The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
“Preachers” is merely a neutral term, and your hopeful presumption that I have any connection to those people you named I must disappoint. Anton Le Vey could have been called a “preacher” as easily.
“Or else Christ would have chosen twelve scribes as His disciples, ”
Bingo…. you just deep-sixed Sola Scriptura and book idolatry. Matt 11:25 applies.
He has indeed hidden the truth from those who are wise in their own eyes, for the moment we begin to think how wise we are, our eyes and understanding begin to fade. A millennia or two of your self-satisfaction, judgmentalism and triumphalism and this is the result: inquisitors, the rack, auto da fées etc. Borgias building pleasure gardens while the poor starve outside their doors and Luther nails up his theses. They probably believed they were in the right too. Fanatics and “control-freaks” are always attracted to absolutes and absolutism; these days they can find homes in various political and “social” movements rather than the Roman church being their sole career outlet. I wish I could say we are all better off as a result.
As for your “tweezers of Catholic doctrine’ the phrase itself proclaims your blindness, and you inability to see it. Christ did not enjoin us to pick out anyone’s splinters did he? At least not without the most searching and honest self-criticism and repentance, and then only in the most humble spirit of spiritual assistance. So much for your Torquemedas.
You are indeed wasting your and my time, because you keep on the-same-righteous-revival-wagon speechifying, leavened with indefinable platitudes like “those who truly and unfeignedly seek God and to do His Will” as if Jim Jones didn’t think that’s precisely what he was doing as he ordered everyone to take a swig. Without the guiding Church Jesus provided – something you arrogantly and blasphemously call “triumphalism” – you are as likely to end up roasting in Waco or consulting crystals as sayin’ yea Jeezus in the big tent. Pick one….
What I have said is either sincere and honest to the best of my understanding and ability – the understanding that has been given me – or it is not. Your calumnification of my beliefs is hopefully unworthy of you, though I fear it may be quite in keeping with the historical character that follows from arrogant presumptions and mendacious grasping at worldly power. Leaving aside the role of mere personality as that is beyond my appraisal as yet. As for Jim Jones and his ilk, you are convicted out your own mouth: witness your Borgias and McCarricks – nothing if not consistent!
I see you continue to evade the questions I ask: is it also one of your “doctrines” that deceit may be used “in the cause of the faith”? If so, that would be a doctrine you would have in common with Moslems and Mormons, among others.
My goodness, you’re long-winded.
“Grasping at worldly power?”
What planet are you from?
“The sort of stuff you can get away with when you hide the Word behind a Latin veil and prohibit the faithful from reading it themselves.”
I am a graduate of the Denver Catholic Biblical School, administered by the Augustine Institute. 4 years, all Bible (the unmutilated version) all the time, cover to cover. My wife attends a very nice Bible Study at my church. Want to try that one again?
Talk about “calumnification” after the geeked-on-fundie-bile revival-tent hatred you’re spewing. You really do need those tweezers.
I claim no perfection on the part of many Catholic clergy in the past 2,000 years – far from it, I can tell you all about bad Popes. We’re Satan’s biggest target on earth, and he loves human weakness. Whichever of 30,000 you are, you are easy pickings if Catholicism wasn’t there interposing (the one correct usage of that term here) itself between all of you disjointed, confused, squabbling theological small fry, and real evil. And we always will be – Jesus Christ Himself promised that. All both of us have done is correctly pointed out is the spot-on-ness of 2 Corinthians 4:7.
Sorry, fella, no time nor inclination to get into a massive and pointless cherry-picking fest with you on Catholic doctrine, “nulla salus” or otherwise. You are welcome to look through past topics to see where I and others have addressed the same issues, using **real** Church history, Doctors, and Fathers. Not the invented, disordered guessings and maunderings of all them there mostly 19th Century ‘Murican Awakenings and Revivalisms, that have metastasized into the chaotic denominationalism that has driven many young families into my RCIA class. Their “my children will never again have to church-shop” stories are a validating joy.
You want to take that as victory, be-my-guest.
Would you not say that the claim of the popes to temporal as well as spiritual authority is “grasping at worldly power”?
Or is that an “infallibism” that they got a new “revelation” about at some point, like Joseph Smith and his polygamy?
I congratulate you on your education; you will no doubt recognize that it was by no means an impartial one and while you have learned to regurgitate the doctrines you were taught, it is no surprise that the evaluation of the verity of those doctrines was not truly part of the curriculum. Certainly better than no education at all, but hardly likely to encourage a spirit of independent inquiry. Inquiry which of course ought to be constantly accompanied by earnest and humble prayer, prayer which hopefully is found worthy of answer.
I presume you unaware that it was the violently enforced policy of the Roman church that the Bible not be translated into any language other than Latin, and that laymen were thus prevented from reading it?
You seem rather angry and resort to much “psycho-babble”, while you avoid answering questions of doctrine directly. Why? Did they not teach you all the right answers?
If we wish to find truth, we must follow the evidence, wherever it leads. God and His Son do not reserve their mercy or their revelations for Roman Catholics. Therefore any honest man must admit that at least those Christians are not condemned, even though they are not Roman Catholics. Therefore the doctrine that only Roman Catholics can be saved is patently false. And since that is so, it is plainly impossible that Jorge this or Guiseppe that holds “the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” because a roomful of cardinals have made him “pope”, a title which did not even exist when St. Peter was in the flesh.
I am after the truth, nothing more and nothing less. True, if I had remained ignorant of the Gospels I would be without sin, as Scripture says,and knowing them I am now bound to follow them as best I can, at the price of my immortal soul. No priest can forgive my sins, that power is reserved to The Father and the Son alone. They forgive we are told the repentant, who bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.
True, no doubt They shall deal mercifully with those who trusted faithfully in what they were taught, and had neither the means nor the opportunity to learn for themselves, but for those of us to whom much has been given, from us much shall be required, and no man who turns his back on the pricks of conscience or truth will escape responsibility for that. In this age of leisure, who has an excuse for not seeking?
I would be happy if such a venerable institution as the Roman Church would abandon false doctrines and the commandments of men. I would be happy if there was Christian unity, overjoyed, but the break was long in coming and the Roman Church had many opportunities to repent and turn from sin and error. It still does. Imagine if they were even today to repent of their errors and historical crimes? What would be the result? Would not other churches be bound to follow in a similar spirit of repentance? Would not the unity of at least the Catholic churches then become inevitable? How could it not?
“I claim no perfection on the part of many Catholic clergy in the past 2,000 years – far from it, I can tell you all about bad Popes. We’re Satan’s biggest target on earth, and he loves human weakness. Whichever of 30,000 you are, you are easy pickings if Catholicism wasn’t there interposing (the one correct usage of that term here) itself between all of you disjointed, confused, squabbling theological small fry, and real evil. And we always will be…”
Do you hear yourself? “We”, “you spiritual small fry”. Who is “we”? You’ll need to step back a little farther to get a sense of perspective I suggest. You see yourself standing on the bridge of the Ark? I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions just yet.
Your church presents itself as having all the answers, and the right to make them up where necessary. If you cannot defend all of its doctrines, then you cannot claim they are divinely inspired, despite that being one their key doctrines!
I know something about spiritual evil alright. Have a look at the geometry of your Capital for a start. You sneer at “revivals”? Dangerous presumption. Who are you or I to second guess their faith? Arrogance too strong a word for that?
Still waiting for your doctrinal answers.
If you want to belong to a club, why not just join one? If I’m not mistaken we are born alone, we die alone and we face our Judge ALONE.
And the only victor is truth, the only losers will be those who cannot or will not face it.
“I congratulate you on your education; you will no doubt recognize that it was by no means an impartial one and while you have learned to regurgitate the doctrines you were taught,” > back at ya, dude. Urp.
“I presume you unaware that it was the violently enforced policy of the Roman church that the Bible not be translated into any language other than Latin, and that laymen were thus prevented from reading it?” > easily dispensed fundie meme. Even you should know Latin was a common tongue, and more often than not, there were those who could read Latin and those who could read…nothing. However, the first German vernacular Bible was produced in the 8the century. By the beginning of the 15th, there were 36,000 German vernacular copies extant. Before Luther’s mutilation. Many other vernacular translations as well, if you bother reading the real historical record, something other than James White fabrications.
” And since that is so, it is plainly impossible that Jorge this or Guiseppe that holds “the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” because a roomful of cardinals have made him “pope”, a title which did not even exist when St. Peter was in the flesh.” >apostolic succession is plainly obvious in the writings of the Church Fathers, who learned either at the feet of the Apostles, or at the feet of those who learned from the Apostles. You as a Reformista would be very out of place among first century Christians.
“Have a look at the geometry of your Capital for a start.” > tinfoil hat time?
“Therefore any honest man must admit that at least those Christians are not condemned, even though they are not Roman Catholics.” > your opinions and assessments, alone, just like Luther, etc.. Your professed belief that Jesus is Lord and he is the Way, Truth, and Life is something we share and is Catholic dogma. The fact you reject the dogmatic Sacraments ordained by Jesus and the Church by which you otherwise would have no knowledge of Jesus Christ will make your salvation more problematic. But the Church does not judge your final salvation, only warns on your chance at obtaining same by your choices; God is the final judge Good luck to you.
“imagine if they were even today to repent of their errors and historical crimes? What would be the result? Would not other churches be bound to follow in a similar spirit of repentance? Would not the unity of at least the Catholic churches then become inevitable? How could it not?”> come back to me when the tens of thousands of denoms/nondenoms – some of them quite destructively misled as I have pointed out – can agree on Reformed unity. Something **you** haven’t addressed, more, you run and hide. Luther complained of this at the end of his misspent life. Self-inflicted wounds hurt the most.
“I know something about spiritual evil alright. Have a look at the geometry of your Capital for a start.” >tinfoil hat time?
And since that is so, it is plainly impossible that Jorge this or Guiseppe that holds “the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” because a roomful of cardinals have made him “pope”, a title which did not even exist when St. Peter was in the flesh.” > Hilltop Baptist down the street is nowhere to be found in the Bible but there-it-is.
You sneer at “revivals”? ” > at fabricated religions that put the vulnerable at risk. Microcephalic Homer or Clem can invent a religion in their Ozark compound – back to my first enumeration of recruitment criteria (white teeth, slick delivery, etc.) other than Mat 16:18. 30,000 and counting. Which one is right? Haven’t answered me – I’ll respond to you again, when you can answer to my satisfaction.
I have never attended any theological school. My beliefs are the result of reading the Gospels and mere logical deduction, though I can say that many times I have experienced odd coincidences, that of course statistically could not be coincidences, which have lead to me to greater understanding. That process continues.
You dodged the question: the fact that translated versions existed does not mean the Roman church approved them; they condemned them, and those who produced them.
Out of place would I be? How about you and your “trans-substantiation”? How about “papal infallibility”? How about your curia, treasuries, palaces and galleries? What do you think the early church fathers would have said about that lot? To say nothing of the pederasts and their enablers. Would they have approved the Inquisition, the rack or burning at the stake?
Tinfoil? Is that your best answer? Well, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised in view of the rest.
Oh, so the Protestants should go first should they? Well, maybe, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Protestantism a break away from the Roman Church, and aren’t you saying that they should “return” to the Roman church? Now, since they left “under protest” as it were, about certain issues, does it not seem logical that to effect a reunion, some discussion about those issues might be necessary? Of course it’s rather hard to have a serious discussion with anyone who says “we’re right because Jesus said we get to decide everything for ever, so there!” Yes, not much you can say to people like that, except good luck with that!
Hilltop Baptist down the street doesn’t claim to have the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; see the difference??
Well, there are plenty of fabricated religions I agree. Many are frankly demonically inspired, but as you say, the Roman church has been in the Devil’s sights since day one; and he’s had quite a run of successes there.
Can you name any theological or spiritual errors of your church or its popes, ever? Just curious.
James, do you not think that the Apostles and Jesus were in the “Devil’s sights since day one” – or at least as early as the Devil could see them? Jesus withstood the Devil but the Apostles succumbed to the Devil’s wiles to varying degrees.
And even the Eastern Orthodox, who do not see quite eye to eye with Catholics regarding the bishop of Rome, at least acknowledge some primacy of the Roman bishop, though they disagree how his primacy is exercised. Many Eastern Orthodox roll their eyes when confronting Protestant reasoning about doctrine including ecclesiology and the papacy.
Of course, was Christ not tempted by him? Did Christ not once address St. Peter as “satan”? That was a most interesting incident too if one considers the implications of it. It is as though Christ saw that satan was speaking directly through Peter at that moment.
The head of the RC church has some primacy indeed, how could he not? Anymore than the Primate of one of the Orthodox Churces or the Anglican Church for that matter.
The problems begin when he claims complete and perpetual primacy!
“My beliefs are the result of reading the Gospels and mere logical deduction,”> whose logic? Aristotle? Inductive? Abductive? Reductive? Deductive? What if I am a Reformed person and I say, my logic led elsewhere, way different from your belief. Who’s right? Who says? Is schism and chaos what Christ intended?
“You dodged the question: the fact that translated versions existed does not mean the Roman church approved them; they condemned them, and those who produced them.” >You mean the opinion-and-error-filled versions of Wycliff and Tyndale? Absolutely. St. Thomas More agreed, for one. The Church has a responsibility to protect the flock from heresy. Protestants burned Bibles as well. Your failure to acknowledge all the other vernacular versions – produced by the Church, some of which I enumerated – is flat making-stuff-up.
“Out of place would I be? How about you and your “trans-substantiation”? > Read the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, for just one. Not to mention St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 10:16-21. Not to mention John 6……
“How about “papal infallibility”? > as I said, unbroken apostolic succession and the strictly-defined dogmatic infallibility that goes along with it. John 16:14, Luke 10:16, Matt 23: 1-3 all support.
“Tinfoil? Is that your best answer?” > The best it merits.
“How about your curia, treasuries, palaces and galleries?” > What about them?
“What do you think the early church fathers would have said about that lot?”>They would have said, wow, nice job for keeping that all in trust for humanity, except where human weakness and corruption misuses. Choose and use wisely Salvation may depend on it. What would they have said about Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen and Pastor Ted Haggard? Good Reformistas, all….or are they nor right? Who says?
“To say nothing of the pederasts and their enablers/the Roman church has been in the Devil’s sights since day one; and he’s had quite a run of successes there.” > human weakness, addressed that already. You’re getting desperately repetitive.
“Would they have approved the Inquisition, the rack or burning at the stake?”> know much about the Inquisition? Apparently not, just what “you have learned to regurgitate…..(what) you were taught.” (sound familiar?) Some folks hauled before secular courts would blaspheme, just to get a better deal from the ecclesiastical courts (i.e., Inquisition). There’s much more, well-documented from the record of the courts of Aragon and Castile, contra Protestant fabrications.
“Hilltop Baptist down the street doesn’t claim to have the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; see the difference??” > you’re evading…it’s not in the Bible. Does that make them wrong? Are they right? Who says?
“Can you name any theological or spiritual errors of your church or its popes, ever?” > covered this already, you’re “mixing metaphors”, so to speak. Bad popes, human weakness = personal spiritual errors. Theological = dogmatic errors, matters of faith and morals, nope.
Still haven’t answered on which of the 30,000 is “right.” You have to know, by your “logic.” Hope so, ’cause **your** salvation depends on it.
And OBTW….I am not carving up on your beliefs. You are a fellow Christian – I am assuming at some point, water baptized – and entitled to my respect; it’s gotten where it’s given. It’s you who are bandying about insults like “Whore of Babylon,” and all that followed.
Who’s the hater here?
So, expect some pushback when you try to treat my Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, like a Thanksgiving turkey for your carving knife, and support your “slasher-ing” with stuff either made up and simply, provably unhistoric/unBiblical/untrue…….
We are told to love the sinner and hate the sin. As we are mere mortals we require Divine assistance with that.
The grace of God and the ministrations and visitations of both his Son and Holy Spirit are plainly not reserved for Roman Catholics. It therefore follows inevitably and inescapably that the RC Church has no lock hold on salvation, and that being the case, it is obviously impossible that Christ intended the popes to have the authority of St. Peter in perpetuity.
The saddest part of this saga of human folly is that if they had been content to follow the Gospels and labour as Christ commanded, there could and would have been no fracturing of the western church and probably a union of all the Churches; for surely that is the Divine Will. But pride, avarice, lust for power, love of the chief seats, all these things worked to make the first inevitable and the second impossible
I’ve asked many times with no reply, so I will ask again: how and by what authority do you refer to the Pope as “The Holy Father” when Christ specifically forbade such an appellation?
“I’ve asked many times with no reply, so I will ask again: how and by what authority do you refer to the Pope as “The Holy Father”> oh my, another case of Reformista Scriptcheral-literalism-when-it-suits (soitainly not John 6…). Tell me (assuming you are a heterosexual guy)…given Luke 5:27-28, the last time (or any time since yew bin sayyyy-yyyved) you espied a comely female form not your wife, and thought, wowwwww….did you do a Matt 5:29? I assume not, unless you are using a Braille keyboard….
The answer to your question is, of course, Jesus was using hyperbole (which he often did) with the Pharisees to make a point. Given that fact, all following concerning the Scriptural usage of “father,” in context, should be easy to discern. Try hard.
The rest of your rant is opinion, inescapably baseless.
“But pride, avarice, lust for power, love of the chief seats, all these things worked to make the first inevitable and the second impossible…” >you’re onto something, but did not carry this thread of thought to it’s logical conclusion. While the Church may historically have been afflicted with the maladies you enumerated (reference my other posts on human weakness), it follows evidentially that the cure was not more of the same. Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, instead of humbly working in the confines of Christ’s Church, to change it from within, all gave into the same raft of prideful human weaknesses when they engaged in schismatic action. The evidence is continuing, metastasizing division, and further weakening of the Body of Christ, in a world that sorely needs strong, united Christianity as Christ intended in Matt 16:18.
I see that you are struggling between something closer to how a Christian ought to think and speak and the current ignorant and obnoxious model that those who manipulate your popular “culture” have dragged you down to – unless of course this was simply the unfortunate limits that your posterity bestowed on you.
I suggest that you inform yourself as to how and by whom you are degraded, and for what purpose, and you will be less willing to go along with the program.
Your peurile aspersion about heterosexuality speaks volumes about the level of your thinking: you are are of course unused to those with a reasonable command of the English language being heterosexual since the manipulators of your popular McCulture have done their level best for some decades now to associate intelligence, fluency and a degree of culture with effeminacy, the better to stupify the poor slobs who are unable to see what is being done by encouraging them to associate masculinity and heterosexuality with ignorant, loutish behaviour and a perpetual fascination with professional sports.
Perhaps like many of your dumbed-down contemporaries, you suffer from an anxiety regarding orientation that belies all the purported tolerance spouted by all and sundry these days?
I would just point out to you that not so long ago, a man who could not play at least one instrument, compose an able verse, write clearly and legibly, ride well and pay court to a lady, without a ball cap, was considered at best a yokel.
You might care to ruminate on the statement of one of those leading Democrats on Billary’s campaign team: “….We’ve all conspired for years to produce an ignorant and compliant electorate…” Or perhaps that’s a little to tin foilish for a simple fellow to grasp? A little too complex or frightening? You like your world to be simple and clear? “Us” and “them”?
I can make no sense of your response to the question of why you address the Bishop of Rome as “The Holy Father”; your sophistry either needs more polishing or better explanation. To the average person the contradiction of Christ’s specific injunction is quite clear. “Jesus was using hyperbole” was he? Ah! I see, but not when he said, Peter, you’ve got the keys?
The point of course is that by parading this abomination about the way your do, you merely shout from the rooftops what proves the falsity of every claim to “infallibility”. It is as though the strange spirit within these people wishes to flaunt the contradiction of Christ to the world.
It has been interesting to see displayed the “Catholic mind” in posts like yours: almost a historical experience. One can well see how such arrogance and bloody-mindedness (a pertinent double entendre if ever there was one) drove wedges into the western mind. As was said of the Bourbons, “they forgot nothing and learned nothing”. Good luck to you in your obtusity, I leave you and your kind with a parting advice that you remember that pride and complacency are no part of the spirit of Christ. Whoever the preener is that filled this “punch bowl” of self-congratulation for you, you will find the dregs bitter indeed.
By the way….the part of your rant that references “Billary” and the subversions that lead to a “complaint electorate” tell me that, after all the theological jousting and bleeding out, there may actually be something upon which might agree…..
“Your peurile aspersion about heterosexuality speaks volumes about the level of your thinking” > wow, I really struck a nerve there, didn’t I. I wasn’t even thinking about your sexuality vs. use of language, since I myself am well-versed in the King’s English, as you might’ve observed. Simply making a surmise vis-a’-vis Luke 5:27-28, to establish a frame of reference. Your suspiciously defensive, hysterically rambling, revealingly long-winded rant speaks volumes about the soft spot I unwittingly poked.
Hey, it’s a new world. You need not hide who you really are in a Reformed closet of righteous hyper-verbosity. I mean, after all, Pastor Ted, too, has his struggles.
So I’ll cling to my ‘bominatyions, and you cling to yours…whatever …they…may…be.
“Ah! I see, but not when he said, Peter, you’ve got the keys?” > not hyperbole, but fulfillment of Scriptural foreshadowing. Isaiah 22:22 and all that. You really should get someone to help you with understanding the Bible, preferably the folks who filtered and compiled it. You’ll find it enlightening.
“I can make no sense of your response …”> we all have our challenges.
“you will find the dregs bitter indeed.” > I always keep the bowl at least half full. And lately, covered ….ick.
And, BTW, it’s “puerile.”
Thank you for confirming my initial assessment of your mentality and your meaning. When one has made a little study of cultures, their progression, regression and manipulation, in particular as concerns North America in the last century or so, it is not difficult to become a little annoyed at the dumbing down. Those who embrace their moronization are rarely clever enough to see that it is often framed to touch on the deep-seated perpetuals, the better to embed itself;which it seems to have done with eminent success in your case.
Closets? If I needed a closet, I could just hop over to your communion and slip into a cassock. Is there a better closet in Christendom; since your flock apparently glazes over at the sight of a clerical collar, and your clerical fraternity protects each other with a diligence that rivals their purported enemies.
“You really should get someone to help you with understanding the Bible, preferably the folks who filtered and compiled it. You’ll find it enlightening.”
Your bible no doubt was “filtered and compiled”, we poor Protestants find the KJV quite sufficient, though I like the Peshitta Text as well myself. You won’t get the gifts of faith and the Holy Spirit from a pack of rituals as Christ told the Pharisees.
This site is awash in hubris. Pride still goes before a fall – as many times as it takes to drive the lesson home.
Authoritarian personalities, or those whose insecurities merely cause them to seek refuge in authoritarianism, are always easy to spot. The student of Nazi Germany for example, will know what insecurities I refer to. The low-born climber, the ambitious, the greedy, the deviants of course, and the manipulators, not forgetting the fanatics and sadistic inquisitors, they all found a home and an outlet in the corporation, and look what they made of it.