Peter Is Not The Rock!

[LittleLambofJesus]

On a choice of who is interpreting the Apostles aright, I'll go for the Church which canonised the book. On the Protestant arguments against it, no one heard of them before the sixteenth century, so I'm not likely to prefer the late traditions of men and their flawed logic to the the traditions passed on from the Apostles. As we know, poor old Luther even thought for a while that he could make a better choice of what books should be in the Bible; at least he learnt enough humility to draw back from that.

Yeah, good ole Luther. Wonder why he saw the Roman Papacy as a "type" of the anti-christ in the NT. Did he ever recant that?

Mark 1:15 And saying, "Has been filled the Time, and has-neared/hggiken <1448> (5758) the Kingdom of the God. Be ye reforming!, and be ye believing! in the Good-Message.

Luke 21:31 Thus also ye whenever ye may be seeing these-things becoming ye are knowing that nigh/egguV <1451> is the Kingdom of the God.

Revelation 1:3 Happy/Blessed the one reading and the ones hearing the Words of the Prophecy and keepings in it having been Written, for the Time nigh/egguV <1451>.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7276015&page=2
Olivet Discourse and Revelation Same Event?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yeah, good ole Luther. Wonder why he saw the Roman Papacy as a "type" of the anti-christ in the NT. Did he ever recant that?

Mark 1:15 And saying, "Has been filled the Time, and has-neared/hggiken <1448> (5758) the Kingdom of the God. Be ye reforming!, and be ye believing! in the Good-Message.

Luke 21:31 Thus also ye whenever ye may be seeing these-things becoming ye are knowing that nigh/egguV <1451> is the Kingdom of the God.

Revelation 1:3 Happy/Blessed the one reading and the ones hearing the Words of the Prophecy and keepings in it having been Written, for the Time nigh/egguV <1451>.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7276015&page=2
Olivet Discourse and Revelation Same Event?

Martin Luther was well known for flip flopping. So there is a good chance he did recant.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Martin Luther was well known for flip flopping. So there is a good chance he did recant.

Well, at the time, the book of Revelation was a pretty "controversial" book, correct?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/martinluther.html

.............When Martin Luther first translated and published the New Testament, he thought that Revelation should not have the same status or authority as the gospels or the letters of Paul or Peter. And so he put it at the end, but he didn't number it. He didn't put a "saint" in front of [John's] name. He thought it was an edifying book, but not of the same status. But what's interesting, even though he felt that way, it's the one book that he illustrated, where he put woodcuts, because Revelation allowed him to make one of his central points, which was that the papacy was the Antichrist, and the end of the world was coming. And so there you see the only woodcuts in the New Testament. You see the harlot of Babylon wearing a papal crown. You see the seven-headed beast wearing a papal crown. The message was clear. You didn't have to read (as most people didn't). You got the message. The papacy, the papal office--not the individual popes but the papal Church--was where Satan was working to undermine Christendom. And the fact that Satan was there meant the world was coming to an end soon. ...

Was Luther conflicted about Revelation? Was he uncomfortable with the book?
When Luther began, he was uncomfortable with the Book of Revelation. But as the Reformation went on and more and more opponents sprang up, he had difficulty, he became more and more interested in Revelation. And later in his life, he took it with the utmost seriousness, and even tried to figure out all the symbolism in it, to determine when the end of the world was going to come. ...

How much did Luther think he was living in the end times? Luther thought he was living in the end times. And that belief, that conviction, was central to almost all that he did. Because his understanding of scripture and the way he preached from the pulpit and what he wrote was colored by the notion that the biblical story was also his story, and that what was happening to him could be used to understand the story in the Bible, but what was happening in the Bible could be used to explain what was going on in his own day. And Revelation was the key to this. It was the symbolic story that tells you how the whole thing is going to end. ...

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

On a choice of who is interpreting the Apostles aright, I'll go for the Church which canonised the book. On the Protestant arguments against it, no one heard of them before the sixteenth century, so I'm not likely to prefer the late traditions of men and their flawed logic to the the traditions passed on from the Apostles.

Hi Anglian,

I believe in the perspicuity of scriptures. I have seen some of the interpretations of RCs and Orthodox Christians and it is very obvious to me that what they do has nothing to do with interpretation; it's more a re-writing of scriptural passages. You say no one before the 16th century has heard of Protestant interpretations but here is where I disagree with you. You should say rather the church officials AFTER 400AD did not accept Protestant interpretation. I believe the writers of the NT would have interpreted their own writing the way Protestants interpret them because we don't add to the meaning the way I've seen RCs and Orthodox do. Honestly Anglian, before I came into CF, I would never have believed that anyone would have interpreted some of the passages the way the RCs and Orthodox interpret them. I say this in all honesty and with all sincerity. You can tell me that it's been officially interpreted this way since 400AD and I'll still not accept it because it does so much violence to the passages.

As we know, poor old Luther even thought for a while that he could make a better choice of what books should be in the Bible; at least he learnt enough humility to draw back from that.

You are incorrect. He may have said certain things about some epistles but he never once removed books from the Bible. But even if he did, can you understand that Protestants are only bound by the Word of God and not the strength or weakness of any men? Not even Luther. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

My Church has been worshipping as it does since the time of St. Athanasius, he whose Festal Letter contains the first listing all the NT books as we know have them. Nor can anyone say when our liturgy of St. James was not practised, even as it has been from the beginning. Indeed, my Syriac friends, as I experienced this afternoon, still worship in the original Aramaic - as they have done since the days when Christ walked this earth. Our Liturgy expresses our theology, the saints and martyrs our witness to the Faith, and the Risen Christ at the Eucharist our joy. I would not swap that joy for anything.

I will say this again and you can read it in my book. Even if Athanasius had not been born, we would still have our Bible today. Again you bark up the wrong tree when you talk about Liturgy and in Aramaic too, as if it meant anything to us. It would not bother me in the least if your priests wore the very robes of Jesus except that I would be wondering why they haven't disintegrated after so long. To me, it's not the language or the liturgy but does the church practise and believe in the teachings of the NT? If it is, I'm happy to worship in it even if it's a tiny little church built on the top of Mount Kilimanjaro. But if it does not or if I find that it teaches something above the gospel preached by Paul, I wouldn't worship in it even if it's built with the nails used in Jesus' crucifixion. You obviously don't understand where I stand if you keep talking about the antiquity of your liturgy or the language used in the service.

Just wait for my book!!! I'll make all things clear. Hehe.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, at the time, the book of Revelation was a pretty "controversial" book, correct?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/martinluther.html

.............When Martin Luther first translated and published the New Testament, he thought that Revelation should not have the same status or authority as the gospels or the letters of Paul or Peter. And so he put it at the end, but he didn't number it. He didn't put a "saint" in front of [John's] name. He thought it was an edifying book, but not of the same status. But what's interesting, even though he felt that way, it's the one book that he illustrated, where he put woodcuts, because Revelation allowed him to make one of his central points, which was that the papacy was the Antichrist, and the end of the world was coming. And so there you see the only woodcuts in the New Testament. You see the harlot of Babylon wearing a papal crown. You see the seven-headed beast wearing a papal crown. The message was clear. You didn't have to read (as most people didn't). You got the message. The papacy, the papal office--not the individual popes but the papal Church--was where Satan was working to undermine Christendom. And the fact that Satan was there meant the world was coming to an end soon. ...

Was Luther conflicted about Revelation? Was he uncomfortable with the book?
When Luther began, he was uncomfortable with the Book of Revelation. But as the Reformation went on and more and more opponents sprang up, he had difficulty, he became more and more interested in Revelation. And later in his life, he took it with the utmost seriousness, and even tried to figure out all the symbolism in it, to determine when the end of the world was going to come. ...

How much did Luther think he was living in the end times? Luther thought he was living in the end times. And that belief, that conviction, was central to almost all that he did. Because his understanding of scripture and the way he preached from the pulpit and what he wrote was colored by the notion that the biblical story was also his story, and that what was happening to him could be used to understand the story in the Bible, but what was happening in the Bible could be used to explain what was going on in his own day. And Revelation was the key to this. It was the symbolic story that tells you how the whole thing is going to end. ...

Revelation was controversial in the early church as well. After the NT was canonized it was never challenged until Martin Luther. So that is about 1200 years?

 

[beamishboy]

Martin Luther was well known for flip flopping. So there is a good chance he did recant.

You mean he's like your current Pope? But a bit of flip flopping would make your current Pope a better person. According to the Guardian newspaper, he's too resolute in obstructing sex abuse inquiry. Please read this link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

Would he be jailed under US law?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You are incorrect. He may have said certain things about some epistles but he never once removed books from the Bible. But even if he did, can you understand that Protestants are only bound by the Word of God and not the strength or weakness of any men? Not even Luther. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

This is interesting...

You first say "he never once removed books" which is a solid declaration of fact according to you. Then you go on to say "even if he did (remove books)" as though you acknowledge that he could have removed books. This in itself will diminish any credibility you try to gain. I point this out to you so you can work on your debating skills and for something to consider in this book you are bragging about writing.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The papacy, the papal office--not the individual popes but the papal Church--was where Satan was working to undermine Christendom. And the fact that Satan was there meant the world was coming to an end soon. ...

Revelation was controversial in the early church as well. After the NT was canonized it was never challenged until Martin Luther. So that is about 1200 years?

So ya think he misinterpreted Revelation 2

Reve 2:9 I have seen of thee [*the works and] the tribulation and the poverty,[*but] rich [*yet] are. And the blasphemy [*out-of] of the ones saying Judeans to be selves, and not they-are, but a synagogue of the Satan.
13 I have seen [*the works of thee and] where thou are dwelling, the-where the throne of the Satan and thou are holding the name of Me, and not disown the faith of Me even in the days [*in which] Antipas, the witness of Me, the faithful, who was killed beside ye where the Satan is dwelling.

 

[beamishboy]

This is interesting...

You first say "he never once removed books" which is a solid declaration of fact according to you. Then you go on to say "even if he did (remove books)" as though you acknowledge that he could have removed books. This in itself will diminish any credibility you try to gain. I point this out to you so you can work on your debating skills and for something to consider in this book you are bragging about writing.

I'm surprised you don't understand this sort of argument. It's commonly used in law courts to emphasize a point. Luther didn't remove the books of the Bible. But even if he did, even if all Protestant leaders did, even if the Archbishop of Canterbury and all Protestant bishops did, it wouldn't make a difference. Do you get it now? It may be difficult for RCs to understand but we don't believe in one mortal leader to follow.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm surprised you don't understand this sort of argument. It's commonly used in law courts to emphasize a point. Luther didn't remove the books of the Bible. But even if he did, even if all Protestant leaders did, even if the Archbishop of Canterbury and all Protestant bishops did, it wouldn't make a difference. Do you get it now? It may be difficult for RCs to understand but we don't believe in one mortal leader to follow.

I prefer an "immortal" one myself

Reve 14:4 These are who with women not were polluted, for virgins they are, these [*are] the ones following to the lamb-kin the where ever it may be leading. These are purchased from the men, firstfruit to the God and to the lamb-kin.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7245442
The "lambkin" in Revelation and John 21 question

 

[beamishboy]

I prefer an "immortal" one myself

I can see you're not RC.

 

[beamishboy]

I've been asked to post the article from the Guardian newspaper because some people can't open it up. Here is the article. It's very disturbing because a friend of mine who was molested by an RC priest killed himself. It was within the time the current Pope ordered all such cases involving minors to be secret. My friend who was only 10 later killed himself.

Here's the article:

Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret

• amie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
• The Observer,
• Sunday April 24 2005
• Article history

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.
It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.
The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.
It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.
The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.
It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.
'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.
The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.
Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'
Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.
The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.
'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.
Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,' Shea added.
A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. 'This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,' she said.

 

[squint]

How on earth can you speak to what others see in their own hearts?

Luke 6:45
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Paul must have brought a lot of condemnation on himself then. Or else, he understood the difference between an individual passing judgment on another, and official church discipline. Please stop trying to ignore the fact that the NT does indeed call for church discipline which is not seen to be in violation of the law of love of the Gospel.

I'm going to cut to the chase on PAUL. Read him if you want to find understanding of this matter in these scripture sets. Then TELL ME what YOU see:

Romans 7:17-21 (the sin that indwelt Paul was NOT HIM. Paul had EVIL PRESENT with him when he wanted to DO GOOD.)

Romans 9:19-21 (EVERY lump of ME contains TWO VESSELS. One unto HONOR. One unto DIShonor and WRATH.)

Romans 11: 26-32 (ALL of Israel SHALL BE SAVED, even those who were MADE (past tense) ENEMIES of the Gospel!)

2 Cor. 12:7 (God put a SPECIAL MESSENGER OF SATAN upon Paul)

Galatians 1:9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (anathema)
1 Timothy 1:20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!
Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
2 Corinthians 2:5-6 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent--not to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him.
Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him
Anathema is LET HIM BE (A)CCURSED.

Paul was not as OPENLY IGNORANT as the RCC. The RCC does not SEE sin as something other than MANKIND that has ENTERED mankind. NO! They BLAME AND ACCUSE only MANKIND. They do so under the GUISE of 'freewill.' But accusation is what it IS and their open accusations are upon their OWN MEMBERS, teaching them that THEY and THEY ALONE are the SOLE SINNERS. The SELL absolution in the streets and CONDEMNATION to those who do not submit to the RCC WILL.


Paul clearly identified that SOME PEOPLE will REMAIN in this present life BLINDED AND DECEIVED and that in many cases THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. There is NOTHING any man can do about it. That is what SOME PEOPLE are slated for in this present life. We PRAY however for ALL MEN and we call NO MAN EVIL, understanding what it is THAT IS UPON THEM. That would be INDWELLING SIN, which same is of the DEVIL. The EVIL WICKED one is IN CONTROL of many many bodies and minds. And we ourselves are NOT EXEMPT from that working. Your RCC does not and CAN NOT teach this FACT. If they did they would OFFEND every single member in their PEWS. No. They too are falsely led to teach that YOU and YOU ALONE are 'responsible' for SINS and they do NOT bring the DEVIL to the table on these matters. They pin the WORKS OF THE DEVIL upon YOUR HEART and YOUR MIND and they sell you ABSOLUTION for the WORKS OF THE DEVIL.

This is THE MESSAGE that is spread by the RCC.

Quite in line with Paul, don’t you think? Does it disturb you that the Council of Nicaea pronounced ‘anathema’ those who denied the divinity of Christ?

When PAUL delivered the CURSE he did so upon that EVIL WORKING in the flesh of those MEN, and did so in RIGHT understanding. The fact that Jesus Is The Saviour of ALL MEN and of the WORLD there is no doubting. We do not CURSE those whom Jesus IS The Saviour OF. This ought NOT TO BE SO. The RCC will NEVER curse DEVILS in men. They will just BLAME AND ACCUSE mankind and mankind alone. Even though they themselves KNOW that DEVILS are IN MEN.

I would simply ask WHY is it they do not CURSE the devils and leave our fellow man alone?

Titus 3:2
To speak evil of no man

Acts 10:28
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

However, if you’re referring to particular anathemas in relationship with doctrinal canons of church councils being applied to you, you need to catch up on your history. About 25 years ago the canonical penalty of anathema was abolished by the Code of Canon Law.

LOL. The RCC has NOT removed THEIR CURSE from those who do not BOW to their determinations. These are OPENLY rejected from their association to this moment.

It would be helpful if you would stick to the topic at hand and not try to divert off into other theological areas where we differ. It is obvious to you that you do not believe you have been denied anything. I do not condemn you, and no insistence on your part that I or the church have will make it so. I might wonder why it’s so important to you to believe it is so?

Obiously you did not follow the previous post links with one of your fellow members. Most RCC members DON'T KNOW what their own church teaches.

The only reason you can be excommunicated in the first place is because you are indeed my brother in the body of Christ. A Muslim can’t be excommunicated – they are not a member of the body of Christ. Again, you deny everything the Catholic church teaches about this.

Again, there is no communion with those who are in open knowing disagreement with MANY official RCC positions. Such are NOT in communion of ANY SORT by RCC measures. And all of you 'members' are sorely deceived, perhaps even willfully deceptive about THE FACTS when you hold out imperfect communion. It's NOT available to YOU.

That is your choice. It is also your choice if you do not wish to view me as your sister. But I and my church view you as my brother. That is a fact you cannot change, even though it’s apparently quite important to you to try.

I have NO imposition upon ANY RCC member. They are MY FELLOW MANkind whom God has COMMANDED ME TO LOVE without equivocation. This is the measure that GOD HAS COMMANDED and PUT into my HEART by His Word and His Spirit.

This measure however will remain NOT AVAILABLE to you and for that YOU have MY PITY. You CANNOT SHARE what God has granted me IN CHRIST and that is HIS LOVE FOR ALL of my fellow man. Your members CANNOT LOVE those with whom they are NOT in communion with. It's NOT possible nor is it available TO YOU. That door is CLOSED and the GATE TO HEAVEN has been LOCKED by those men. I say that the GATE LOCKER is not them, and do not hold that working to their CHARGE.

I cannot speak for individuals, but I can quite correctly make the statement that if individuals do condemn others, they are outside the boundaries of the Catholic church.

And that is baloney. The RCC has openly declared MOST of MANKIND to have NO SALVATION for them outside of their GROUP. Only those who are IGNORANT have the hand of imperfect communion put forth and it is put in the hopes of securing more MEMBERS unto themselves. They know that there is no cause to try to convert those in open knowing disagreement unless ones tongue is painted with the abundance of their DOCTRINES which I consider IRRELEVANT to the VERY REAL LOVE of GOD in heart.

And do you have something in particular you’re referring to about the Pope, because everything I’ve seen that he has written is completely in line with what I’ve been saying.

Look, I have nothing against any of mankind, Pope included. He is my fellow man and I LOVE him as Christ LOVED me. That does not mean however that the Pope can DO THAT in return because he CANNOT. The Pope MUST STAND on his mountain of DOCTRINES some of which I will WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with and much that I cannot. This does not allow me cause to BLOCK THE GATES OF HEAVEN unto him or ANY PERSON. But he does ASSUREDLY BLOCK and that is a severe problem scripturally speaking. When a man or a group insists on SIFTING people through their personally imposed FILTERS to GET INTO HEAVEN is just gonna be A PROBLEM.

I do not blame that working upon THEM. It's just the trap that ALL believers sooner or later become 'subjected to.' God has purposefully SET THAT TRAP.

Churches of the flesh and men of the flesh will NEVER UNITE. And I thank God for that working because it SHOWS the POWER and AUTHORITY of the Word over ALL MANKIND. This is the 'reality' of our DIVIDED churches. This reality is what GOD HAS WROUGHT.

And again, what is with the making statements about what MOST people do and do not do in their own hearts?

I merely repeated your OWN stated incredulity over ALL MANKIND being offered PURGATORY. Your own heart CANNOT go there even though YOUR CHURCH allows it.

I have no clue about any “X” amount. I will simply state that the Catholic church does not teach universal salvation, although it does teach that God desires all to be saved.

And I can't believe how ignorant many of you RCC adherents are quite frankly. Sorry to have to say that.

"In 2005 Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, reiterated that Universal Salvation was entirely compatible with Catholic teaching and expressed his personal hope for universal salvation."

My statement about being able to command ALL to Purgatory is a reflection of my constant puzzlement that you seem to view Purgatory as some sort of ‘third’ option or state for eternity.

The RCC does not teach that purgatory is PERMANENT. It DOES teach that is IS possibly AVAILABLE for all of mankind OR Cardinal O'Connor would not be HOPING of same.

Or a place that may route you to either heaven or hell.

And again, you are stating ignorance. The RCC does not teach that those in purgatory wind up IN HELL. The RCC in my understanding has NEVER committed ANY person to HELL and if they DID they are in direct conflict with their own doctrines that state THEY CANNOT DO SO.

I am beginning to believe that your interest does not lie is a legitimate conversation about actual doctrine. But, just in case, nobody who goes to Purgatory EVER ENDS UP IN HELL.

Thank you for arriving at a proper conclusion for your own doctrine. And you may sometime come to the ALSO PROPER conclusion that THE RCC does hold out PURGATORY as an OPTION prior to arrival IN HEAVEN for ALL MANKIND. However MANY of you adherents cannot go there because your own hearts will NOT ALLOW THAT as previously noted and even cited BY YOU. In that GOD has worked A REFLECTION in YOU. I hope you SEE it better.

enjoy!

squint

 

[beamishboy]

I keep asking myself whether my friend would still be alive if the current Pope hadn't sent that letter he sent to all bishops in 2001. By the time the incident happened, the 2001 letter still had force. My friend was told by the church that he had lied. They wanted him to confess that he made up the story just to falsely accuse the priest.

He and I used to cycle our bicycles when he visited me in my country. He's not English. He's from a strongly RC country. His Mum got to know my Mum when they were in university and they became friends. His mum and he used to stay in our country house in the holidays.

The day he died was the day when his family was told that the accused priest (the church said "falsely accused priest") had been moved to another country. The boy was advised to repent for his sin of bearing false witness. He must have cooked up the story even though he was only 10 and I know him well to know that he was innocent. That day, he took his bicycle out and rode into some bus or large vehicle. He died on the spot.

I lost my faith in God after his death. For 6 months I became an atheist.

This article in the Guardian was brought to my attention not long ago. I can't help thinking if the current Pope was sincere when he talked about child abuse in the church. This letter might show his real position. It's all very sad for me and this article opens up wounds deep within me.

It is one thing for you guys to make fun of other people's churches and sometimes to insult them. For me, the evils of the RC church are real and my anger for it is perfectly justifiable - quite apart from its faulty theology and practices.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I can see you're not RC.

Just a simple Christian I suppose.

Luke 4:14 And the Jesus in the power of the spirit returns to the Galilee. And news came out according whole of the country about Him. 15 He taught in the synagogues of them being glorified by all. 16 And he came into Nazareth where he having been nurtured, and He entered, according to having been customed to Him in the day of the Sabbaths, into the Synagogue/sunagwghn <4864> and stood to read. 17 And was given to Him a scrollet of Isaiah the prophet and unfurling the scrollet He found the place where it was having been written.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I can see you're not RC.

You know what was the first sin some would say?

Pride. Think about it...

 

[bbbbbbb]

You know what was the first sin some would say?

Pride. Think about it...

Indeed. I never cease to be amazed by the pride Catholics take in their Church.

 

[squint]

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.
It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

Those lawyers are ignorant. The RCC has it's own legal system and the RCC can operate that system however it sees fit. This does not however allow them to HIDE evidence under their own legal rugs, and this is what the attornies may be claiming.

The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.
It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

They CAN make such claim within their own system BUT they cannot USE that claim ABOVE civil jurisdiction(s.)

The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.
It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.
'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

This does not allow the RCC to with hold ANY information from civil jurisdiction.

The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.
Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'
Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.
The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.
'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.

It would be civilly LEGAL for them to NOT inform civil authorities IF they had no confirmed evidence. Their methods of their determinations are solely by their own measures, HOWEVER tangible evidence and with holding same FROM civil jurisdiction would be a direct violation of civil law.

Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,' Shea added.
A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. 'This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,' she said.

I think you would find the RCC very astute in how they deal with these matters in conjunction with civil law. This is not a new thing to them. I'd be very surprised if they were EVER proven to be in violation of civil law. Their system is much more astute than that. Vatican attornies are probably some of the smartest people on the planet in their fields.

enjoy!

squint

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Indeed. I never cease to be amazed by the pride Catholics take in their Church.

You are mistaking pride with love for God. It is LOVE that you see. You would understand if you were Catholic.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are mistaking pride with love for God. It is LOVE that you see. You would understand if you were Catholic.

Sadly, I do understand misplaced love. Human pride is the love of self. Pride in anything other than God is misplaced love. No Church is God. What did the apostle Paul write? Read I Corinthians 1:26-31 for the answer.