Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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
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.
- amie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
- The Observer,
- Sunday April 24 2005
- Article history
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.
The Word of Yahuweh can't be any plainer than this.
The Savior for whom the Rock was named, asked His disciples the most important question ever posed: "Who do you say (lego - affirm and maintain, advise and teach) I Am (eimi - I exist and am present as)?" To which, a disciple named for the astuteness of his revelation, responded: "Simon (a transliteration of the Hebrew name Shimown, meaning to listen, understand, discern, regard, and proclaim) Petros (a masculine proper name meaning pebble or stone) gave the answer, The Messiah, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:15-16)
Affirming this live-saving truth, "Yahushua said (lego), Blessed (makarios - a poetic term denoting transcendent happiness in a life beyond labor and death) are you Shimown (the one who listens, understands, discerns, regards, and proclaims), son of (bar) Yonah (from yownah, meaning the dove; the name of a Yahudi sent to Nineveh, Assyria whose life and book serve as a prophetic metaphor for Yahushua saving Gentiles), because flesh and blood did not make this manifest (apokalupto - disclose by baring), but My Father who is in Heaven." (Matthew 16:17) As is usually true with Scripture, every name and nuance was carefully chosen, revealing subtle and profound truths.
What follows is important. Petros/Peter isnt the petra/bedrock. The recognition that "Yahushua is the Messiah, the Son of the living God," is the foundation upon which the ekklesia/called-out assembly would be restored and established. Beyond the evidence sprinkled throughout the Tanach, identifying the Rock with Yahshua, "Petros" was a man and every reference to "petra/bedrock" is feminine.
"Indeed (de), I (kago) say (logos) concerning this (hoti - as a marker of equivalence for identifying and explaining this) to you (soi), you (su) are (ei) Petros (a masculine proper noun meaning pebble or stone), and (kai) upon/by/in/with (epi - "upon" when used with things that are at rest, "by" when used in relationship to people, "with" when used in connection with authority, and "in" used in reference to an observation) this one (taute - singular feminine demonstrative pronoun) Rock (petra - bedrock, a feminine noun; a large stone which projects itself) I shall build by edifying, promoting, and restoring (oikodomeo - rebuild and establish, strengthen and enable, instruct and improve) My (mou) called out gathering (ekklesia)." (Matthew 16:18)
English translations all leave "hoti/concerning this" out of their renderings of Yahshuas answer. Had it been included, no rational person would have thought that Petros, rather than his answer, was the foundation of the ekklesia. The source of edification and restoration is the Savior, not his flawed and imperfect disciple.
Believing Peter is the Rock is irrational and delusional. The evidence of Yahuweh's Word is irrevocable/irrefutable and supercedes, trumps, pre-empts, negates, refutes, and proves to be a lie all that oppose/contradict it, whether said opposition is human or church dogma.
Just as Saul persecuted David in the OT. See any resemblance?Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?
Jesus disagrees with you.
Peace
Wow, wow, wow, the beamishboy is most impressed with archierieus' knowledge, incisive debating skills and passion for truth. Further, your patience is most admirable and is exemplary to us all. Glory to God!
Protestants know the Gospel. The affirmation is not aimed at those that either know the Gospel or The Church.
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.
Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?
Jesus disagrees with you.
Peace
No, it says that the referenced affirmation is not aimed at those who DO NOT KNOW the gospel or the Church. Those who DO know the gospel and/or the Church are INCLUDED in the affirmation. Look at the paragraph in the catechism immediately preceding the one you cited. Secondly, you have assigned a particular interpretation to "or." "And" is also used in the same paragraph. "Or" can have more than one application. For the legislative intent here, we do need an authoritative source, bearing the appropriate imprimatur. Can you cite to one in reference to the intended meaning of "or" here?
But more on this later. I must head out the door at the moment.
Cheers.
No, it says that the referenced affirmation is not aimed at those who DO NOT KNOW the gospel or the Church. Those who DO know the gospel and/or the Church are INCLUDED in the affirmation. Look at the paragraph in the catechism immediately preceding the one you cited. Secondly, you have assigned a particular interpretation to "or." "And" is also used in the same paragraph. "Or" can have more than one application. For the legislative intent here, we do need an authoritative source, bearing the appropriate imprimatur. Can you cite to one in reference to the intended meaning of "or" here?
But more on this later. I must head out the door at the moment.
Cheers.
As Revelation is indeed showing
Reve 12:17 And is wrought the dragon upon the woman and came away to do battle with the remnant of the seed of her, the ones keeping the commandments of the God and having the testimony of Jesus [*Christ].
Reve 14:12 Here [*the] endurance of the Saints is, the ones keeping the commands of the God and the faith of Jesus.
Greetings. Can you show how it looks in the original Latin or Greek [preferably Greek LOL]? Thanks.The third Bishop of Antioch and disciple of Peter wrote this:
Ignatius of Antioch
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
Greetings. Can you show how it looks in the original Latin or Greek [preferably Greek LOL]? Thanks.
So it can either be a capital c or little c.Her is the English:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
I will look for my other source which I believe has Greek.
So it can either be a capital c or little c.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."
which is declared where in Holy Scripture?Hi Anglian,
I believe in the perspicuity of scriptures.
I know this is your opinion, but no one held your opinion (a few heretics apart) until the sixteenth century. You are most welcome to follow the teaching of men. Luther did suggest removing James and 2 and 3 John from the Bible; you should know that for your book. He did not do so; some humility remained to that prideful man. He, at least, also believed in venerating the Virgin; but the Protestant degringolade had only just begun to gather pace then.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're going to have to help me out here. Who were these Protestants in the fifth century? The only people I come across contesting the word of the Church were Arians. Neither before 400 nor after, did the Church accept what some in the West came to accept after the sixteenth century. Too late for me.You should say rather the church officials AFTER 400AD did not accept Protestant interpretation.
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.
If your book is to work, you will need to understand that for the Orthodox the language and liturgy are the practice and belief of the Church. I know this is hard to grasp if you belong to a Church which changes its language of liturgy every few years or so, and gets through communion in 45 minutes; but it is so. If you every have the chance to go to an Orthodox Liturgy you will see that it it faithfully follows the teachings and the life of Christ, and its doxologies express our thanks for what He has done for us. That book on Liturgy recommended by OrthodoxyUSA would explain that to you.To me, it's not the language or the liturgy but does the church practise and believe in the teachings of the NT?
We will remain faithful to that which has been passed down to us from Christ and His Apostles. I can understand that those who have not such an heritage will not understand what it means. Those who do are eager to share it with all the world.You obviously don't understand where I stand if you keep talking about the antiquity of your liturgy or the language
When these things are clear to you, you will find they are not as clear as you think.Just wait for my book!!! I'll make all things clear. Hehe.
You are mistaking pride with love for God. It is LOVE that you see. You would understand if you were Catholic.
You are mistaking pride with love for God. It is LOVE that you see. You would understand if you were Catholic.
Neither do you have proof it is reliable. You have only an opinion.
[/size]
Again, that is your opinion. The Holy Spirit guides the Apostles to remember the teachings of Jesus and to write the NT. And that's all.
Again, that is your interpretation. I've covered that verse about a thousand times and I've written about it in my blog.
Actually, according to the continuous [unfettered] teachings since the beginning - including in scriptures - is that Tradition is very important.You are assuming that the Oral Tradition is protected by the Holy Spirit. If in fact the Oral Tradition is a departure from apostolic teaching, there's no way it would be protected by the Holy Spirit. Paul's epistles have shown us that heresies were around even in his time. The heretics then would probably say that their teachings were protected by the Holy Spirit as well. How then are we to know who's right and who's wrong? Simple! Just look into the NT and see if the teachings are taken from the NT. Teachings that are not contained in the NT are a departure.
I am curious where you reached this platform.I can also go on and on about the extreme differences but that's not important to me. I want to say this. I don't want to spend too much time on CF. I've spent almost all my waking hours here and I must put a stop to it. I just want to say this:
I've read a huge debate on the Oral Traditions and I'll tell you why the similarities between the Orthodox and the RCs don't affect me one bit. Both of you are bound to have similarities because you both accept quite a lot of the same Traditions. Let's focus on these traditions.
In the first place, from my reading of that huge debate, I find that RCs do not have evidence AT ALL that the Oral Traditions came from the Apostles. In fact the evidence is that they do not.
Ok, this was already answered above, and when my 'ecf encyclopedia' site isnt down anymore, i will bring you ecf writings prior to 200 ad if you need.Nobody and I mean absolute NOBODY can show that the Traditions started earlier than 200 AD. I'm already being excessively generous. Most of the traditions arose much much later than 200AD.
How do you figure that?If the Oral Traditions came directly from the Apostles, it must mean that at any one point in time, a bishop before 200AD would be able to cough up all the "traditions" into one document because these are after all supposedly oral whisperings from the apostles into some bishop's ear. But nobody could do that.
Not quite the reality of the what is done, BB.So what terminology should the church invent? The RCs call it "development" of doctrines. Oh, these Oral Traditions came from the Apostles but they needed time to develop. And when they are promulgated, even as late as the 19th or even 20th century, they are believed to have come from the Apostles and have been believed all along. They've only been put into words now.
Again BB, the Traditions can be prooven with scriptures.The uniformity of SOME of the traditions between the Orthodox and the RCs is no testimony that these traditions are true or apostolic. NONE of the traditions can be shown to be from the Apostles. I'm of course talking about traditions that cannot be supported by scriptures or that do not come from scriptures. NONE can be shown to be around before 200 AD. I mean NOT ONE. In fact the majority of the Traditions grew up way way way after 200AD.
Ok, I am sure you can correct me if i am wrong - but you are really telling me that all the protestant sites you have ever read have shown that Catholics are unable to do this...In all the debates that I have read including something I believe in a major journal, no RC theologian is able to show even a shred of tradition that came about before 200AD. The more un-Protestant the tradition, the later is its origin. That's why I hope to write a book on this.
So you would agree that you are borrowing the canon decided [via Tradition] by the Church..?Of course there are a lot of heretical and apocryphal books that are not accepted as canon by the church. Some of these books are of very late authorship and they all pretend to be written by some apostle. The early church rejected them all and that's why they don't appear in our Bible. Some are of such late authorship that they didn't even feature in the early church but in 600AD, all of a sudden, someone "found" a book written by one of the major apostles but in 600AD language. All these must be rejected in argument.
Again, get the facts absolutely straight before you venture out into that field.The beamishboy really must stop going online for a while. You guys who disagree with me can write a review of my book when it's published. Hehe. Till then, cheerio!!!
Hi Anglian, I have evidence to show that I'm right about the dating of Oral Traditions. No, Protestants do not prefer traditions dating from AD 1500. We don't accept Traditions at all if they are not consistent with the NT and they purport to found doctrines.
[/color]
[/font]
My book will also show how abused the words of the ECFs are. How they have been taken out of context, wrongly read, etc etc. Even if I grant you that Irenaeus asked that in the correct context, the pertinent question I would ask is "what right has one to preach the gospel if he does not practise apostolic teachings or if he accepts non-apostolic doctrines?"
As I have already explained to you many times, the Bible is not born out of Tradition. You seem not to understand that your above arguments have been torn down many times by Protestant theologians and apologists and counter-arguments have long been preserved in our Protestantism 101 Manual but since you seem not to understand the Protestant stand despite my having posted valid arguments against them many times, I will include a section of this in my book. I have also explained to you that the word "church" has been given a wrong meaning from what the NT meaning really is. That is one thing I really have to address in my book. What I call the "hijacking of biblical terminology" - the constant use of biblical words giving them a different meaning and then turning to the Bible and saying "There you are, the same word is used and so the Bible must mean what our church has declared since 400 AD!"
The beamishboy has not flouted the rules of courtesy any more than most of the other people who post on the forum. But psychologists tell us that we tend to see more courtesy in people who agree with us and less in people who don't. We humans are alas so bound by our prejudices.
It is indeed a pleasure to discuss with you even though it is unlikely that we shall agree on many things. It is the hope of the beamishboy that when the book is finally published, you will read it and consider its implications very seriously.
Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen.
Dear Beamishboy,
which is declared where in Holy Scripture?
I know this is your opinion, but no one held your opinion (a few heretics apart) until the sixteenth century.
You're going to have to help me out here. Who were these Protestants in the fifth century?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?