My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (CWNews.com)

The Curt Jester

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« New Concerns: A Closer Look At Fred Thompson's Abortion Stance | Main | Dissident Theologian, Richard McBrien Has A Feature Column In Cardinal Mahony's Newspaper, "The Tidings" »

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Comments

John

James is right in most of what he says

My cousin's son just received communion and I joked that it would be great, as he showed deep reverence at the church, if he became an altar boy and then priest

He said "forget it", never! I would never trust him alone with that priest or any priest for that matter!

So the allowed abuse the JPII allowed on his watch, the cover up for Cardinal Law and giving him a cushy job as well as what B16 has done with Levada is effecting the farm system so to speak and voiding the church of future priests. I read somewhere that much of this is by design, that Vatican II and JPII (he signed into law the allowance of married priests) and deacons were non existent before V2 where now there are like 16,000 in the US and one just married my other cousin, that this is all part of turning over the role of the priest to the clergy and eventually female ordination to be not much different than the protestants

If one went back in time 40 years, if someone had told you that in 40 years you would see:

New Mass, new code of canon law, new catechism, bible retranslated over and over, new customs, pedophilia, immodest dress and respect in church, annulments given out like candy, ecumenism, all faiths equal, etc-One would have thought you would be crazy!

I only fear what our children are going to see in another 40 years from now when we are all pushing up daisies

bill bannon

Dan
Check with your priest on that concept of the Pope being the voice of Christ on earth. That would make everything he says infallible or at least reasonable and Catholic dogma does not hold that and can't hold that because Pope Nicholas V for example in 1455 gave Portugal the right to enslave the enemies of Christ in perpetuity and thus he aided greatly the whole imperialism period...see Romanus Pontifex on line...a fragment follows: " We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery".

Outside the boundaries of infallibility, Popes can say weird things. Lumen Gentium 20 of Vatican II also sounded as though whoever hears the Bishops, hears Christ. It is written as though it were absolute and not conditional. But it is conditional or some of the very Bishops that you don't like due to their liberalism would be the very voice of Christ.... which is absurd.
In scripture and in documents, ask yourself if a given passage should be conditional or absolute. When Christ said, "Woe to you who are filled now for you will hunger"...He was not arguing against feeling full at any moment in your life but feeling full after meals for your whole entire life without ever fasting or sharing with the poor. I'm sure He was filled at many a celebration like the wedding at Cana and so were the apostles since Christ said of them..."how can the wedding guests fast while the groom is present" Mar.2:19.
Some passages are conditional though they look absolute.

Dan Hunter

Bill,
Where Peter is there is the Church,
Ya got a better idea.
Maybe Pope Bill can run the Church.

James


You know John. There's a deeply reverent teenager in my son's Boy Scout troop. For many years, he thought he was called to the priesthood. He's a strong, manly kid, who could beat you to a pulp if he had to. He gets the respect of the other boys and is a natural leader. He loves the Bible, and Christ and God, and seeks to live a holy life (despite all the temptations not to).

He's cheerful and obedient and thoughtful and knowledgeable, and tough.

Three years ago - he went to the bishop to ask about becoming a priest. It was right when all sorts of homomolestatory stuff was coming out - everywhere, around here. Every school, every parish.

This kid and his parents were so shocked and dismayed. The kid told me: "Neither I nor my parents want me to be in the seminary with tons of homosexuals. It's not right. Sick stuff is going on all over. I've changed my mind. There's something wrong with the Church."

Now he's got a girlfriend, and is studying to be a lawyer.

James

James


I'm not afraid to fight you, Dan, but it would not change a blessed thing. There would be no point to it, and both of us would probably inflict some damage. In fact, you would probably win, being a former Seal, but even if you did, I promise you, it would not change my thoughts one iota.

I'm angry about what's been offered to my children by the Church. You don't like that? Tough.

I am not mocking the Pope. I am saying that he has a responsibility to expunge the evil from this Church - and that I expect him to do his responsibility and will not excuse him from it.

James

bill bannon

Dan
I'll take that as avoidance of brainwork or thinking which is a good approach if your idea of Church plans only on converting non literates forever. But at some point, we will run out of them and actually have to convert India and Japan where IQ's are not satisfied with brevity disguised as loyalty.

Dan Hunter

I see Bill has made himself his own Pontiff.
Maybe Pope Bill has his own version of the Beatitudes.Maybe he has a counter proposal to,"Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven".
Pope Bill has a warped idea that his jibberish amounts to a manifesto on the elect.Pope Bills version of predestination isapplicable to those of an Oriental persuasion,and therefore Pope Bill is negating the Cross and its consequence.
Pope Bill,being the heir to Peters chair,see's Pope Benedict as an imposter to what rightfully belongs to Pope Bill,because after all Pope Benedict is of nursery school intellect and needs phonics lessons.
Why didn't the divinely inspired College of Cardinals install Pope Bill as the Supreme Pontiff in 2005 as opposed to preschool Joey Ratzingy?

bill bannon

Dan
You are doing what Ronald Reagan used to do. He used to pretend he was unintelligent and folksy when the questions or observations got too challenging. He would then lapse into ranch wisdom from his grandma long ago.
But on other occasions when he knew the answers, suddenly he would whip out stats and quotes.
You are in ranch mode and you are not stupid despite doing impressions of same.

Dan Hunter

Bill,
What does any of what you said have to do with the price of tea in China.
Ronald Reagan...?

Dan Hunter

James,
Still Waiting.

James

Well now, Dan. I beat up a guy once who wouldn't stop pestering a 13-yr. old girl who definitely did not want his advances...

And I beat up two guys in Africa who were trying to steal the belongings of people on a truck I was riding in.

In each case, I chose a lesser evil when I had no choice about choosing one (and I didn't mind that one bit).

That ain't the case here.

You might beat me up (but I assure you, I'd do ya some damage...)

For what?

James

Thomistic

To: All
From: Thomistic

I have no problem with people disagreeing with one another, but I will not permit people to challenge others to physical fights over comments on this blog.

Dan was warned about this yesterday and chose to post another comment alluding to his challenge for a fight (which sounds unbelievably nutty, by the way, but that's beside the point – challenges to violent contests are not a way to defend the Catholic faith and they are not appropriate on a Catholic blog).

I am banning Dan from posting because of his choice to continue alluding to his challenge for a fight.

Additionally, I have banned Joseph-USA, and he knows it, but keeps posting by changing IP addresses. He has made comments about Pope Benedict XVI that more than suggested that the Holy Father is a homosexual, as well as made statements that appeared to support sedevacantism. Although sedevacantism is an erroneous view with respect to the Catholic Church at present and it's adherents are frequently holier than thou, more Roman than Rome nut-jobs, I might have tolerated such comments if they had not crossed the line into violating the 8th Commandment with respect to the Holy Father (and other bishops).

As I have said in the past: it is one thing to criticize the Holy Father's decisions, actions, or inaction (and the same holds true for any bishop, priest, religious, or lay person), but allegations injurious to reputation offered without solid proof of their veracity and without sufficient reason (and anger at the pope or anyone else for their perceived flaws is not a sufficient reason) is a violation of the 8th Commandment and will not be tolerated from anyone.

Criticism is fine. Criticism with evidential support is preferable. Character assassination is unacceptable and will result in being banned from posting at Roman Catholic Blog.

I would also like to say that I appreciate posts with a positive tone. Although I can be critical about the state of the Church, I don't want the blog to devolve into total negativity. That type of bitterness will turn people off.

Pax,

Thomistic

Gregory L. Castano

Thomistic,
I thought your intervention and comments were most appropriate.

Feelings and opinions, no matter how strong or deep, can and should be expressed in civil, respectful terms. And this should be doubly true for us as Catholics.

To be sure, the sexual abuse crisis in the Church, for example, is agonizing for many of us for the grave harm it has brought to many children and their families who may never recover, and the serious scandal it has caused for the true Church of Christ - - scandal, by the way, that may take years for the Church to fully recover.

As Catholics, we can either spend full time (as do many) calling Church leaders names of every description (the easy path to relieving our anger and frustration that usually adds nothing intellectual to the discourse) OR we can raise the level of discourse by, for example, suggesting how the Church should be handling the crisis from today forward. And the crisis, by the way is not limited to the sexual abuse which in and of itself is a grave matter but it also includes years of dissent (from Church teaching) that has been allowed to become institutionalized.

Regarding the crisis in the Church, I, for example, see a very serious problem that the US Bishops need to address and that is the "credibility factor"; i.e., "regaining the trust, confidence, and credibility of Catholics (and non-Catholics) which is at an all-time low. And for those who want to "clean house", granted, there are many bishops who should not be bishops (and possibly not even Catholics) but let's agree on that AND MOVE ON.

We have a U.S. Conference of Bishops who, as a group (and in some cases individually) lack credibility. Unless the credibility factor is addressed (and there are many ways to accomplish this), I believe that little headway will be made to improve the image of the Church here in America. Let's discuss that before we tackle the Church worldwide.

The point of all of the above is this: There is much to be discussed without name calling, challenges to fight, and undermining our Church and the Pope. If we rely on our intellects rather than on our emotions or feelings (which I admit comes in handy at times) then our discussions should become more challenging. Thomistic, I thought that you covered that quite well and thoroughly in your last post.

God bless,
Greg

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic