|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Priests: Fornication Over Marriage The following is a debate between Lou, Nicholas, and Andrew over priestly celibacy and the censures against those who break their promises. The fact that he denounces the priesthood anyway makes the argument he offers a sham.
Lou writes:
The following quote is taken from the Moral Theology of Ligori, Volume 8, page 444. "A bishop, however poor he may be, cannot appropriate to pecuniary fines, without license of the Apostolical See. But he ought to apply them to pious uses. Much less can he apply those fines to anything else but pious uses, which the Council of Trent has laid upon non-resident clergymen, or upon those clergymen who keep concubines." Check it out folks. Anyone that knows the RCC knows that for a catholic priest to marry means immediate excommunication from the roman catholic church. No if's and's or but's about it! But if he shacks up with a babe from time to time or keeps a concubine he ONLY gets fined!!!!!!! Whatta life, eh??? Don't they take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience??? Their poverty is most likely spiritual only, as for chastity - yeah, right! And obedience? To who? Certainly not to God! Their allegience is to the pope. And the pope doesn't give a rats fanny what his clergy do in their private lives, as long as they further the goals of the papal see. How dreadful! How is a smart guy like you Andrew, able to remain so loyal to an institution so disloyal to God? You are in my prayers. Peace! Andrew responds: You Bear False Witness Again-- Shame on YOU! Do you mean Saint Alphonsus LIGOURI? Certainly
he wrote books about morality and other areas, particularly about prayer.
He was born in 1696 and died in 1787, not exactly last Tuesday. He was
renown as a confessor and as a preacher. There is a new book published
just last year about his moral theology, but I am unfamiliar with the multi-volume
set you mention. It may
Turning to the matter at hand, you use the
text to belittle priestly celibacy, as well as the other sacred promises.
Then, you have the audacity to challenge me: "How is a smart guy like you
Andrew, able to remain so loyal to an institution so disloyal to God?"
Obviously, I do not believe the church is unfaithful to her Lord. Further,
the conclusions you draw from Liguori's
You wrong the good saint, the Catholic Church, me, and every priest faithful to God. The rash judgment that comes from your bigotry is demonstrated repeatedly in your failure to properly understand Catholic texts and to accept the fabrications of anti-Catholics, particularly from the era of the Know-Nothings, i.e. the lie that the Catholic Church masterminded Lincoln's assassination. Liguori is merely amplifying legislation from the Council of Trent. Your failure to research the matter thoroughly leaves you with egg on your face. The quotation you give cannot be used to mock the church's fidelity to the Gospel and the Christian moral life. Liguori is offering commentary on the 25th session of the Council of Trent (chapter 14): "The manner of proceeding against Clerics
who keep concubines is prescribed - How shameful a thing, and how unworthy
it is of the name of clerics who have devoted themselves to the service
of God, to live in the filth of impurity, and unclean bondage, the thing
itself doth testify, in the common scandal of all the faithful, and the
extreme disgrace entailed on the clerical order. To the end, therefore,
that the ministers of the Church may be recalled to that continency and
integrity of life which becomes them; and that the people may hence learn
to reverence them the more, that they know them to be more pure of life:
the holy Synod forbids all clerics whatsoever to dare to keep concubines,
or any other woman of whom any suspicion can exist, either in their own
houses, or elsewhere, or to presume to have any intercourse with them:
otherwise they shall be punished with the penalties imposed by the sacred
canons, or by the statutes of the (several) churches, But if, after being
admonished by their superiors, they shall not abstain from these women,
they shall be ipso facto DEPRIVED OF THE THIRD PART OF THE FRUITS,
Such a punishment was hardly a little fine. But, the matter does not end here. If he fails to repent and change his life, he will be further disciplined: "If, however, persisting in the same crime, with the same or some other woman, they shall not even yet have obeyed upon a second admonition, not only shall they thereupon forfeit all the fruits and proceeds of their benefices and pensions, which shall be applied to the places aforesaid, but they shall ALSO BE SUSPENDED FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BENEFICES THEMSELVES themselves, for as long a period as shall seem fit to the Ordinary, even as the delegate of the Apostolic See." In other words, such a bad priest would be stripped of his pastorship! He is unfit to be a shepherd of souls! You made no mention of this in your slur against the Church. And yet, there is even more to this matter: "And if, having been thus suspended, they
nevertheless shall not put away those women, or, even if they shall have
intercourse with them, THEN SHALL THEY BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR ECCLESIASTICAL
BENEFICES, PORTIONS, OFFICES, AND PENSIONS OF WHATSOEVER KIND, AND BE RENDERED
THENCEFORTH INCAPABLE AND UNWORTHY OF ANY MANNER OF HONOURS, DIGNITIES,
BENEFICES AND OFFICES until, after a manifest
Without repentance, the punishment in the Church was ultimately the SAME. You read the facts wrong. You came to the wrong conclusion, but it was the conclusion YOU WANTED TO FIND. The citation also refers to "non-resident clergy", but I will spare you those canons as you skipped the topic in your mockery. You probably did not understand what it was about anyway. The Catholic Church does care about how her priests conduct themselves. Your post was meant to incite a response and yet you ended with the word PEACE! Well, I ask peace for you as well, Christian peace, which is freedom from enmity and union with Christ. It is what I know as a Catholic. I hope you will discover some semblance of this peace as well. Lou writes: My Witness is True: Shame on You for Supporting Such a Sinful Institution Number One: The post was placed not to incite an argumentative response, but to show the inconsistencies in catholicism. Andrew responds: Bigotry & Hatred Colors the Views of the (Anti-Catholic) Proponent Here Please, do not give me that obvious line. After the delivery of your heinous misrepresentation, you write, "How is a smart guy like you Andrew, able to remain so loyal to an institution so disloyal to God?" Calling someone disloyal to God when he has devoted his life to the Lord's service is nothing other that incitement. Lou writes: Number Two: You include in your quote that excommunication could eventually result if a member of the catholic clergy continues in his lifestyle of sexual sin. That's just fine and dandy, however, you will note that the catholic church exhibits zero tolerance for the clergyman who marries - he's immediately excommunicated. But the priest who lives in sin goes through a series of fines and other diciplinary actions until ultimately maybe he will receive permanent separation from the catholic church via excommunication. Andrew responds: Here again you demonstrate your deep ignorance
of the intricacies of Catholic thought and life. First, the current situation
is that men who have violated their vows have their priestly faculties
immediately removed. Since such a punishment touches the roots of priestly
identity, it is quite severe. Further, sexual sin in this regard is most
serious and destroys the life of grace. If not
If a Catholic priest marries outside the Church, his excommunication is SELF-IMPOSED. It is entirely his fault. He has rejected his role as both an emissary of the Church and as a servant to Christ. He can still be reconciled to the Church. Indeed, many such priests have also been laicized and restored to the sacraments. They will always possess the sacerdotal mark of Christ, even if they live the life of the laity. Lou writes: Clearly, the catholic church is more tolerant concerning the vice of priestly fornication than she is for the priest who marries and would be perhaps a faithful husband as well as faithful in his church office. Andrew responds: You repeat yourself and still do not get it. Just as a marriage is not recognized by the state unless the justice-of-the-peace or minister is licensed to conduct the ceremony, so too the Church does not recognize marriages (for her own people) that are improperly officiated. Obviously non-Catholics are free to get married before non-Catholic ministers and the like, but Catholics are not. You are sidestepping serious matters. As far as the Church is concerned, marriages of Catholics conducted outside the Church are without value. Such couples are (still) fornicating. The only difference is that they have spurned the authority of Christ's bride, the teaching Church. If married men want to be ministers in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church then they become deacons. These men run bible study programs, visit the sick, baptize, marry couples, proclaim the Gospel and preach at Mass. Indeed, my cousin is a Catholic deacon who functions as the pastor of a Catholic parish in North Carolina! As I said before, all the Catholic Church wants is for us to keep our promises and to be faithful to our responsibilities! Lou writes: Let's be frank here. Priests are men. They are human and possess all of the weaknesses of the sin nature as does every other decendant of Adam. Let's face it. ALL priests do not honor their vows of celibacy. Andrew responds: Marriage is a calling for some men. That is true. However, even in marriage, men can fall into sexual sin, particularly when they abuse or objectify that PERSON who should be precious in their sight and a helpmate in the Christian life. Roman Catholic priesthood requires years of formation and discernment. The majority of the priests, who break their promises and get married, end up divorced. This statistic is a fact. If they took their promises lightly the first time, then why should the second be any different? Not all men honor their vows of marriage. Is this any reason to encourage easy divorce? I think not. The logic does not hold, it only encourages irresponsibility and deceit. Most priests do keep their promises. Their celibacy allows them to pour out their whole life in loving service to God and his people. Lou writes: I've seen it firsthand. Lots of them have lovers on the side. Oftentimes with the nuns of their parishes. Their unions have produced children, many of which have been ABORTED. What? The catholic church, the champions of life, those staunch anti-abortionists-guilty of committing the very sins that they decry in their pulpits and publications nationwide? It's these inconsistencies that aggravate me, Andrew. There's a double standard in operation here. Andrew responds: You have seen priestly infidelity firsthand? Unless you are a voyeur, I fail to see how this would be possible. Unless, and that would explain your anger, you were the subject of abuse. If so, I am very sorry, and would plead with you not to condemn a whole grouping of men because of one rotten apple. Most of the nuns I know are getting on in years, I seriously doubt many of the priests are chasing habits these days. You are talking to a Church insider, Lou, your fantasies posing as facts have little sway with me. I know about priestly strength and weakness. We have had men who fumbled, and many of them were rescued by the grace of god and restored to holy ministry. As for abortion, I suspect that your mind has been tainted by the likes of THE TALES OF MARIA MONK and/or other such anti-Catholic sources. As Cardinal O'Connor has said, and other bishops have echoed it, any woman contemplating an abortion can come to him and he will insure the resources and medical care to safeguard both their lives. If you know bishops and priests who have procured abortions, I demand that you NAME THEM so that we can take immediate action! However, I suspect that it is a mindless slur. Your stuff is rather naive; you are literally
trying to tell me my business. I practice what I preach. I have firsthand
experience of the joys and sorrows of Catholic ministry. We march for life
in Washington, D.C. every year. We support the pro-life crisis pregnancy
centers in our jurisdiction. We have the Gabriel Project to support young
women and to help them bring their babies to term. We even have Project
Rachel, to assist women through the post-abortion trauma. We support life.
I have known of priests who left and got married. They had children. However,
while I know hundreds of priests personally by name,
I challenge you to name the names, or to apologize. If you do not, and these men remain unpunished (if they exist), then you will be a passive accomplice in their crimes! Lou writes: Oh well, be that as it may. These are facts
of life, Andrew. To believe otherwise is pure naiveity or wishful thinking.
Sure, if things become scandalous enough,
Andrew responds: I am told that while there is a real moral fault in something like pedophilia, it also represents a form of mental illness. After incarceration, many men spend years in special psychiatric institutions. A priest pedophile today is stripped of his faculties, prohibited from wearing clerical dress, is removed from his assignment, and sent for evaluation. National guidelines stipulate that he will never function as a priest again. In the past, thinking that one might merely repent and be forgiven, these men were treated differently. This is true. But, the Church has learned, that just as with married men, pedophilia is a problem that does not seem to go away. A medical doctor tells me that the many cases of incest are precisely because of pedophilia in marriages! It is not a result of any vowed celibacy. You talk about excommunication as if it is the greatest punishment one might receive. Actually, it is not. It is an ecclesiastical censure. The most serious punishment has always been left to God. Unrepented serious sin is what we should be worried about. Except for the issue of pedophilia today, a priest might fall in a number of ways and yet be rehabilitated. Why should he be treated any differently by the Church than others when it comes to the mercy that we find in Christ. Yes, his role as a shepherd makes even the most minor sins quite scandalous, but we are all sinners who look to Jesus as our Savior. Lou writes: I have another question. Do you have it in you to refrain from judging motive and labeling me as full of bigotry? Since you're not God Almighty, you have no business attempting to judge the thoughts and intents of my heart. As regarding bigotry, wrong again. I don't hate catholics. But I do hate the system of catholicism that perpetrates false doctrines, places herself as God Almighty, is responsible for KILLING millions of Bible believing christians, people who were much better than they. That doesn't amount to bigotry. Although I am against the SYSTEM, I defend it's right to exist and operate and I support the freedom for them to continue to do so DESPITE the fact that I'm convinced that they are not the chruch of Jesus Christ. Every man, woman, and child has the God given right to worship or not to worship God according to the dictates of his/her conscience. And I also know for a fact that your church doesn't support those rights and freedoms. Shame on them and shame on you for allowing yourself to be so deceived. And again I say: Andrew responds: If it waddles like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like duck-- it's a duck. Dear Lou, you are a bigot. I do not judge whether or not you are saved, that is what we leave to almighty God. But your half-truths and inaccuracies are all to belittle Catholicism at the expense of truth. Now, admittedly, you may believe the stuff you say, but this does not change matters. Like yourself, I also believe you are free to say your mind, just as I do the same. When I have ecumenical dialogue with others, we will talk about what we share in common, and then discuss our differences. However, we try to do so in a way the reserves value judgments. This is a form of charity. It is lacking here. My posts are largely RESPONSIVE, either to the message board or to the attached site. If Nicholas simply spelled out what he believed, without name-calling Catholicism and the Pope, I probably would never have responded. But, your statement that you do not hate Catholics is inexact. The Church is my family. We see ourselves as the Mystical Body of Christ. Attack the family or hate the Church and you are doing the same to each and every member. You see, WE CATHOLICS ARE THE CHURCH. From Christ through the hierarchy to the laity-- it is an essential element of our identity. Attack any element and you assault the whole. We see similar things on biological grounds. If someone belittled your mother, calling her names, what would be your response? You would probably not be very happy. It is the same for faithful Catholics. We can bicker among ourselves, but for an outsider (including those who have disowned the family) to do so, is a serious offense. Saying you do not hate Catholics is like a clansman saying he does not hate blacks-- he just wants them somewhere else, and definitely not married to his lily-white daughter. You finish with a flurry of inaccuracies. The Catholic Church has not killed millions of people. Objective historical research bears this out. Various governments (that were Catholic) opposed certain heretical groups who were themselves violent. Indeed, some of these so-called simple bible believers distorted the Scriptures and practiced ritual euthanasia. But, you are silent to this fact. Finally, you would do well to read the Declaration on Religious Liberty from the Second Vatican Council. Again, if you are going to parrot bigotry, then you yourself must be ready to accept that title for yourself. There are men and women who disagree with the tenets and practices of Catholicism who would not be termed prejudiced or bigoted. However, you would not by any estimation be numbered among them. We are often known by the company we keep. May you one day learn about true peace, the peace that the world cannot give. Lou writes: Bigotry? No! Exposing the Errors of the Catholic Church? Yes, Indeed! Andrew, you still have not addressed the focal point of my post. Is it not a fact that catholic priests are FORBIDDEN to marry. They can't marry within the catholic church. What priest would permit the marital union of another priest? The priest who gets married is excommunicated. The fornicator may be stripped of his credentials, but he is NOT excommunicated - right off the bat, anyway. You speak about revisions in cannon law. If the catholic church is infallible as your church teaches, what then is the need for revisions??? A body that makes so-called infallible pronouncements would have no need to make revisions of policy. God is infallible. Are you aware of Him making any revisions to His policy of Law??? The catholic church claims the same infallibility. There's enough documented evidence of that. So, again I ask the question: how can an allegedly infallible institution ever have the need to make a revision in their infallible policies and laws??? Andrew responds: Perpetual Chastity is Not a Sin--
I have not missed the point; there just is no problem. Priests made a promise to almighty God. They did so knowing full well what they were doing. If they did not intend to be celibate, they could have entered a lay ministry or later sought ordination to the diaconate. You deny the necessity and reality of Catholic priests anyway; why should you care? This is a smokescreen issue. Deacons are within the sacrament of holy orders and they are most often married. They do as much or more than many Protestant ministers. For all intensive purposes, they will be the predominate Catholic ministers in this North America very soon. In this new post you stumble over the Catholic
notion of infallibility in the Church. I am often amazed at how poor educated
Catholics and prejudiced Protestants (even of the SDA stripe) grant the
Church, and the Pope in particular, a greater degree of infallibility than
even the Catholic Church does herself. Yours is a case in point. Infallibility
regarding faith and morals does
The Latin branch of the Catholic Church did not legislate (in an absolute way) compulsory celibacy until the 12th century. The Eastern branch of the Church still has married and celibate clergy, although they must get married prior to ordination. Disciplines are not of divine origin. The Church and the Holy Father can and often does make exception to Church laws. We cannot change divine laws, as such, but any rules the Church creates for her proper functioning, she can revise or abrogate. Disciplines that have been altered include the length of the fast before holy communion, Lenten regulations, the Friday abstinence, observance of certain holy days, the gender of altar servers, and the distribution of holy communion by lay extraordinary ministers. Such disciplines are not representative of the HEART of the faith. The Church has always recognized this and such examples can be found in her long history. Infallibility in faith and morals is not the same as individual impeccability or perfection in practical judgment. The posture of Christians to papal statements that are not clearly infallibility is one of religious respect. Returning to the subject of priestly celibacy, I resent that a non-Catholic, and a hostile one at that, should deem to tell me and my Church how her ministers should be formed and regulated. There are some malcontents, but I would suspect that most priests would simply tell you to mind your own business. Lou writes: Yes, Andrew, you still have indeed missed the point. I know that it's a personal decision for a catholic priest to choose celibacy and the priesthood. That's NOT the issue. The issue is that a priest cannot be married, must be celibate, and if he violates the marriage part of it, he receives excommunication. If he violates the fornication part of it, he's not immediately excommunicated. So what's the deal here? In the eyes of catholicism, is it a greater sin for a priest to get married, or to engage in illicit sex? That's the issue. That's my question. Please answer the question. Now, as touching upon the catholic church's so-called infallibility status. You claim that the catholic church possesses infallibilty in matters of faith and morals, but not in church law and policy. That's pretty inconsistent, isn't it? Why should anyone believe that the pope or cardinals, or bishops, when speaking ex-cathedra holds any semblance of infallibility, when the members of the same offices do not possess infallibility in framing church policy? What's the deal here? Does God Almighty grant selective infallibility? Does He only care about pronouncements pertaining to faith and morals, but couldn't give a hoot about the WAY that HIS so-called church is governed??? Andrew responds: You are caught in another loop of your own making. Church law and policy may reflect divine law and the apostolic institution, but you are right, it is not inherently infallible. Note that you will find squabbles in the early Church, even between Peter and Paul. The matter is a mystery, but that is how it is. Certainly godly men pray for guidance and strength from God. Her continued existence, after so many rogues, as you like to remind us, is itself evidence of divine protection. The deposit of faith regards Church beliefs, her sacraments, the Scriptures, and the moral law. It does not include things like cardinals wearing red and priests dressing in black. God gives us a profound freedom to cooperate with his grace in the living Church. It is important that you understand this point. You were positing the Catholic Church (as claiming) a greater degree of infallibility than she actually lays hold upon. Lou writes: OK, then you say that the catholic church is not as infallible as they themselves claim. I guess that's a start in the right direction. Andrew responds: A Further Response & I Do Insist Here is another snide attempt at misrepresentation. YOU posited the Catholic Church with a greater degree of infallibility than the Church, herself, claims. The fault was yours. There has been no reappraisal of this teaching. YOU SIMPLY GOT IT WRONG by thinking that it included all practical decisions and disciplines. Some matters are neutral and others change with the times, like the language of the liturgy. Lou writes: But your church claims differently. Andrew responds: Now you even contradict your foolishness from a few sentences before. Nevertheless, you are still wrong. Look in the universal catechism. It is all there. You not only fail to properly understand Scripture, even the voice and teachings of the Church seem undecipherable to you. If you could at least get the most basic of facts correct, this dialogue might be going somewhere. However, I have to keep backtracking to correct faulty views of Catholic doctrines. If you are going to disagree with them, then at least understand them first! Your only hope of converting Catholics rests with the angry and the stupid. No Catholic with a clear understanding of his faith could take many of your remarks (or Nicholas') seriously. Lou writes: You mention the moral law as part of the Catholic Church's deposit of faith. Andrew responds: You did not know this? It is even in children's catechisms, you know, the ones we give second graders! Lou writes: The way that the catholic church governs should be reflective of the moral law that you claim they follow - BUT THEY DON'T. And the way they govern is proof of that. Andrew, as far as the moral law is concerned, catholicism rejects it. God's version of it anyway. Therefore they cannot be trusted as the depositories of that part of the christian faith, for they have been unfaithful. Andrew responds: I would direct you to any number of encyclicals from the current Pope, particularly EVANGELIUM VITAE. You are shooting blanks at me, fella. Lou writes: Andrew, don't you see what you're doing here? The more you offer up a defense for this false system of religion, the bigger the hole you dig up for yourself and the catholic institution as a whole! Andrew responds: Excuse me? The teaching about infallibility is not my view, but the Church's. You can look it up. I am not playing word games. You were in error as to how the Church sees her own infallibility. I corrected the mistake. Case closed, this is distinct from whether you accept it in any form. You are not talking to some dumb kid. I have studied these matters at the university and have degrees to prove it. I am not making it up. Lou writes: You mean to tell me that you don't assent to the HOLY catholic church's view of infallibilty? You defy your pope? Then what are you doing there??? You must really like shovels. Pretty soon you will have dug your way straight to China! You may not be a dumb kid, but you are certainly a deceived and misguided man. You may have received your education in universities and received degrees, but you are lacking in the most important knowledge, the knowledge of God's Word. Please, for your own good, study His Word! Andrew responds: Well, I guess that is it. It is a hardheaded view you take. Instead of taking responsibility for your fumble, you suggest that I do not know this basic dogma of faith. I have published more about it than you will probably ever be able to read, at least with understanding. Let me give you a quick run down on the Magisterium: "I am with you always, to the close of the
age" (Matthew 28:20). God has promised never to abandon his Church. While
it is legitimate to say that there are
many levels to the truth, and that our discernment of it is sometimes like
pealing an onion; its discovery is not
left open to chance or to a totally subjective evaluation. Christ offers
"real" truth and gives us the mechanism to
While they have a role to play, as essential helpers to the bishops, theologians and scholars are not authentic teachers of the faith on the same level with the bishops. Their task is to help root and intensify our understanding. Theirs must be a "faith seeking understanding" and not just an uninvolved study of religion. The presence of a Magisterium insures that
the faith of the Church is itself infallible. The belief and teachings
of our saving Gospel are safeguarded from
error. This does not mean that we are infallible in our human natures (Lumen
Gentium, 12). When the Magisterium
teaches decisively in Christ's name, matters of divine faith and morals,
it teaches infallibly. The ordinary teaching
of the Church in her preaching and catechesis is in this sense infallible.
As long as the workers in God's vineyard do not
dissent from the Magisterium, the reliability of the Church's prayer and
worship structures, instructions, pastoral letters, her daily
living, etc., can be trusted. The bishops infallibly teach the message
of Christ "even when they are dispersed around the world,
provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and
with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically
on a matter of faith and morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the
one which must be held conclusively"
The extraordinary Magisterium is that which is exercised rarely and then in the most unusual and solemn of occasions. It includes the meeting of bishops in ecumenical councils and the solemn "ex cathedra" (from the chair) pronouncements from the Pope. Gatherings of large numbers of bishops under the Pope's headship in ecumenical councils are infallible when irreformable statements are made. It should be quickly added that these propositions may not always be rendered in the best manner. Some statements from councils are not meant to be infallible, such as in particular pastoral considerations or in religious disciplines. As the successor of St. Peter, the Pope's
teaching office is pre-eminent in the Church. His authority, as Christ's
Vicar, comes directly from the Lord. Even
the least of his faith deliberations requires our religious assent. He
is not susceptible to popularity polls.
He teaches the truth of Christ both in and out of season. Even when unworthy
of his office, the Lord guards the Holy See
There are also authentic teachings which are simply proposed by the Magisterium in Christ's name, but without any explicit infallible expressions. The Catholic is to give religious assent even when the Church opts not to use its complete infallible authority. With something of his own authority given to Peter and the other Apostles, the Lord continues to offer us sanctification through his Church. The teachings, rules, sacraments, etc. of the Church are directed to our final end, holiness and the acquisition of heaven where we can give glory to God forever. From beginning to end, the Holy Spirit is involved. "He who hears you, hears me" (Luke 10:16). Lou writes: And you confirm their ineptness of the Scriptures and the power of God. And it's all because catholicism has renounced the Word of the God it professes to represent and thus she has put herself in the position of grossly misrepresenting God Almighty! Andrew responds: I think not. She is the guardian of the Word. It is proclaimed at her liturgies, preached by her ministers, exudes from all her prayers, and is demonstrated in the holy lives of her people. The misrepresentation is yours and you stand virtually alone. Lou writes: The catholic church is the guardian of God's
Word? No way! She is the DESTROYER of His Word. She's BURNED His Word.
She's placed His Word on a list of FORBIDDEN BOOKS. She BUTCHERS His Word.
She BLASPHEMES His Word. She has NO RESPECT for His Word. She places HERSELF
ABOVE His Word. C'mon, Andrew, who do you think your kidding here. My name's
not Joe Catholic, who sits in the pews in a catatonic state listening to
a bunch of repetitious mummery. His Word is LIVING, VIBRANT, and SHARPER
than ANY two-edged SWORD. And so is my relationship
Andrew responds: That was a lot of nothing. It reminds me of the endless repetition in that old rock song, "I'm on the highway to hell"? But, I'm not the one playing the music. You can offer as many vitriolic sentiments as you like about the Catholic Church, they are still untrue-- the Word vindicates the Church-- as does the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. Lou writes: Now as touching upon your resentment. You claim to resent a non-catholic, especially a hostile one like me to tell you and your church how her ministers should be formed and regulated. What you are really resenting is that I'm pointing out the SINS of your church and you really have no Scripturally viable answer in defense of your church's sins. Since repentance of her sins are the furthest thing from her mind, she resorts to resentment. I say, too bad! Either live in your sins, or REPENT and ask Christ to effect the cleansing. Andrew responds: Well, at least you admit that you are a busybody! You used very few Scriptures, by the way, in your general attack of priestly celibacy. My resentment is that the priesthood is not your life. Indeed, you attack celibacy, but it is the sacerdotal ministry that you really cannot stand. Look at how you mock the catechetical picture posted at Nicholas' site. That is the crux of the matter. You can live in this web of lies if you want, but please keep your twisted views about Catholicism and her holy priesthood to yourself. The more you talk, the less it appears that you really know about Catholicism. As for repentance, the Holy Father has given a wonderful example to us all in his "mea culpas". There has been enough blame to go around the last two thousand years. The Pope desires that we write a new chapter of understanding and peace for the third millenium. But, since the new Nazi's are spreading their misinformation, I am not optimistic about the response. After all, we know what you call him and the Church. Lou writes: I admitted that I'm a busybody? Yeah, just like I admitted that I'm Joan of Arc, too! Andrew responds: You are the French Maid? Does that mean you dress in drag? Goodness, that is more than I need to know. Are you anyone else? Hum, do mental institutions have computer terminals? This is scary. Gosh gee! One small hint, I would avoid matches if I were you. Lou writes: C'mon, Andrew, wake up! And I didn't attack celibacy. I said it's not sin. But your church's IMPOSITION of celibacy on her clergy is not a command of God, it's her own devising. As for mocking the catholic priesthood on Nicholas's board. That's not mockery. That's an exposition of the false idea of the priesthood that catholicism concocted. A contrast was being presented. Your church is WRONG! Period! As touching repentance, catholicism has NOT repented of anything. She still holds on to her pagan rituals, still denies the sacrifice of Jesus, still lords it over her flock, and is the ULTIMATE BUSYBODY as she inserts herself into the political affairs of the nations of the earth which she has absolutely NO MANDATE from Christ to do so, not from His Word and not from His example. And your referrence of the pope as the "holy father" is also blasphemeous. That title belongs ONLY to God the Father. He's not the "holy father". He's an impostor, AntiChrist, that's attempting to sit on the throne of God and the world. Andrew responds: Well, that was an impressive outburst. So if you disagree with something, then it is okay to mock it? Then I guess you consider everything Catholic and most things Christian game for your assault. The Church seeks international justice and peace, but I suppose you would also tell the Prince of Peace to mind his own business, too. As for the title, "Holy Father," well, that is an old bigotry that I have heard many times before. The Papacy is one of the favorite targets
of anti-Catholics. I recently read one who contended that calling him "Holy
Father" was the equivalent of calling
him God. How anyone can give such silliness any credence is beyond me.
The title signifies that the Pope functions
as a father to God's family. He is a visible sign of the unity and authority
of the Church founded by Christ. Even
though Christ's true father was almighty God in heaven, is it not beyond
a doubt that he treated his foster father Joseph with
all the respect one would render such a parent? Sure. Similarly, the Pope
functions as a kind of foster father over the
While it is true that the overture, "Holy
Father," is noted in the Scriptures in reference to God, it appears in
a passage stressing the unity of God's
people who enter into the divine life and love itself. Christ is the ultimate
term of our peace and unity; however,
he has given us teachings, sacraments, and authority to manifest and express
these sacred realities. We read in John
Note that those who share in the one priesthood
of Christ, from the lowliest clergyman to the greatest of bishops, accepts
unto himself the title of father. This
is the pattern given by Christ for his family of believers. Our fatherhood
is to make real and to point to the one
who is the Father of all. Following in the footsteps of Jesus, we still
take seriously the charge of guarding those
Of course, priests are called FATHER, too:
BIBLE CITATION FROM AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - "And call no one on earth your Father; for one is your Father, who is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9). CATHOLIC RESPONSE
- This is an example of a Scriptural literary form known as Hebraic Hyperbole.
It is like the passage that admonishes
tearing your eye out or cutting your hand or foot off. It is a way of speaking
to give heightened
BIBLE CITATIONS OF
A CATHOLIC - [In speaking of our priorities] "He who loves FATHER or
mother more than me is not worthy of me"
(Matthew 10:37). [About marriage] "For this cause a man shall leave his
FATHER and mother, and cleave to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh" (Matthew 19:5). [Placing discipleship
to Jesus first] "And everyone who has
left house, or brothers, or sisters, or FATHER, or mother, or wife, or
children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive
a hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting" (Matthew 19:29). {see
also Mark 10:29} [Abraham is called father]
Andrew responds: Please read my posts carefully. The reasoning
is because a priest who marries outside the Church IS NOT MARRIED. Just
as two men cannot marry each other because it is a violation of nature,
a priest cannot marry validly outside of the Church because of his vows
to the Church and God. His punishment is not because he gets married, but
because he ATTEMPTS to
The promise is crucial. The fact that you
and others do not understand it is a testimonial to our society wherein
broken promises have become the rule. Divorce is chronic and adultery is
on the rampage. A recent NBC pole in Washington, D.C. found that 6 out
of 10 working women in the city had committed adultery. This is all systematic
of the same infidelity. Promises
Lou writes: Please carefully read my response. It addresses your comment. You claim that the REASON for such severe penalties for a priest that marries is because he marries outside of the catholic church and in the eyes of the catholic church, he is not married, but is living in sin and is living in illicit sex, therefore the priest is excommunicated. So, what's the difference? The priest who is not married and having sex with women is COMMITTING THE SAME SIN. IN BOTH CASES THEY ARE UNMARRIED. In one situation, in the eyes of God, they are married, but not so in the eyes of the catholic church. In the other situation, they are neither married in God's or the catholic church's eyes. Andrew responds: No, Lou, you are still misreading the matter. The situations are NOT the same. A Catholic priest must be released from his vow or promise of celibacy before he can marry. Any attempted marriage is NEITHER RECOGNIZED BY THE CHURCH OR BY GOD. This matter has to do with the power to loosen and to bind-- the keys given to Peter. The promise still binds the priest. He cannot make a new promise until he is released from the former one. I certainly wrote about this before, but you are not taking the time to read my responses carefully. Lou writes: Again, by your OWN admission, probably not realizing it though, in both situations the SAME sin is under discussion, yet the catholic church sees a priest who gets married but in whose eyes is really not married as committing a GREATER sin than the priest, whose neither married in the eyes of the catholic church, God, or society, as committing the LESSER sin, because the modes of punishment reflect that attitude. Again, you've dug yourself another hole. Isn't the air starting to get a little scanty down there??? Andrew responds: Excuse me, you're just repeating yourself over and over again. That last bit hardly makes any sense in the reading at all. I am merely explaining to you the rationale of the Church in such decision-making. You can evaluate it differently, but you should understand the mind of the Church, nonetheless. You seem unable to comprehend what I am saying. You refuse to appreciate on any level the Church's point of view. This is more serious than the issue at hand, it demonstrates, once again, a refusal to correct even basic misunderstandings and factual errors. Disagreeing is one thing, misrepresenting is absurd. Lou writes: You speak with forked tongue, Andrew. In your blind ambition to cover up your church's inadequacies and attrocities, you shroud and couch your verbage with meaningless catholic rhetoric. You continue to belittle, if not deny your church's role in slaughtering millions of christian saints. You put all of the blame on the governments. You fail to acknowledge that your church CONTROLLED those governments. Andrew responds: No, I speak the truth and you do not know
how to handle it. Maybe you are afraid of it? I do not know. History shows
that the Church had little enough control of governments, Catholic, Protestant,
or Secular. Plus, you should know by now, that I say little that is meaningless.
You just do not like the meaning. It want easy answers from second or third
party sources, instead
Lou writes: Andrew, c'mon now! The satanically-colored
history of roman catholicism is historical fact! Just as sure as the historical
record showing that George Washington was the first president of the U.S.
is as sure as the historical facts of the activities of the RCC in the
Dark Ages. The RCC most certainly did exercise a controlling power over
government, whether you want to assent to
Andrew responds: More of the same old dribble. The Pope is offering his "mea culpas" for the Church's practical participation through her membership or through passivity. Such appeals do not touch the heart of the Church where Christ resides. You turn a deaf ear to the wonderful things the Church has done and her parade of saints. You ignore the fact that sometimes non-Catholics were the belligerents with doctrines and behavior dangerous to bodies and souls. Instead, you make exaggerated claims based on sensationalist anti-Catholic works and acclaim them to be reliable history. It is not the Catholic Church that fails to express sorrow-- it is you. The great Catholic sin has always been understood as the sin of omission. I suspect that somewhere along the timeline of your life, someone failed you in the Church and the bigots got hold of you, making you one of their own. You are the one so filled with anti-Catholic bigotry and lies that YOU refuse to tell the Church that you are sorry for your misrepresentation and campaign of calumny. When you listed your so-called historical facts at Nicholas' site, you made numerous errors and even got some of the Popes confused. I do not trust your verdict about history because I am not an empty headed fool. Lou writes: The same old dribble is coming from you. You and your church, according to the thread above deny the horrendous persecuting acts of murder and sweep it under the rug and call them sins of omission and passivity. Please! You may be able to fool your robotic parishoners, but not me and anyone else that knows God and His Word. There's much documented proof of what kind of satanic activities either done or instigated by your church to innocent people. Your church's future is as dark as it's past. For she will be strictly dealt with in the judgement. You don't trust the historical accounts presented? Because you are not an empty headed fool? The only historical accounts that you trust are the fabrications of your church, and that, dear Andrew, doesn't make you very wise either. Andrew responds: I would hold my sources up to yours any day. I even tried to correct your history, since you could not even get the names of the Popes right. There was never any correction. I suppose your source was just as erroneous. Not all the sources I have are Catholic. Further, source documents know no allegiance. Anti-Catholic tracts and dog-eared anti-Catholic books by bigoted fools only know deceit and prejudice. Lou writes: Catholicism is not the church of Jesus Christ. It's a huge religio-political machine hell bent on regaining their geopolitical dominance on the earth. It's so easy to point out their errors. Just compare it to the Word of God - it becomes CRYSTAL clear. Andrew responds: Comparison without your commentary makes it
clearly enough the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Do you really know
the WORD OF GOD? I have to wonder. You can quote some verses here and there,
but that is hardly evidence. Non-believers can do as much, and so with
great prowess. The WORD OF GOD is not simply words on paper. Ultimately,
it is one and the
When I first came to this board I did many Scriptural lists, and just as quickly saw them deleted. I came back when I discovered that with your presence, Nicholas was less likely to erase my presence. So, I am back, until he tells me to go. I may not always debate you guys. I do not always have the time. But I can make repeated posts to bring some degree of correction to this message board of hate and prejudice. Lou writes: You cannot endure my commentaries, because my commentaries expose your church as AntiChrist. Without my commentaries and others that exalt truth, yes, catholicism would appear to be the church of Jesus. Andrew responds: There you have it. What more can be said? "Without your commentaries (revisionism according to your own prejudices) . . . Catholicism would appear to be the church of Jesus." Why is this? Because the Catholic Church IS THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST! Thank you Jesus for this moment of clarity. SEE THE CATHOLICISM IS NOT BIBLICAL POSTS Lou writes: Without my comments exalting the truth of God's Word, which contains ALL of God's truth, it becomes an easy task for satan to deceive people into thinking that catholicism is the church of Jesus. So, if you want your church to appear to the world as the true church of God, then you will have to rid the earth of God's Word, and His people who speak as agents for Him. Andrew responds: So you are God's agent, are you? Then the contradiction comes full swing. You are as I have said, a wannabe pope. I suppose you and Nicholas will one day feud and we will have an anti-pope, too. It is so medieval of you both. You have taken the worst elements of a feudalistic Christianity and have made them your own. At least the Church grew up, and admitted in the Pope's "Mea Culpas" that sometimes Catholics did not do all they could have for the Gospel of Life. Men may be sinful, but the grace of God has never abandoned his people in the new Israel, the Catholic Church. You yourself said the Scriptures were self-interpretive.
Now you say they require YOUR PARTICULAR COMMENTS OF EXAUTATION!
It is only word-games for hypocrites. Leave the abomination of lies and
come home to the safe harbor of faith
in Catholicism. It is not yet too late. Swallow your massive ego and have
pride transformed to humble submission in the
Lou writes: BTW, that's EXACTLY what your church, in conjunction with their apostate protestant harlot daughters will attempt to do in the near future. But her devices will fall upon her OWN head as the Lord vindicates His people and His truth which is NOT to be found in the dark abyss of catholicism and her minions that support her. As for all the Scriptural verses that you cite for the remainder of your post, those Scriptures tell the truth. Too bad your church doesn't follow them. Again, I admonish you, leave that place, for you are not furthering the end of Christ therein. Andrew responds: Do not get caught up in Nicholas' paranoia. Come back to reality, come back to the Catholic Church. All can be forgiven. You can start anew. You can relearn those things you thought you knew, but were distorted. Come home. Why do I keep pleading? I even read a vulgarity in one of the posts (scr-w). It has come that far. You have turned away. It is a time for tears. You and Nicholas are in league with each other. He even posts your so-called hints on his web site. You have chosen. I claim Christ and his Church! Lou writes: And yes, I do know the Word of God. And that Word is verily the enemy and exposer of the roman catholic church as AntiChrist. That's why your church BURNED Bibles. That's why your church placed the Bible on a list of FORBIDDEN BOOKS. Andrew responds: You really did not read what I wrote did you? Again, you repeat your mistakes with no mention of my qualification about heretical threats and erroneous bible translations. Lou writes: And yes, Jesus is the Word. And the RCC misrepresent Jesus in countless ways. To name one, the idolatrous sacrifice of the mass. And believe it or not, I welcome your posts here. I'm glad that Nicholas hasn't deleted any of them. There is no better way to expose the errors of catholicism that to dialogue with one who is well versed in catholicism. You must admit, Andrew, you are the exception, not the rule. The average Joe Catholic doesn't know jack diddly squat about the catholic church. They are just merely robotic automations that follow a creed that they neither know nor understand. So, most definetly, I welcome you into these forums. I want all to see the sharp contrast between the Word of God and Roman Catholicism, so that an INTELLIGENT understanding may be presented. So, as far as I'm concerned, keep coming. Lou writes: You still continue to call me a bigot. But
it's your church that is the King of Bigots. They have manifested that
spirit (instead of the Holy Spirit)from the beginning of their rise to
power almost 1500 years ago. You boast of the piousness of the church.
But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. THEY DO NOT FOLLOW THE WORD
OF GOD! Good works mean NOTHING. It's DOING the will of God according to
HOW HE SAYS TO DO IT IN HIS WORD that's important to God. Your church is
no more in harmony with the Word of God than the pagan religions that she
has absorbed and co-mingled with christianity. Your church DENIES that
Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. They teach that you can be a
spiritual pagan and still be saved. This isn't the teaching of Christ.
It's the teaching of AntiChrist!!! You want me to name names of fornicating
priests. I could name names, but it really wouldn't do any good in terms
of effecting disciplinary action, for the four priests that I knew for
a fact were involved with women are now dead. The last of which bit the
scene around 3 years ago. They will have to face Almighty God in the judgement.
As for peace, praise Jesus, I know His peace and it comes from Him, not
any church organization. As far as calling you disloyal to God. I said
the catholic institution is disloyal to God. They've changed His commandments,
persecuted His saints, and they blaspheme His holy name. I guess if your
main focus is to be loyal to the RCC, then by extension, you would be disloyal
to God. I can't judge where your loyalties lie. Is it the RCC or God? Only
you
Andrew responds: You contradict yourself. Doing the will of God is precisely what the Catholic understands by doing good works. Apart from a saving faith in Christ, they would merit us nothing. You sidestep my challenge. If you know of priests, firsthand, as you said, who have procured abortions, then announce them. Otherwise, I must assume that it is a rhetorical fiction to impress others and me with your sources. The fact that some priests have made a mess of their ministry is no secret to anyone, but the priesthood itself cannot be condemned because of the maladies of a few. Any person, a priest included, whom immediately assists another person in getting an abortion is automatically censored with excommunication. If you know of such men, FIRST HAND, then you should go forthwith to the proper Church authorities. But, except for what you read, I doubt you even have such names. A man with your attitude would hardly have priests confiding in you. As for where my fidelity rests, I am a man under authority, living a vowed life, pledged to Christ and to his holy Church. To forfeit the one would sacrifice the other, and my immortal soul besides. Lou writes: I do not contradict myself. You just misunderstand
what the Bible says is the will of God. Just doing good works is not doing
the will of God. Jesus said: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,
have we not cast out devils in thy name and have done MANY WONDERFUL WORKS
in thy name and I will profess unto them: Depart from me, I never knew
you, ye workers of iniquity." In light of what the words of Jesus are,
do you still think that good works are the definition of the will of God?
Read your Bible, Andrew. The Bible says: "This is the will of God, that
we keep His commandments" The catholic
Lou writes: As far as touching on the sexual sins of some catholic priests. I knew first hand, I told you, of four such priests, now deceased. I don't know first hand of any abortions, but that history is also well documented. Andrew responds: Excuse me? You don't know of any abortions procured by priests? Thanks for the honesty, but what malicious lips you have. Let me quote you: "I"VE SEEN IT FIRSTHAND. Lots of them have lovers on the side, oftentimes with the nuns of their parishes. Their unions have produced children, many of which have been ABORTED. What? The Catholic Church, the champions of life, those staunch anti-abortionists-guilty of committing the very sins that they decry in their pulpits and publications nationwide? It's these inconsistencies that aggravate me, Andrew. There's a double standard in operation here." The only standard that is endangered here is your slant on the truth. You talk to me about commandments, it seems you have consistent trouble with one: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Lou writes: As far as yourself is concerned. What's not my business is to judge your standing with God, however, your witness in terms of what you say could very well be indicative and telling. You claim that you are living a vowed life and that you are under authority. Well, whose authority? The catholic church's or God's? There's a major difference there Andrew. Andrew responds: No, there is no difference. I hear the voice of Christ and his apostles in the guidance of the Church. Lou writes: BTW, are you a priest? Of the Jesuit order perhaps? And one last point. Neither yourself nor anyone else possesses an immortal soul. I've already had that discussion with you and you were not able to prove your position as Scripturally true. Leave that church, Andrew, for you are not serving the interests of Christ therein. Andrew responds: I do not recall being satisfied with your interpretation of certain Scriptures regarding the immortality of the soul. I thought the post I offered on various definitions was sufficient to support the Judeo-Christian perspective in its favor. I spared you the supporting philosophical arguments, knowing your disdain for such use of the faculty of human reason. I will never leave the Church. It is where I find Christ. Where else could I go? He alone has the words of eternal life. Am I a Jesuit? Should I offer Nicholas six
million dollars to shut down his site? That is ever so funny. No. I have
affection for the Society of Jesus, but I am not in the ranks of St. Ignatius
Loyola. Who am I? I would think it is obvious by now. I have made no secret
of it. According to Nicholas, I am demon-possessed, a minion of the beast,
a whore for the anti-Christ. Such
Benedictus es, Pater, Domine caeli et terrae, mysteria regni parvulis revelasti (See Matt. 11:25). Lou writes: Perpetual Chastity is Not a Requirement
of God's Ministers - Prove That It is from the Bible!
Andrew responds: Ah, Here We Go Again
You know full well that Catholic hermeneutics are more exacting than a simple fundamentalist sola-scriptura approach to the Scriptures. I may use Scripture, but I will never bring myself down to your level. You have made the Scriptures your plaything, interpreting only as it pleases you. There is no Church to tell you otherwise. If anyone disagrees, then they must be wrong. So far you and Nicholas have gotten along. Don't count on it lasting. This board is not big enough for two fallible popes who think they have a keen view of the truth. Lou responds: OK, If You Insist
Andrew responds: Maybe, but I suspect deletions are coming. Lou writes: Andrew, have you ever heard of a dynamically
supplied IP address? Every time you dial in to your ISP's modem pool, each
"phone line" is configured with a different IP address, although they are
from the same classification block. During my time online last night, the
server on the other side inadvertently terminated my connection, so I reconnected
and obviously
Andrew responds: I just thought the ISP business was curious, a thought in passing, I am well aware of the various ways such numbers can alter-- no big deal. I was just recalling some of Nicholas' paranoia about Internet identities. (By the way, if you are reading this Nicholas, have you concluded that I am "brother andrew" or "Joe" or "Cathy" or "Truth" or any of several other possible aliases? I 'm really not, you know. But then again, you called me a liar and demon-possessed.) Lou writes: As far as your "use" of Scripture, you said the magic word. Your church USES Scripture in an attempt to force her square pegged false doctrines into God's perfect circle of truth. Scripture is it's own interpreter. Accepting the Bible's own interpretation of It's Words shows nothing but pure harmony. The catholic's twisted and most private and so-called infallible, but VERY FALLIBLE interpretation yeilds discord that borders on insanity. You really do not know the Scriptures, for if you did, you would recognize the evil nature of catholicism and being a true child of God, you would have no other choice but to exit that false system of religion. You claim that catholic hermaneutics are more exacting than the sola scriptura approach. Really? So, the catholic church's teaching and approach to truth is more exact, reliable, truthful and authentic than God's Holy Word Iself? You've got to be really, totally, kidding me! You blaspheme the Holy Spirit who inspired the writings of Holy Scripture. By your comment you ADMIT catholicism's claim that they present the oracles of God better than His own Word does! You parrot antichrist's claim of infallibility and you fulfill Scripture's prophecy that antichrist would speak great words against the Most High and would exalt himself above God. What did I tell you in the last post about digging a bigger hole each and every time you attempt to defend antichrist? The devil may be powerful and he may have you deceived, but he's NO MATCH to the Word of God. He loses every time, and by extension, your church loses in every scriptural theological debate. And you do nothing but further the cause of Biblical truth by making it SO EASY to expose the deceitful teachings of catholicism. Are you proud of yourself? Funny that you label Nicholas and I as two fallible popes. At one point in history, your very fallible church had three so-called infallible popes. Which one of them were of God? Which one of them were the successors of Peter? It couldn't be all three, they were at eachother's throats. C'mon Andrew, I don't care how many degrees you hold. It means nothing. I'm not impressed at all. If you knew the Word, however, then I'd be impressed. The learned religious elite of Jesus's day were the respected ones, comparable to your caliber who boast of their credentials and degrees and the extenuated letters at the end of their names. But where did it get them Andrew? Jesus passed over those arrogant, self-righteous and deluded religionists and chose the lowly fishermen, the hated tax collectors, etc. Jesus esteemed them more worthy of carrying out His mission than the idiots that believed they got it all from God. Catholicism is in that same situation. I hope some day you come to that realization. Andrew responds: Boy, I touched a nerve that time. So the bible is self-interpretive. If that is the case then, just as I said, the Scriptures I offered on a series of points need no explaining. I purposely put no commentary of my own in the text. If they say all that needs to be said, then they stand alone. I believe that the teaching Church has a right to offer such commentary, especially against those who would twist biblical meaning, but so be it. There might be some confusion, but I would guess most people would find evidence for Catholic claims even without my explanation. I know the Scriptures from first hand research.
Many Catholics must trust the Church and the quality of approved scholars.
I can actually do some of the work myself. Admittedly the original languages
are a struggle, but it is worth it, do you not agree? Of course, you have
no one to oversee your study, but then again, maybe you rely on fallible
authorities-- perhaps people with
I believe the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Scriptures, continues to safeguard Christ's Church in the truth. It would make no sense otherwise. He would not establish a family in faith just to allow them to get lost, to abandon them. You are right, the devil is no match for the Word, but, unfortunately, he is sometimes more than a match for fallible men who break away from the Universal Church to play pope. Andrew responds: Notice the not so subtle topic shift from the first post? When you cannot answer serious corrections, you move the discussion to matters upon which you have nicely pre-packaged, though erroneous, answers. Before you even mentioned it I knew that your single source of revelation view would be introduced, as if that would have any weight for a Catholic. But, of course, even the way you read into Scripture is peculiar, so no real argumentation can have fruit on these grounds either. Indeed, I have no illusions about changing your mind at all. I just want to make it clear to visitors at this sight, that the so-called proofs against Catholicism are a sham from little minds filled with more prejudice and hatred than truth. Lou writes: One last time, Andrew. The focal point of my first post was the way that the church handled marriage by clergy and clergy that remained unmarried, but had concubines or otherwise engaged in illicit sexual behavior. They were treated differently. The priest that got married was treated more severely than the priest that liked to screw around. You are the one that's skirting the issue here. Answer the charge. You must admit that the above issues were not treated equally. Andrew responds: A priest who falls into sexual sin commits
a serious wrong. It would be the same for any man. Genital relations outside
of marriage is a mortal sin. Hopefully
such a man will quickly repent. However, the sin is compounded by renunciation
of the holy faith if he ATTEMPTS marriage
outside the Church. The latter act is far more serious and deserves a censure
like excommunication. I guess YOU do not
get it. I agree with such a policy. You do not understand the matter because
you do not believe that there is any such
thing as a Christian priesthood or an institutional Church established
by Christ. I am not even
I think you would still disagree with Catholicism if you understood her better; as it is, you often attack parodies of Catholic faith. I say this as the ultimate insider. Andrew responds: I will offer a brief reflection on celibacy and the apostolic witness. St. Paul himself was both celibate (1 Cor. 7:7-8) and Spirit-filled (1 Cor. 14:18: "I speak in tongues more than you all"). Just as a priest is to offer prophetic witness, the apostle agrees that sexual abstinence benefits the person "devoted to prayer" (1 Cor. 7:5). A Jewish man abstained from sexual relations during the time that he served as a priest. In a similar fashion, the Christian community in the West came to a general consensus that a priest of the new covenant should do so as well. Of course, his time as a priest was not temporary, but was a permanent affair. As there were more single men among the believers, they began to ordain them to the exclusion of married men. This was according to Paul's "wish [that] everyone . . . be as I am" (1 Cor. 7:7). The Church in the East retained the older discipline of a married and single clergy. The Second Vatican Council's Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests ("Presbyterorum Ordinis," 1965) states: "Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven was recommended by Christ our Lord. It has been freely accepted and laudably observed by many Christians down through the centuries as well as a feature of priestly life. For it is at once a sign of pastoral charity and an incentive to it as well as being in a special way a source of spiritual fruitfulness in the world . . . [Priests can] "cling to Christ with undivided hearts and dedicate themselves more freely to Him and through Him to the service of God and men" (16). They are living and prophetic signs of contradiction in this world of Christ's unity with his bride, the Church. They also point to the life in the world to come, "in which the children of the resurrection shall neither be married nor take wives" (Lk 20:35-37). Nicholas writes: Did Andrew say... "perpetual chastity is not a sin..." No Andrew, I wouldn't say it's a sin, no. But in the case of the RCC it's just ANOTHER sign of it's true demonic colors... 1 Timothy 4:1-3, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; **FORBIDDING TO MARRY**..." Truth is truth Andrew responds: Nuts and Squirrels Oh boy, sign of the demonic, but not a sin-- what a brilliant distinction-- NOT! Your nonsense never surprises me. [Regarding the Scripture quotation] Great! That proves a lot, except for that last commentary from the tradition of Nicholas. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 could just as well apply to you. Keep trying, as Dr. Hahn says, "Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn!" Nicholas writes: Still defending Antichrist with such hate filled words Andrew? If the RCC really did care about the conduct of her priests there wouldn't be so many VOLUMES of evidence against them. PLUS... when their priests get caught RED HANDED the so called "caring" RCC should excommunicate them rather than "send them to another parish!!" I have seen this happen in my own neighborhood as a child after some lolife priest molested many young boys. The RCC just moved the offending priest THREE TOWNS OVER! And so he continued to molest altar boys and then 15 years later those young boys grew up, took him to court, and HE GOT 44 YEARS! The RCC does NOT care NOT NOT NOT!!! In NO
WAY can you convince me or any of those young boys that were molested in
BOTH towns that the RCC cares! Not one bit! This church has one agenda...
CONTROL and POWER! And
Truth is truth and it WILL prevail! Shame on YOU Andrew for defending the Antichrist so Scripturally, prophetically, openly, graphically, accurately, and evidently exposed! Andrew responds: Nicholas, What an Emotional Outburst . . . Well, hello Nicholas old boy, so good to hear from you. My, my, you really impress me with your intellectual wit and brilliance-- NOT! Ah, forgive the light cynicism, but I so rarely see such unthinking emotional outbursts. But, don't worry, it is okay, you've got Lou hear to protect you. Now, let me see what you said, I hardly know how to respond. Oh yes, I know, I will parrot your nonsense back to you. Here goes . . . [The RCC does SO care DOES, DOES, DOES, (and one extra) DOES!!! You have only one agenda . . . CONTROL and POWER! And that's all that you desire. By degrading Catholicism, you draw disciples to yourself and join in that hellish agenda of eternal spite against God and his holy Church. That is why you distort her role in the history of mankind. WHY? Because it is SATAN that is bidding!] Excuse me for a moment while I vomit, even pretending to come down to your level makes me ill. You play on people's emotions. Obviously, there are some bad priests. And admittedly, or so it seems, the Church could have done better in its response. Today counseling is offered victims and there are monetary settlements. The priests are defrocked. Even if they were excommunicated, they could repent, change their ways, and find forgiveness. Their ministry would be over, but they could know God's mercy. In the final analysis that is all that matters, for any of us. Your rhetoric is more in line with that of the world and its need to seek revenge. Forgiveness is the key to any and all healing. I have known fallen priests. I have also known saints. You should get to know the other category of priest. It is peculiar that you seem to revel over a priest getting 44 years in prison while you would deny the possibility of an eternal sentence in hell. I trust more in divine justice and mercy. Nicholas writes: Re: nicholas, what an emotional outburst . . . Andrew... I forgive you for such the way you HATE me. Yet, I still do NOT hate you. Truth is truth Andrew responds: You are Too Pathetic to Hate, It is Sorrow I Feel for You I do not hate you. I only hate the lies you tell. I feel sorry for you. Nicholas writes: Re: For Catholic Clergy: Marriage Is Forbidden, Fornication Permitted! I wonder... Since they get kicked for marriage, but only fined for fornication... would that make the concubine a prostitute? Think about it... If the priest is "eager" often enough he will expect to have to "pay" for it eh? Truth is truth! PS... It's really wierd how this church has SO MUCH negative FACTS concerning it yet it's still one of the LARGEST churches on earth. Hmmmm I wonder.... Matthew 7:13, "...for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:" Andrew responds: Bad Priests Belong More to You Than to the Church, At Least in Their Loyalty You are assuming that every Catholic must be on the road to destruction. The truth is that even in the Church there are saints and rogues. Some of the rogues stay in the Church and make all sorts of trouble. Others break away from the faith and attack it from outside. I would suspect that is where you might be. But, I cannot even say for sure what your destiny might be. You might actually believe the garbage you spout. I knew a few anti-Catholics who were mentally ill, I would guess that God would be generous to them, considering their difficult circumstances. In any case, there are lots more people outside the Catholic Church than inside, so your logic has no firm basis in fact. The Church is faithful to the mission given her by Christ, to preach the Gospel to the whole world. This she continues to do. As for your snide remarks, there is no forfeiture in monetary fines today for priestly misconduct. Priests are often quite poor. Rather, he comes under review and if guilty his priestly faculties may be removed. You misunderstand the whole matter of censure in the Church. Even if it is short of excommunication, it is quite serious. However, as I said before, penalties can be lifted if there is repentance. This does not mean that a man will function as a priest in the future. It is very strange that the two of you should worry about this matter since as former Catholics you excommunicated yourselves from the Church. Since you hate her so much, I should suspect that you would welcome bad priests into your ranks. If they fail to repent and come back to Christ, you can keep them. Lou writes: It Is Such A Shame That You Are So Deceived! You could be well using your talents, intelligence, and eloquence in the service of Jesus Christ instead of AntiChrist. Peace! Nicholas writes: Re: It Is Such A Shame That You Are So Deceived! I agree with you on this one as well Lou. If Andrew were to put those gifts that he so grpahically has been blessed with to the TRUTH in Scriptures he would be a mighty warrior for the Lord Jesus insetad of the Beast in Rome. Perhaps... one day soon eh? I am still praying for himas i know you are as well. Perhaps he will have an experience as did Paul on the road to Damascus. Truth can be his too! Andrew responds: Truth Can Be Yours Too! Again, you guys have things mixed up. Every faithful Catholic is called to be a dragon killer. Your fire is serpent's breath. My abandonment of the Church would not be like Paul's conversion on the road; it would be like Judas hanging himself from a tree. Truth can be yours too! Forgive me for saying so, but listening to you two talk reminds me of a Star Wars film, when Darth Vader is conversing with the Emperor about the possibility that Luke Skywalker might be turned to the dark side of the Force. The film was pure fantasy. This business is not. That makes it all the more sinister. Nicholas writes: Re: Truth Can Be Yours Too! By their fruits! To preach WITH INSULTS speaks oh so loud Andrew. Like your Church leaders. You are making it TOO easy to prove what the Bible preaches about the RCC. Yet, still, some WILL believe your words over and above the truth in Scriptures. So be it. It is not these that the Word is for anyway. It's only for those that TRULY want to deny their sin and embrace the Father of creation. Now do you understand why Jesus spoke in parables? Those that truly do want to understand will seek out His truth and investigate His Word and understand what He really meant in His parables. The rest are satisfied with what "they" think it means. Prophecy is like this as well. You cannot look at prophecy and understand it without digging deep into the Word to find out what the "symbols" of prophecy mean. Truth is truth Lou writes: Jesus, THE Truth Is Already Mine!
I invite you to join in with God's remnant people. Leave that dark side called roman catholicism and come to THE LIGHT and live eternally with the Lord and all of His saints. Amen! Peace! Andrew responds: . . . You Are So Deceived! If I joined you in attacking the Church, I would indeed be joining the forces of the anti-Christ. Lou writes: Yes, They Should Have The Same Choices The Laity Does Catholic priests are human beings, too. They
have the same needs and desires just like everyone else. And if they were
allowed to participate in them, there wouldn't be all of the illicit sex
going on in the catholicism that's been a part of her legacy for over 1000
years. They even had a few really slimy popes in her history that had relations
with their own mothers and daughters. And I'm not just talking about the
physical desires. How about the desire for the companionship and sharing
life with a member of the opposite sex? Catholicism denies their priests
this most natural desire. The Bible does not forbid the ministers of Christ
from getting married. Paul said it's better if they didn't but IT'S NOT
A COMMANDMENT OF GOD. He understood it as a choice. And furthermore, Jesus
Christ Himself NEVER made a pronouncement against His ministers being married.
Did He ever make Peter who you think is the first pope, get a divorce from
His wife? No. And He never ever made a
Peace! Nicholas writes: Re: Is It Wrong to Keep Priests from Marrying? 1 Timothy 3:2, "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of **ONE WIFE**, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" Bishop = Pastor BTW Truth is truth Nicholas writes: Re: . . . You Are So Deceived! Are you ever going to use SCRIPTURES to make your point Andrew? It seems you can only resort to INSULTS. How do you expect to PROVE what you say? Is it because you cannot FIND Scriptures that prove what you say? INDEED. Therefore, you must resort to SLANDER so as to cOnFuSe those that read the TRUTHS we share. And yes! This WAS prophecied to occur... 1 Peter 3:16, "Having a good conscience; that, whereas *they speak evil of you, as of evildoers,* they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." Absolutely 100% of all that we preach can be easily verified in the BIBLE of the God we worship. And THAT angers many. Why? Because they cannot come back with Scriptures to prove the Scriptures we quote as bogus. Why? Because "...God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." (1Corinthians 14:33) The Almighty would NEVER counterdict His written Word! Truth is truth Andrew responds: Is It Wrong to Keep Priests from Marrying?
BIBLE CITATION FROM AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Contention that it is from the devil to prohibit the good of marriage] "Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions, through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer" (1 Timothy 14:1-4). CATHOLIC RESPONSE
- These words refer to a false asceticism and not to the practices of Catholic
Christianity. The early Church and well into the Patristic period, had
to deal with cults and movements which made all sorts of exaggerated claims
and required various austere practices. Some urged a return to Jewish dietary
laws. Others wanted to go even further with fasting and abstinence, perpetually
destroying joy in the goods of creation. There were even movements which
urged strict celibacy upon all the members as the only way to enlightenment
and salvation. The Catholic position is quite different.
BIBLE CITATION FROM
AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Peter was married; an apostolic line through Peter?]
"And when Jesus had come into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law
lying in bed, sick with a fever" (Matthew 8:14) "Now
CATHOLIC RESPONSE
- These references to Peter's mother-in-law do indicate that Peter was
married; although her absence from these texts might lend one to think
that she experienced some mishap and might have passed away. Be this as
it may, the Catholic Church has never hidden the fact that Peter and other
religious leaders of the Church were married. Indeed, the Catholic Church
had a married clergy all the way up to the 12th century. The Fourth Lateran
Council was quite decisive in mandating compulsory celibacy for any who
would be priests of the Roman or Western Rite. The Eastern rites of the
Catholic Church, to this very day (in Europe and the Far East) have an
optional married clergy. These priests are in full union with Rome. Also,
in our own nation many Protestant clergy, Lutheran and Episcopal, have
entered into the Roman Catholic priesthood, even though they are married
and have families. Those who are raised in the Western rite realize that
celibacy is a special gift and a particular charism of our priestly experience.
It is a sign of a wondrous single-hearted love. One of the fruits of this
sacrifice is the availability that a priest can give to his prayers, study,
and service. Any indication that Peter's married state would affect apostolic
succession is a low blow. Those who followed Peter had a spiritual and
not a physical affinity to the great apostle. While the Church has known
nepotism, such is the exception and not the rule. No one forces a young
man to become a priest or brother. There is no coercion for a woman to
become a nun. They know that vows of poverty, obedience, and celibacy are
part of the package. If God gives a person a vocation in the Catholic Church,
we believe that he will give them the graces and gifts to follow this life.
The majority of men who leave the priesthood to get
BIBLE CITATION FROM
AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Paul was single but thought we should have the
freedom to marry] "Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife,
as do the rest of the apostles, and brothers of the Lord, and
CATHOLIC RESPONSE
- The Catholic Church also recognizes the right of people to get married.
However, the Church has a right of her own to regulate her ministries.
Permanent deacons, Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, Catechists,
Lectors, Acolytes, and Lay Evangelists and Ministers all serve the Church
a may be married. Would the anti-Catholic demand compulsory matrimony?
I hope not. Those who opt for priesthood in the Roman Rite also freely
embrace celibacy. This is no less than what St. Paul did. After listing
all the various rights that a follower in Jesus possesses, he acknowledges
BIBLE CITATIONS OF
A CATHOLIC - [After listing the right to marry among many other freedoms,
St. Paul says] "Yet we have not used this right. On the contrary, we endure
everything, so as not to place an obstacle to the Gospel of Christ. ...
I have not used any of these rights, ..." (1 Corinthians 9:12,15). [After
speaking about marriage] "This I say by way of concession, however, not
as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular
gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried
and to widows, I say: It is a good thing for them to remain as they
|