Catholic Discussion

look3467

Council Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,952
15
38
Northern California
I think she was not suggesting that non-Catholics can post, rather, questioning why AJ posts theological material contrary to the Church.

What is interesting in this discussions is that I am able to relate to all posters with love and tenderness and I do not get the same respect in return.

I do understand the reasons why this is so, which makes me more tolerant of those who disagree with me.
I can not force anybody to see my views as I see them, but I can surely see theirs.

I place myself above only in that respect, but am equal in all else with everybody else.

I have my faults just like everybody else and am no saint by any means.

But, one thing I can assure you 'all, is that I will listen to your views, and if I can add some new in site to your understanding coming from a base of love, then perhaps it might be of help.

I've taken some abuse from some, and it is taken with much forgiveness in the hopes that God may soften their hearts from hearts of stone. (of regimental, traditional, methodical and prejudicial heart)
The fact that I do get unfavorable responses, shows that their base beliefs are under Scrutiny causes them to look to seek correct answers in the bible.



It challenges them to do some home work all in the effort to refute what I say, and only to find that they are getting educated in the word of God.


And my goal is that they do just that, and that the end result will be that they will find God to be more loving towards them that they could have ever imagined.

Thus themselves, become more loving towards their neighbors.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
I think she was not suggesting that non-Catholics can post, rather, questioning why AJ posts theological material contrary to the Church.

I knew she wasn't referring to me, personally, I just get a little defensive when "anyone" decides
that one of "us" shouldn't post because "they" don't like what they read.
Your suggestion to "ignore" such postings is a much better idea.
 

mapleleafgirl

Electoral Member
Dec 13, 2006
864
12
18
34
windsor,ontario
I knew she wasn't referring to me, personally, I just get a little defensive when "anyone" decides
that one of "us" shouldn't post because "they" don't like what they read.
Your suggestion to "ignore" such postings is a much better idea.


im sorry. i dont mean to come off like a bitch...but aj is kinda annoying with his born again stuff and it just dosent fit the catholic stuff so i cant figure out why he bothers. why dosent he start a born-again theology thread?
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
im sorry. i dont mean to come off like a bitch...but aj is kinda annoying with his born again stuff and it just dosent fit the catholic stuff so i cant figure out why he bothers. why dosent he start a born-again theology thread?

It's more fun if we all chat together, or we'll be talking to ourselves. :smile:
 

Sparrow

Council Member
Nov 12, 2006
1,202
23
38
Quebec
im sorry. i dont mean to come off like a bitch...but aj is kinda annoying with his born again stuff and it just dosent fit the catholic stuff so i cant figure out why he bothers. why dosent he start a born-again theology thread?
He irks me too sometimes. It is as if he was preaching AT us with a holier than thou attitude. That is why I don't respond to his posts, better to ignore than loose our cool, it is more charitable.
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
I knew she wasn't referring to me, personally, I just get a little defensive when "anyone" decides
that one of "us" shouldn't post because "they" don't like what they read.
Your suggestion to "ignore" such postings is a much better idea.
Ya...I don't like being told not to post and when I do, where I should post either...yet, plenty in this thread seem to want to do that. Anyway, I just can't figure this thread out...it's a catholic discussion thread....but...when people attempt to discuss anything that doesn't meet the seemingly strict approval of a small representation of people, then they are shut out, called down, ignored, etc. Is this what god is teaching these folks? It just doesn't really make sense to me. The only way people want to have a catholic discussion is with pro-catholic views, slight discussions about slight interpretations of passages, and a lot of ego stroking. When faced with real questions, real criticism, real discussion...it's push away time. Why? If you believe so strongly, believe that what you are saying can stand on it's own. And if it cannot, then maybe it should be rethunk?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
m_levesque said:
You really are off base here, they certainly do NOT regard Jesus as their Messiah!

You and Sanctus need to actually read the Koran. See those specific lines that I have posted on this forum about 18 times already. Also see the following:


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][SIZE=-0]Jesus was both a messenger and The Messiah that Allah had promised! What is a Messiah? A Messiah is always known as "a Saviour... a liberator and a deliverer." God had promised to send one (Messiah) to pay the debt of sin for all mankind.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][SIZE=-0]The Messiah!... God's gift to sinful man... The Saviour... The Liberator... Our Redeemer. The prophets of the Torah foretold of His coming. Muhammad and his Disciples revered Him... the Qur'an and the Bible reveal Him! The Messiah... The Saviour of the world! Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible speak of any other as being the Messiah!!![/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][SIZE=-0]Dear friend, that is the most profound truth! And it is truth that cannot be denied. Jesus is the one and only Messiah. He is the Saviour. He is the Messiah of the Muslims, the Jews, and the Gentiles. Millions throughout the world of every nation and creed accept Him as Saviour.[/SIZE][/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][SIZE=-0]From: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/quran-jesus.html[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif][SIZE=-0]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
 

Graeme

Electoral Member
Jun 5, 2006
349
1
18
Since you insist:
The quote from the Gospel of St. Matthew must be read in the context of the whole of Chapter 23, in which Our Lord Jesus Christ denounces in general the pride and hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees: the contrast between their words and their actions (v. 3); the heavy burdens they placed on the shoulders of the people without giving any assistance (v. 4); their love to be seen and praised (v. 5).
Our Lord’s words were meant to provide a lesson in humility, exhorting His followers to realize that only the Heavenly Father is the genuine Father, while all others simply partake, or reveal a part, of His Paternity. Christ concluded His admonitions, saying: "whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (v.12).
A literal understanding of Our Lord’s words would lead to an absurd conclusion, prohibiting ourselves from calling our natural fathers "father," while allowing us to call our mothers "mother." Yet, such an interpretation would go against Sacred Scripture itself, where Our Lady says to the Child Jesus: "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously" (St. Luke 2, 48).
St. Paul confirms that there are various types of fatherhood, all of which are based on the Fatherhood of God: "For this cause I bow my knees to the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named" (Eph. 3, 15 [Douai]). Abraham is acknowledged as the father of all who have faith, both in the Old and the New Law: "He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them" (Rom. 4, 11).
St. Paul goes on to apply the term "father" to himself, while on more than one occasion writes to his own as if they were his children:
"I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4, 14-15);
"Here I am, ready to come to you this third time. And I will not be a burden, because I do not want what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12, 14);
"To Timothy, his beloved son in faith. Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1, 2 [Douai]);
"To Titus my beloved son, according to the common faith, grace and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Savior" (Tit. 1, 4 [Douai]);
"I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment" (Phile. 1, 10).
In similar vain do the Apostles themselves write:
"Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5, 13);
"I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven on account of his name. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning" (1 John 2, 12).
From these verses it is evident that the title "father" was used not with any sense of pride, but rather to engender tenderness and affection within spiritual relationships. The Catholic Church wishes Her children to act in the same way when addressing those who partake in God’s Fatherhood through preaching Christ’s Gospel and sanctifying the faithful.
The Fathers:
The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (C. 155 - 157 A.D.) :
(St. Polycarp was called) "teacher of Asia and father of the Christians."
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (C. 180 A.D.):
"He who has received the teaching from another’s mouth is called the son of his instructor, and he is called his father."
St. John Chrysostom (+ 407 A.D.), In 1 Tim. hom. 6:
"...priests are the fathers of all, it is their duty to attend to all their spiritual children, edifying them first by a holy life, and afterwards by salutary instructions."
St. Gregory the Great (+ 605 A.D.), In Evang. hom. 17:
" Priests are Patres Christianorum (the Fathers of Christians)."
Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566):
In the first place, the prelates of the Church, her pastors and priests are called fathers, as is evident from the Apostle, who, writing to the Corinthians, says: I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children. For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers...It is written in Ecclesiasticus: Let us praise men of renown, and our fathers in their generation...Those who govern the State, to whom are entrusted power, magistracy, or command, are also called fathers; thus Naaman was called father by his servants...The name father is also applied to those to whose care, fidelity, probity and wisdom others are committed, such as teachers, instructors, masters and guardians; and hence the sons of the Prophets called Elijah and Eliseus their father.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):
No. 1549: Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers. In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.

Since you insist:

HAHAHA, wow why didnt' you just post the link the web web site you plagiarized Sanctus?? Here I will do it for you http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/Course/Book2A2.htm

For you to pass that off as your own input is quite a disreputable thing to do.

have you even read 1 Tim 6??? It doesn't say anything of the sort.

or how about roman 4, 11 Well, maybe we should start at 4, 1 "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?"

Sanctus, Why do you allow yourself to be so ignorant, to actually post something and give your name to it when you haven't even read it through.


And you know for supposedly being the first "RC Pope" Peter didn't exactly set a good lead by having a wife and children did he!

I wonder if the lack of following Peter's lead, is why the RC priest hood (which is supposed to be so high and mighty) are raping so many young boys.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Ya...I don't like being told not to post and when I do, where I should post either...yet, plenty in this thread seem to want to do that. Anyway, I just can't figure this thread out...it's a catholic discussion thread....but...when people attempt to discuss anything that doesn't meet the seemingly strict approval of a small representation of people, then they are shut out, called down, ignored, etc. Is this what god is teaching these folks? It just doesn't really make sense to me. The only way people want to have a catholic discussion is with pro-catholic views, slight discussions about slight interpretations of passages, and a lot of ego stroking. When faced with real questions, real criticism, real discussion...it's push away time. Why? If you believe so strongly, believe that what you are saying can stand on it's own. And if it cannot, then maybe it should be rethunk?

Well, we all understand by now exactly what your points are, we have heard them many many times.
You know the position of the catholic church, and we all know yours. Thats that.
The catholic interpretation of the "bible" IS what they believe, and they don't have any
other interpretations of "it", end of story, so be it.
If you need to expand on that, perhaps you should contact Rome, because I don't know what you expect anyone on this forum to do about it. The message on the homosexual situation has
exhausted itself, lets move on.
 
Last edited:

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
And you know for supposedly being the first "RC Pope" Peter didn't exactly set a good lead by having a wife and children did he!

I wonder if the lack of following Peter's lead, is why the RC priest hood (which is supposed to be so high and mighty) are raping so many young boys.

First off, I am a contributer to that site. Secondly, I would assume we would have more accurate information, considering the amount of research and the age of the Church to better understand the Scriptures. Third, the priesthood is not "raping young boys". And that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the topic.
 

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
Well, we all understand by now exactly what your points are, we have heard them many many times.
You know the position of the catholic church, and we all know yours. Thats that.
The catholic interpretation of the "bible" IS what they believe, and they don't have any
other interpretations of "it", end of story, so be it.
If you need to expand on that, perhaps you should contact Rome, because I don't know what you expect anyone on this forum to do about it. The message on the homosexual situation has
exhausted itself, lets move on.

That is pretty well why I ignore him. Usually, in any conversation, his biggest "whine" is about the issue of homosexual relations and the church. there just comes a point when answering him is as redundant as his posting the same points, over and over and over.

He seems to believe that having a discussion on this forum is somehow going to make the Vatican change the doctrines of a 2,000 year old dogma.
 

Graeme

Electoral Member
Jun 5, 2006
349
1
18
First off, I am a contributer to that site. Secondly, I would assume we would have more accurate information, considering the amount of research and the age of the Church to better understand the Scriptures. Third, the priesthood is not "raping young boys". And that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the topic.


okay then why did you post passages that don't say what you said they say? I pointed out two.

oh and why don't you put a small X in the upper right or left corner then to show us that you have something to do with the page.

now for the fun part
 

Graeme

Electoral Member
Jun 5, 2006
349
1
18
the priesthood is not "raping young boys". And that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the topic.

This is Catholic discussion.

FIRST I would like to point out that Catholic actually means Universal. What is actually meant in the name of this thread, is Roman Catholic Discussion. (just simantics)

"The Rev. Rolando "Randy" Benas, the priest from Saratoga's Sacred Heart Parish arrested last week on rape charges"

"The former priest at St. Vincent's Catholic Church in Margate is accused of drugging and raping a young boy over a five-year period. Doherty is expected to go to trial next year."

"The indictment marks the second time this year that a priest in western Massachusetts has been charged with sexual assault. In February, a Franklin County grand jury handed up indictments charging Rev. Richard R. LaVigne with molesting five children."

"Bennett said the indecent assault and battery charges stem from incidents in September and November 1990 at the rectory of St. Mary's Church in Westfield. According to Bennett, Father LaMontagne, who served as assistant pastor of the church, allegedly touched the woman on her buttocks, thigh and breasts."

"In 1987 Bartz was accused of abusing several minor males and was moved from his faculty position at St. Mary of the Lake Seminary to a hospital chaplaincy and to a residence position in a parish with a 286-student elementary school. At least one of the alleged molestations took place at the seminary."

MY GOODNESS THIS IS ONE DISGUSTING group of people.

"The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago will pay slightly more than $8 million to 15 adults who, as minors, were molested by its priests, bringing to $13.9 million the amount the church has agreed to pay this year to victims of sexual abuse."

"
The Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago confirmed Wednesday that three priests--one at a hospital and two at church desk jobs--are among eight clerics whose old sexual misconduct cases are being re-evaluated under a new national child sex-abuse policy adopted by U.S. Catholic bishops last week in Dallas.
The priests--James Ray, Thomas Swade and Richard Bartz--were removed from parish ministry in the 1980s and 1990s after allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced, according to church officials.
"

"Rev. Prosper Bemunuge - Accused of engaging in "various sexual acts" during a counseling session in 1988. Out-of-court settlement reached with the female complainant in 1989. "

"Rev. Timothy Joseph Evans - Charged with two counts of sexual abuse. 3 male victims. Abuse occurred 1995-1997 and 1999. "

"Rev. Richard Castillo - admitted to abusing 4 boys. Reported to Police in 1996 but statute had run."

"Rev. Thomas Crandall - Accused of sexually assaulting 12 yr old boy in 1985. He committed suicide in 1986 just prior to time his trial was to begin."

Do I REALLY need to go on??? There are MANY Hundreds. And these are only in America.

If anyone wants I can post more in here, I think this aspect of the ROMAN Catholic Church needs to be discussed.


source: http://bishop-accountability.org

They also list their sources.
 
Last edited:

Graeme

Electoral Member
Jun 5, 2006
349
1
18
You're right about one thing, "the priesthood is not "raping young boys"." You're right, they seem to be raping or abusing anyone they can.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
Graeme had you considered the size of the church? The proportion of preists who've done this kind of thing is minute, and the same could be said of any large institution with opportunity, teachers for instance, or doctors, or childminders. Or ministers of other religions for that matter.
 

Graeme

Electoral Member
Jun 5, 2006
349
1
18
Graeme had you considered the size of the church? The proportion of preists who've done this kind of thing is minute, and the same could be said of any large institution with opportunity, teachers for instance, or doctors, or childminders. Or ministers of other religions for that matter.


actually the propotion is higher in Catholic Priests.

For just sexual child abuse:

Over the last 50 years 1.8% of US clergy were accused of sexual child abuse. Over the last 50 years far less than 4 500 000 individuals in the US have be accused of child abuse . (I took the 2001 figure for sexually abused children - 90,000 and multiplied by 50, even though 1 person generally abuses multiple children) . That works out to less than 1% of all people who have been adults in the US since 1950. Plus that includes the ones Priests abused.


Yeah, so the ratio is 2:1 in sexual child abuse at least.
 
Last edited:

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
actually the propotion is higher in Catholic Priests.

For just sexual child abuse:

Over the last 50 years 1.8% of US clergy were accused of sexual child abuse. Over the last 50 years far less than 5 000 000 individuals, in the US have be accused of child abuse and multiplied by 50. (I took the 2001 figure for sexually abused children - 90,000, even though 1 person generally abuses multiple children) and multiplied by 50. That works out to less than 1% of all people who have been adults in the US since 1950. Plus that includes the ones Priests abused.


Yeah, so the ratio is 2:1 in sexual child abuse at least.

2:1 accused. And even so it'd be rude to tar the whole church with the same brush. I should know, I did it.
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
That is pretty well why I ignore him. Usually, in any conversation, his biggest "whine" is about the issue of homosexual relations and the church. there just comes a point when answering him is as redundant as his posting the same points, over and over and over.

He seems to believe that having a discussion on this forum is somehow going to make the Vatican change the doctrines of a 2,000 year old dogma.
I don't think anything is going to change. I have expressed this over and over again. But...I am trying to have conversation, which is kinda the point of the whole discussion forum. This isn't the UN....this isn't the end of the world...this is a discussion forum. But, again, when faced with a challenge to your religion or your ideas, you would prefer to ignore rather than to face criticism. That's fine...I mean, that's up to you. But, I find it very interesting. And, again, like I have been saying all along, just because things are the way they have been for 2000 years doesn't make it right...or doesn't mean that it has been interpreted correct.
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
Graeme had you considered the size of the church? The proportion of preists who've done this kind of thing is minute, and the same could be said of any large institution with opportunity, teachers for instance, or doctors, or childminders. Or ministers of other religions for that matter.
I think, however, one of the issues here is the fact that this was happening within...the church...a moral authority. That makes what happened that much more...head scratchingly scary. And then, I think, the reaction of the church was very frustrating. It's like police corruption. I think the feeling is that there is a sense of hypocrisy when this happens. I mean, not everyone is perfect, there is no doubt, but when there is a relatively large scale common problem going on, such as sexual abuse within the church, one has to ask....what's up? And, when this happens, it is going to cause outrage, and rightly so...I mean, if the church is preaching all about love and good stuff...and then sexual abuse cases happen within the church...well....anyway, I'm rambling.
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
Well, we all understand by now exactly what your points are, we have heard them many many times.
You know the position of the catholic church, and we all know yours. Thats that.
The catholic interpretation of the "bible" IS what they believe, and they don't have any
other interpretations of "it", end of story, so be it.
If you need to expand on that, perhaps you should contact Rome, because I don't know what you expect anyone on this forum to do about it. The message on the homosexual situation has
exhausted itself, lets move on.
So, basically, you are telling me to stop posting. But...I ask again...what is the point of a discussion forum? I thought it was about discussing, learning, chatting, arguing, tackling issues (not solving them), sharing, etc. I thought I was doing this? Apparently, though, this is....wrong?