Priest Hires Hit Man

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dumbbellhead wrote:
No hater here. Just observer. And before we get into the “Chick” questions, the first time I read those was when DF linked to them.

  • Monkeys in a monkey house would be an apt description of just about any religion or denomination.
  • I’m glad to hear you say that works don’t save but my question is what does the Roman Catholic post vatican II teach? Baptism is necessary for salvation. Is the act of baptizing not a work? What about the “following of the natural law” as well as faith? “The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation.” You are adding a lot to salvation there. And, of course, you must partake of the sacraments as well for they are “necessary for salvation”. Is that not a physical act as well, or work?
    [/quote]

You have to understand right now, my head is in a fog because I’ve been working non-stop for four weeks. And, my mind is slipping so I’ll try to come up with a short answer, as you can see in the immigrant thread, that last night I just did a mental dump on MaximusB, which if you’re reading this MaximusB: I am sorry.

James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

2:24 faith alone: Faith by itself is “dead” (2:17), “barren” (2:20), and has no power to “save” anyone (2:14). In the NT, the expression “faith alone” occurs only in James, where it is rejected as false teaching. Paul often stresses the importance of “justification by faith”, but he nowhere speaks of justification by faith alone (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:15-16).

So, we are justified by faith and works, but does that mean we are saved? I say no, some say yes. In my prideful nature, I say they are wrong. Without Jesus, would faith and works have the power to save? No, so only Jesus saves us. However, as Eph 2:6-10 says there are works we should be concerned with and doing.

[quote]

  • Purgatory is never described in scripture. Where is the basis of belief other than the former Councils and Vatican teachings?[/quote]

Well, let’s see what I can wrangle up, and what is wrong with former councils, didn’t former councils give us the Bible?

Rev 21:27, “nothing unclean shall enter it.” There is the thing that if we die with our mortal sins forgiven, we can still go to heaven. But we have to fix our mess though.

Heb 9:27 shows us that there are two judgments. Augustine tells us that temporary (def. temporal) punishments are suffered by some this life, by others after death, and some both now and then, but all of them before the last and strictest judgement.

Luke 12:59 tells us that we’ll never get out of the hell of the dead, purgatory, purgatorio, whatever the Orthodox call it until we pay the very last penny (or copper).

Monica asked Augustine (her son) to remember her in the Masses. It wouldn’t make sense to ask her to remember her if she wouldn’t benefit from the prayers, which if you’re in Heaven you don’t need prayers because your saved, and if you’re in Hell you don’t need prayers because you can’t be saved.

Also, tombs or catacombs had graffiti during the first three centuries show prayers for the dead. Again, people in both Heaven and Hell don’t need prayers.

in 1 Peter 3:19, “in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison.” The Church takes this as Jesus in Purgatory with the spirits. No reason to go to Hell to talk to spirits, their souls are damned forever.

Also in Matthew 12:32, Jesus refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” which suggests that one can be freed from his punishment from one’s sins.

1 Cor 3:15, Paul talks about man’s works will be tried after he dies, where are they going to be tried…if he’s in Heaven he’s not going to get kicked out, and Hell he’s staying there forever. Heaven specifically because their is no suffering or fire there.

Plus there is 2 Macc 12:43-45: “In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin”

The Jews believed in Purgatory, and history shows us that early Christians did. Even though they didn’t call it purgatory, but purgatory can be called anything, it is the concept and being humans we gave it a name.

So, I don’t put a bunch of stuff on here I’ll just give you a link I found: http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp

Of course indulgences are accepted and encouraged, I just did a plenary indulgence on All Soul’s Day. I try to do one once a week after I go to confession and take communion.

Yes, it is good to do indulgences for those in purgatory so as to easy their temporal punishment.

Yes, it will clean us of our sins, as we are perfected in the presence of the Lord. However, that does not mean that we don’t have stuff before that we need to do before taking Eucharist. The Bible says that before we give our gift/sacrifice that we have our brother forgive us.

Basically, goes something like this. We are absolved of our sins, we are no longer guilty of our sins, we take communion so we are cleaned of our sins, made perfect in the Lord’s presences, indulgence or purgatory cleans up the mess.

By the way, sorry if I didn’t answer your question, your source is a little confusing, can I get a link to it so I can read what it says to put it in context.

You can be free of all sin and still make it into purgatory. Where did you get your stuff from? I’d like to see what this is, I have a feeling it is a Catechism.

Think of it like this, if I went to my father’s house (earthy father) and I spilled OJ. And, I tell my father I am sorry, of course he’s going to forgive me. However, the spill has to be cleaned up. That is purgatory. It’s kind of abstract, but that’s as basic as I can get. When we sin we hurt others and we have to fix that, either through punishment now or later, or both.

[quote]
This is a bit of a convoluted mess isn’t it?

Hater? My friend you have no idea of the road I have traveled spiritually. And I have no idea of the road you have traveled. But don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.[/quote]

I have no clue what you’re talking about, I don’t know if you have seen what flack I get…on these forums…by people that call themselves my friends for being Catholic. I assume everyone hates me because I’m Catholic, and that is fine. It is easy to hate something you don’t know or understand.[/quote]

I dont’ have time to fully respond other than to say that this is my source: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< I assume everyone hates me because I’m Catholic, >>>[/quote]What is it with you guys. I hope you’re not including me in this.

SACRIFICE HIM TO OUR GOD!

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The problem, brother chris, is that the priests were NOT being “released and excommunicated.” They were being shuffled around and purposefully shielded from civil prosecution.

If you have evidence to the contrary, or stating that this has changed, I would very much like to see it. [/quote]

http://www.vatican.va/resources/index_en.htm[/quote]

[quote]“Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed” is contained in the section dedicated to “Preliminary Procedures”. This means that in the practice suggested by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it is necessary to comply with the requirements of law in the various countries, and to do so in good time, not during or subsequent to the canonical trial. [/quote] The significance of the publication of the new Norms concerning the most serious crimes - Note by Fr. F. Lombardi

Thank you for your response. This appears to be a series of public statements. While these are good, I don’t really see them as “evidence” that things have changed. Perhaps I missed a link, however. Do you have examples where a priest was turned over to the civil authorities by the church (for example)? I guess I’m saying that actions speak louder than words, especially when there was a massive conspiracy to hide child abusers that went on for, apparently, decades and apparently, spanned the globe.

The quotation above, I believe, has always been church policy, has it not? Yet this policy simply was not followed.

In fact, I believe the John Jay study stated that the scandal had affected around 95% of the dioceses.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]
Also, you said [quote]I believe that some of the bishops that have aided these priests that have harmed children are misguided in some of their efforts to keep from scandal, even though one can understand the efforts. [/quote] I can’t understand these efforts, not at all. [/quote]

Not to create scandal of the Church? Basically prevent yellow journalism. Basically if someone is doing something wrong handle it in private, don’t make a scene about it. But, I think they took it too far, they should have made it public that these priests were being released and excommunicated for their sexual misconduct, and until they repent they are to be excommunicated and any civil punishment (although I think personally the Catholic Church should have done the punishment) is fine as long as it fits that crime, which basically I think stops at hanging the perverts.[/quote][/quote]

Sorry to harp, but I guess this really stuck with me as it is the crux of the scandal. You seem to be saying that it is “understandable” that the bishops covered this up and shuffled priests around because of “yellow journalism” and to prevent a “scandal of the church.” Am I actually understanding you correctly?

Further, and once again, priests were not being “released and excommunicated.” That [b]is[/b] the scandal.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< I assume everyone hates me because I’m Catholic, >>>[/quote]What is it with you guys. I hope you’re not including me in this.
[/quote]

Seriously? You don’t understand why I say this?

[quote]dumbbellhead wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dumbbellhead wrote:
No hater here. Just observer. And before we get into the “Chick” questions, the first time I read those was when DF linked to them.

  • Monkeys in a monkey house would be an apt description of just about any religion or denomination.
  • I’m glad to hear you say that works don’t save but my question is what does the Roman Catholic post vatican II teach? Baptism is necessary for salvation. Is the act of baptizing not a work? What about the “following of the natural law” as well as faith? “The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation.” You are adding a lot to salvation there. And, of course, you must partake of the sacraments as well for they are “necessary for salvation”. Is that not a physical act as well, or work?
    [/quote]

You have to understand right now, my head is in a fog because I’ve been working non-stop for four weeks. And, my mind is slipping so I’ll try to come up with a short answer, as you can see in the immigrant thread, that last night I just did a mental dump on MaximusB, which if you’re reading this MaximusB: I am sorry.

James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

2:24 faith alone: Faith by itself is “dead” (2:17), “barren” (2:20), and has no power to “save” anyone (2:14). In the NT, the expression “faith alone” occurs only in James, where it is rejected as false teaching. Paul often stresses the importance of “justification by faith”, but he nowhere speaks of justification by faith alone (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:15-16).

So, we are justified by faith and works, but does that mean we are saved? I say no, some say yes. In my prideful nature, I say they are wrong. Without Jesus, would faith and works have the power to save? No, so only Jesus saves us. However, as Eph 2:6-10 says there are works we should be concerned with and doing.

[quote]

  • Purgatory is never described in scripture. Where is the basis of belief other than the former Councils and Vatican teachings?[/quote]

Well, let’s see what I can wrangle up, and what is wrong with former councils, didn’t former councils give us the Bible?

Rev 21:27, “nothing unclean shall enter it.” There is the thing that if we die with our mortal sins forgiven, we can still go to heaven. But we have to fix our mess though.

Heb 9:27 shows us that there are two judgments. Augustine tells us that temporary (def. temporal) punishments are suffered by some this life, by others after death, and some both now and then, but all of them before the last and strictest judgement.

Luke 12:59 tells us that we’ll never get out of the hell of the dead, purgatory, purgatorio, whatever the Orthodox call it until we pay the very last penny (or copper).

Monica asked Augustine (her son) to remember her in the Masses. It wouldn’t make sense to ask her to remember her if she wouldn’t benefit from the prayers, which if you’re in Heaven you don’t need prayers because your saved, and if you’re in Hell you don’t need prayers because you can’t be saved.

Also, tombs or catacombs had graffiti during the first three centuries show prayers for the dead. Again, people in both Heaven and Hell don’t need prayers.

in 1 Peter 3:19, “in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison.” The Church takes this as Jesus in Purgatory with the spirits. No reason to go to Hell to talk to spirits, their souls are damned forever.

Also in Matthew 12:32, Jesus refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” which suggests that one can be freed from his punishment from one’s sins.

1 Cor 3:15, Paul talks about man’s works will be tried after he dies, where are they going to be tried…if he’s in Heaven he’s not going to get kicked out, and Hell he’s staying there forever. Heaven specifically because their is no suffering or fire there.

Plus there is 2 Macc 12:43-45: “In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin”

The Jews believed in Purgatory, and history shows us that early Christians did. Even though they didn’t call it purgatory, but purgatory can be called anything, it is the concept and being humans we gave it a name.

So, I don’t put a bunch of stuff on here I’ll just give you a link I found: http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp

Of course indulgences are accepted and encouraged, I just did a plenary indulgence on All Soul’s Day. I try to do one once a week after I go to confession and take communion.

Yes, it is good to do indulgences for those in purgatory so as to easy their temporal punishment.

Yes, it will clean us of our sins, as we are perfected in the presence of the Lord. However, that does not mean that we don’t have stuff before that we need to do before taking Eucharist. The Bible says that before we give our gift/sacrifice that we have our brother forgive us.

Basically, goes something like this. We are absolved of our sins, we are no longer guilty of our sins, we take communion so we are cleaned of our sins, made perfect in the Lord’s presences, indulgence or purgatory cleans up the mess.

By the way, sorry if I didn’t answer your question, your source is a little confusing, can I get a link to it so I can read what it says to put it in context.

You can be free of all sin and still make it into purgatory. Where did you get your stuff from? I’d like to see what this is, I have a feeling it is a Catechism.

Think of it like this, if I went to my father’s house (earthy father) and I spilled OJ. And, I tell my father I am sorry, of course he’s going to forgive me. However, the spill has to be cleaned up. That is purgatory. It’s kind of abstract, but that’s as basic as I can get. When we sin we hurt others and we have to fix that, either through punishment now or later, or both.

Don’t worry about it.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]
Also, you said [quote]I believe that some of the bishops that have aided these priests that have harmed children are misguided in some of their efforts to keep from scandal, even though one can understand the efforts. [/quote] I can’t understand these efforts, not at all. [/quote]

Not to create scandal of the Church? Basically prevent yellow journalism. Basically if someone is doing something wrong handle it in private, don’t make a scene about it. But, I think they took it too far, they should have made it public that these priests were being released and excommunicated for their sexual misconduct, and until they repent they are to be excommunicated and any civil punishment (although I think personally the Catholic Church should have done the punishment) is fine as long as it fits that crime, which basically I think stops at hanging the perverts.[/quote][/quote]

Sorry to harp, but I guess this really stuck with me as it is the crux of the scandal. You seem to be saying that it is “understandable” that the bishops covered this up and shuffled priests around because of “yellow journalism” and to prevent a “scandal of the church.” Am I actually understanding you correctly?

Further, and once again, priests were not being “released and excommunicated.” That [b]is[/b] the scandal. [/quote]

No, heavens no. It is understandable to want to keep things from scandal within the Church. The shuffling was their misguided efforts. That is what I am saying, they were trying to stop the scandal of the priest’s abuse, and in turn created a double fold scandal. If they could have stopped scandal while stopping the abuse, then that would be great, but remember the end never justifies the means.

So, if they would have executed the priests (after a trial), then I would have not had a problem. Probably would have scared the perverts into keeping their damn flies zipped up. I think that should not only be a Church law, but a civil punishment. I have no tolerance for people that abuse children.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The problem, brother chris, is that the priests were NOT being “released and excommunicated.” They were being shuffled around and purposefully shielded from civil prosecution.

If you have evidence to the contrary, or stating that this has changed, I would very much like to see it. [/quote]

http://www.vatican.va/resources/index_en.htm[/quote]

[quote]“Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed” is contained in the section dedicated to “Preliminary Procedures”. This means that in the practice suggested by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it is necessary to comply with the requirements of law in the various countries, and to do so in good time, not during or subsequent to the canonical trial. [/quote] The significance of the publication of the new Norms concerning the most serious crimes - Note by Fr. F. Lombardi

Thank you for your response. This appears to be a series of public statements. While these are good, I don’t really see them as “evidence” that things have changed. Perhaps I missed a link, however. Do you have examples where a priest was turned over to the civil authorities by the church (for example)? [/quote]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20101031/GPG0101/10310671/Menasha-priest-put-on-leave-after-abuse-claim

[quote]Sloth wrote:

evidence [/quote]

Thanks. This is good news. Especially because, as you probably know, the Green Bay diocese was hit particularly had by the scandal.

Here is some information about the Green Bay diocese

[i] [Green Bay’s Bishop] Banks, according to a scathing Massachusetts Grand Jury report, was Cardinal Bernard Lawâ??s chief lieutenant in covering up for offender priests before coming to Green Bay.

Documents were also released this year from the Norbertine religious order, headquartered in the diocese and under the supervision of the Green Bay bishop, detailing there policy of hiding and transferring known sex offenders.

According to the Green Bay diocese, as of 2004, 51 clergy were determined by church authorities to have assaulted children over the past several decades, 18 of them Norbertine clerics, making the diocese one of the highest concentration of clerical offenders in the country. [/i]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< I assume everyone hates me because I’m Catholic, >>>[/quote]What is it with you guys. I hope you’re not including me in this.
[/quote]

Seriously? You don’t understand why I say this?[/quote]I don’t see that much of what could be interpreted as actual personal hatred.

Poor kids.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< I assume everyone hates me because I’m Catholic, >>>[/quote]What is it with you guys. I hope you’re not including me in this.
[/quote]

Seriously? You don’t understand why I say this?[/quote]I don’t see that much of what could be interpreted as actual personal hatred.
[/quote]

Well, you haven’t lived as a Catholic, so I am not surprised.

ephrem, you trying to say something with your communication, there?

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pearls-from-the-holy-father/

“The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist.”

This is an extremely powerful statement that I believe can be applied to more churches than just the Roman Catholic. Most churches today still function under that mistaken belief unfortunately.

[quote]dumbbellhead wrote:
“The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist.”

This is an extremely powerful statement that I believe can be applied to more churches than just the Roman Catholic. Most churches today still function under that mistaken belief unfortunately.[/quote]

As I learned in my history class of law, Roman Canon Law is the oldest legal system (still active and continual rule) and laws in the world. Why we went lax in this area, I am not sure. However, I am glad it is coming back to the fore front, and I plan on studying it myself and getting a degree in it.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Well, you haven’t lived as a Catholic, so I am not surprised.[/quote]Come on now buddy. You’re not gonna say you’ve gotten any more grief than I have?

Brother Chris,

Why would you say that about Tirib? I have never seen him ever say anything bad about you, or anyone else for that matter, yet you presume to judge him? Niiiiiiice.

Why is it that the biggest Bible thumpers are the ones who are the last to actually follow it?

Chris, shuffling priests around is not my idea of handling pedophiles. A lock and sock is what I call my way of handling it, if you need to know what that means, ask AC.