It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Book every smart Catholic should read:

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Sounds like you should move…

Just kidding ....


WE DID! We moved back north and east to get away from
the militant fundamentalists. They HATED everyone who didn't
worship exactly like them. IF I come across hard, it's from 10
years of them lobbing bombs and sticking knives .. most of the
time on our own front door step and me having to fight back
with FACTS. The idiots came up with garbage such as 'Catholics
believe Mary had sex with the Holy Spirit' and then in the next
sentence they say 'Catholics believe Mary was ever-virgin'.
FRIGHTENING BUNCH! They were so busy throwing up puke
that they couldn't even see that their own propaganda
didn't match up.

You said you are Lutheran. Your Synoid says ya'll are supposed
to get along with other Christians. This is great. I applaud this.
However, my one experience in depth with Lutherans had this not
happening. My former inlaws live in N.E. Nebraska. It's Lutheran
country. The Catholics there are all sneered at and all dispised as
'hell bound'. I was married to a Lutheran from that area for 5 years.
I found them to be just as bad as the Fundamentalists in Alabama.
Perhaps they were an anomolie ... I certainly hope so.

The ONLY Christian group that I have seen NOT sneer and dis other
Christian groups on a regular basis are the Methodists. In fact,
I enjoyed their company so much that I volunteered to babysit at
their mothers morning out group so that the moms could all go to
their bible studies and have fellowship. I did this for a few years.
Nice bunch. NEVER a bad word about ANY other Christian group's
worship process... not a one.

As far as non-Christian groups - the WICCANS are the ones that
come to mind as the 'harm none'. I have yet to meet a cruel, mean,
and/or disinformationizing (is that a word?) Wiccan. Another nice
bunch of people who mind their own business and worship as they
wish and let others do the same.




posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
the Church or Latter Day Saints is not really what I would consider a
Protestant Church to begin with, an if you look it up in most places it is
listed as a Cult.


The Catholic Church, along with most Christian Churches, consider the
LDS not to be Christian. It's one thing that they can agree on. The
LDS do not consider Christ to be God and so that is why the major
Christian denominations don't consider LDS to be Christian with them.

I break from this thought. I know I'm in the minority, however I am
of the opinion that they follow Christ as best they know how and
since they are 'followers of Christ', then they are Christian. I know...
I know .... you can't follow someone you don't know .... but that's
how I feel.



"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent II, Fourth Lateran Council)


Yep ... old Catholic teaching said if you are outside the Catholic faith you
are going to hell. I don't think it says that now. I'll have to break out
the Catechism and recheck. I believe that has been updated to read
differently.

However I'll add .... that teaching was disgusting. Any and all Christian
churches who preach 'we are the right one and all others are going to
hell' are teaching something that is wrong and disgusting as well as
frightening. ALL of them.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
which Luther also fixed.


You say fixed. I say destroyed. Luther's contemporaries said
he had an awful way with Greek translation. We could go back
and forth with this all day ... use up internet space ... and
neither of us will change our minds. You say he fixed them
and brought them together. Well, considering the errors
in his translation - some of which I posted previously - I say
that his version is no better than any other, and perhaps
even worse considering what he changed - on purpose.

As far as O'Hare being bias ... he's accurate. If he is bias,
it's from reading the accurate information and making a
decision about it.


Yeah the guy was definitely a tremendous idiot ....


Luther was a quack. That's my opinion. He couldn't hack the
priesthood. He never should have been there. He had 'issues' of
a sexual nature. He hated Moses and the 10 commandments
because he couldn't live up to them ... so he tried to destroy them.
Later in the 'reformation' process he heard voices which he attributed
to the devil. He was either possessed or had mental health issues...
or both.

As far as Bible translations into German ... there were plenty before
Luther. You say they were all in error? Luthers was definately
in error. You say he fixed them. I say he further destroyed them.
Neither of us will change our minds on this.

In any case, he definately DID NOT write the first bible in
German.

'The German Translation of the BIble in the Middle Ages' by protestant
historian Wilhelm Walther was published in 1892 in Brunswick is a
great resource, one of which you may find interesting. This book
proves that prior to the year 1521 there existed 17 editions of
the whole Bible in German as well as countless numbers of
German versions of the New Testament, the Psalms and other
parts of the bible.

Pre-Lutheran editions of the whole Bible in German -
- Edition Mentel, Strassburg, 1466 AD
- Eggenstein Strassburg, 1470 AD
- Pflanzmann, Augsburg, 1473 AD
- Zainer, Augsburg 1473 AD
- Sorg, Augsburg 1480 AD
- Two from Koln (Cologne) by Quentel, 1480 AD
- Koburger, Nuernberg, 1483 AD
- Grueninger Strassburg, 1485 AD
- Schoensperger, Augsburg, 1487 AD
- Schoensperger, Augsburg, 1490 AD
- Arndes, Luebeck, 1494 AD
- H. Otmar, Augsburg, 1507 AD
- The Swiss BIble, Basel ~ 1474 AD
- Zainer, Augsbur 1477 AD
- S. Otmar Augsburg, 1518 AD


Protestant Ludwig Hain states in Repertorium Bibliographicum,
Stuttgart 1826 that 98 editions of the whole Bible in Latin were
in print before 1501. 68 different editions of Latin and
Vernacular Bibles, all printed before 1503, were show at the
Caxton Exhibition in London in 1877 and recorded in
The Church TImes, a Protestant Journal.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
They HATED everyone who didn't
worship exactly like them. IF I come across hard, it's from 10
years of them lobbing bombs and sticking knives .. most of the
time on our own front door step and me having to fight back
with FACTS. The idiots came up with garbage such as 'Catholics
believe Mary had sex with the Holy Spirit' and then in the next
sentence they say 'Catholics believe Mary was ever-virgin'.
FRIGHTENING BUNCH!


I have never heard of anything like this, beyond what some of the Fundamentalist groups did to the Abortion Clinics. The Abortion Clinic stuff is a really hot topic, and one that many Christians feel is nothing less then murder, so they take it to the extreme to do what they consider protecting lives. I cannot say that I agree with violence in any situation, even in this one.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
You said you are Lutheran. Your Synoid says ya'll are supposed
to get along with other Christians. This is great. I applaud this.


The way I was raised, was basically "you don’t have to agree with other religions, but you do have to show them respect". This does not mean that if I feel the need to speak up, though, that I will not. It does mean that I would not show up in front of some church and disrupt their services or picket them or anything that is disruptful or disrespectful. I think that is the just of the quote that I put up by the LCMS. Basically they do not consider any individual Catholic to be a bad person in anyway, but rather a station of men within that organization. I think that if you go back to any of my posts you will see that I have always said this. That the writings from Daniel refer to a “station of men, first the emperors later the popes”.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Yep ... old Catholic teaching said if you are outside the Catholic faith you
are going to hell. I don't think it says that now. I'll have to break out
the Catechism and recheck. I believe that has been updated to read
differently.


If enough parishioners screamed about it they might have in a way. Just like they did with divorce, they sometimes find some compromise without changing the letter of the law. You know like making everyone get annulments instead. I doubt that they changed the official stance though as they have held it since the beginning, they most likely found some way to kind of sort of allow it but not really.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
You say fixed. I say destroyed. Luther's contemporaries said
he had an awful way with Greek translation. We could go back
and forth with this all day ...


I said he fixed the German language; he created their version of the English Primer.



Martin Luther

His contributions to Western civilization went beyond the life of the Christian Church. His translations of the Bible helped to develop a standard version of the German language and added several principles to the art of translation.


Even the Roman church had to use his works to learn and translate German: (This is actually pretty funny, the guy had a knack for writing for sure and he never took crap from this much more powerful organization)


Luthers Open Letter on Translating

First of all if I, Dr. Luther, had expected that all the papists together were capable of translating even one chapter of Scripture correctly and well into German, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German. However, because I knew (and still see with my own eyes) that not one of them knows how to translate or speak German, I spared them and myself the trouble. It is evident, however, that they are learning to speak and write German from my German translation, and so they are stealing my language from me, a language they had little knowledge of before this. Yet they do not thank me for this, but instead they use it against me. However, I readily grant them this, for it tickles me to know that I have taught my ungrateful pupils, even my enemies, how to speak.



Originally posted by FlyersFan
some of which I posted previously - I say
that his version is no better than any other, and perhaps
even worse considering what he changed - on purpose.


And again I say that half of what you are calling errors were differences in the Vulgate. Maybe you are not aware that the older bibles were hand written and rife with discrepancies from copy to copy, that is the reason for the fluctuation in much of what is in Luther’s version, besides the other contributing factors. I guarantee that he did not purposely rewrite the Bible to fit his new religion, because it was never his intention to start a new religion, it was rather to reform the Catholic Church. He started out as a Catholic monk you know.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
As far as O'Hare being bias ... he's accurate. If he is bias,
it's from reading the accurate information and making a
decision about it.


I am sure that being a Lutheran I can make up things about John Tetzel and declare them to be the truth. If I see that he said these things from a non-Catholic source I might be inclined to question them, since the only source I see is one that had a bone to pick I cannot trust it as valid. Knowing how obsessive that Luther was about sin, I highly, highly doubt that he said the things that O’Hare claims.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Luther was a quack. That's my opinion. He couldn't hack the
priesthood. He never should have been there. He had 'issues' of
a sexual nature. He hated Moses and the 10 commandments
because he couldn't live up to them ... so he tried to destroy them.
Later in the 'reformation' process he heard voices which he attributed
to the devil. He was either possessed or had mental health issues...
or both.


He was somewhat obsessive compulsive, I believe, yes. That does not make him evil, nor does it invalidate anything that he had to say. You should look up a list of people that have had this disorder, it generally makes them much better at what they do career wish as long as it does not become disruptive (overly time consuming). Someone that is obsessive compulsive will do everything in their power to not make a mistake, they obsess over every last detail. That is part of the reason that I highly doubt that someone like him, which obsessed over not sinning, would make the statement that you say O’Hare attributes to him.

Luther did not hate the ten commandments, and if you check on the links above for the LCMS you can download both his large and small Catechism and check for yourself what he had to say about them in detail rather then take someone else’s opinion. As a matter of fact he left them more in line with the Catholic stance then even I care for, I would have rather he had broken up the 1st and 2nd commandment to “thou shall have no Gods before me” and “thou shall not worship graven images” and put the 9th and 10th back together into one. The reason that the Catholic Church “hid” the second commandment was so they could spend lavish amounts of money on cathedrals with all the finest trapping and expensive wardrobes and lifestyles for their high ranking men of the cloth.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
As far as Bible translations into German ... there were plenty before
Luther. You say they were all in error? Luthers was definately
in error. You say he fixed them. I say he further destroyed them.
Neither of us will change our minds on this.


I know there were 17, I told you there were. They were very rare though, very far from the common man. It was an expensive luxury to own a bible back then, only Nobles, Universities, and Cathedrals owned them, and they were used by the elite and scholars. There were not enough of them that the normal man on the street could ever lay his hands on one.

Just look at it like this:

Did the common man have access to the bible before Luther? NO
Did the common man own a bible after Luther? YES

So there is no telling me that the Catholic Church went to any great lengths to ensure that the common man had access to the word of God, but it appears more that it was to be kept from him to only be used by the most elite.


[edit on 12/28/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I have never heard of anything like this ..

Try living in Alabama (or GA, MS, etc.). It's everywhere.

Go on vacation there sometime. Go to a Church of Christ
service. A Southern Baptist service. A Presbyterian service.
See how much time they spend bashing everyone else
compared to how much time they spend actually worshipping
God. It's disgusting. Their 'outreach' programs consist of
giving the people of their churches false info about the
other faiths, and then sending them out 'into the war zone'
to convert the poor heathens (that's all of us who worship
differently from them). Seriously ... you seem to be
interested in Christianity. Take a car ride .. go into the
deep south ... and attend some services and/or Wednesday
night gatherings. You will be in for a shock.

The snake handlers are an amazing bunch! I'd advise
against going to their services. Seriously. They exist.
N.E. Alabama. It's full of 'em. They handle the snakes
and get all wild with them ... and if they are 'right with
God the snakes won't bite. But if the snake bites and
you die, then you weren't right with God and you are
in Hell. They claim some form of fundamentalist protestantism.


However, because I knew (and still see with my
own eyes) that not one of them knows how to translate or
speak German

Yeah ... like he was the only person on the planet that spoke
and wrote both latin and german. Egomaniac.


I guarantee that he did not purposely rewrite the Bible to
fit his new religion, because it was never his intention to start
a new religion
, it was rather to reform the Catholic Church.

Thanks for your personal guarantee. Not to hurt your feelings
but it doesn't mean anything to me. You weren't there 500
years ago and the quotes from people who were there say that
he absolutely DID rewrite the bible to fit what he thought it
should be. As far as wanting to reform the Catholic Church ...
that's rather arrogant of him to think he's the only smart one,
smarter than all the others who were better educated than
him and better understood the faith. If he truly wanted to
'reform the Catholic Church' he wouldn't have gotten himself
kicked out of it. Others who came before
him managed to reform problems and stay in the church. His
ego didn't allow that. So no ... I completely disagree with your
fellings on this.


He started out as a Catholic monk you know.

Sure. A lousy one at that. And his wife was an ex-nun.
Two sour grapes who never should have been in religious
life to begin with.


You should look up a list of people that have had this disorder,

I was a psychology major. I know what the disorder is.


Luther did not hate the ten commandments

When someone says 'to the devil with Moses' and when someone says
'go and sin well' ... they hate the ten commandments or at the very
least don't understand that when Christ says to try to live a
holy life, that DOES NOT include adultry which Luther advocates
when he says 'if the wife is unwilling, take the maid'.


Did the common man have access to the bible before
Luther? NO Did the common man own a bible after
Luther? YES


The bible was available for all who could read. Most couldn't read.
It wasn't because the bible was being kept from anyone. It was
simply because many couldn't read. Those who went to the
universities learned to read and could read the bible anytime they
wanted. It was available in both Latin and German. Luther didn't
give the bible to the common man. It was available for any
'common man' who learned to read. This is a matter of education,
not the church withholding knowledge.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Try living in Alabama (or GA, MS, etc.). It's everywhere.

Take a car ride .. go into the
deep south ... and attend some services and/or Wednesday
night gatherings. You will be in for a shock.


I am in the deep south, farther south then you even. Like Florida…

Cannot say I have come across any snake handlers, but I have heard of such things.
Again though most of these groups are small non-denominational separatist groups.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
As far as wanting to reform the Catholic Church ...
that's rather arrogant of him to think he's the only smart one,
smarter than all the others who were better educated than
him and better understood the faith. If he truly wanted to
'reform the Catholic Church' he wouldn't have gotten himself
kicked out of it. Others who came before
him managed to reform problems and stay in the church. His
ego didn't allow that.


The reason that he was not put to death by the Catholic Church is because he was smarter and more truthful then those sent to prosecute him. The Church was misusing the word of God for their personal gain and he caught them at it with their pants around their ankles. They tried repeatedly to have the German government hand him over and he always beat them in court because he knew the Bible better then their own people and because he was in the right. Not only that, but he also knew Catholic doctrine better then they did and was able to show conflicts within it that had crept in as each Bishop or Pope changed the rules to squeeze more money out of the common man to fund their Cathedral projects

I don’t even need to argue the point, it’s history, look it up. His continued existence, despite every attempt by the RCC to shut him up, shows that he knew their teachings and the word of God better then they did.

Again I have listed unbiased sources as my proof, all you have had to say is personal opinion and slander from one RCC writer, and two members of a competing religion. Both of these are biased sources.

If he did not mean at first to reform it then explain these:


Martin Luther
On October 31, 1517, according to traditional accounts, Luther's 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the Castle Church as an open invitation to debate them[6]. The Theses condemned greed and worldliness in the Church as an abuse and asked for a theological disputation on what indulgences could grant. Luther did not challenge the authority of the pope to grant indulgences in these theses.

Desiring to remain on friendly terms with Luther, the pope made a final attempt to reach a peaceful resolution of the conflict with him. A conference with the papal chamberlain Karl von Miltitz at Altenburg in January 1519 led Luther to agree to remain silent as long as his opponents would, to write a humble letter to the pope, and to compose a treatise demonstrating his reverence for the Catholic Church. The letter was written but never sent, since it contained no retraction.


Sounds like an awful lot of negotiation went on before Luther and the RCC decided to declare war on each other. Unfortunately, the RCC tried to use their weight to make him submit that what they were up to was doctrinally sound, and Luther knew better. If the Pope had just done away with Indulgences it would have stopped there, but he was too greedy.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sure. A lousy one at that. And his wife was an ex-nun.
Two sour grapes who never should have been in religious
life to begin with.



Martin Luther
At the age of seventeen in 1501, Luther entered the University of Erfurt. The young student received a Bachelor's degree in 1502 and a Master's degree in 1505. According to his father's wishes, he enrolled in the law school of that university.

Young Brother Martin Luther fully dedicated himself to monastic life, the effort to do good works to please God and to serve others through prayer for their souls. He devoted himself to fasts, flagellations, long hours in prayer and pilgrimage and constant confession. The more he tried to do for God, it seemed, the more aware he became of his sinfulness.
Johann von Staupitz[2], Luther's superior, concluded the young man needed more work to distract him from excessive rumination. He ordered the monk to pursue an academic career. In 1507 Luther was ordained to the priesthood. In 1508 he began teaching theology at the University of Wittenberg. Luther received his Bachelor's degree in Biblical Studies on March 9, 1508, and a Bachelor's degree in the Sentences by Peter Lombard (the main textbook of theology in the Middle Ages), in 1509[3]. On October 19, 1512, Martin Luther received the degree Doctor of Theology and on October 21, 1512, he was "received into the senate of the theological faculty" and called to the position of Doctor in Biblia[4].


Yeah sounds like he was a real loser…
His only sour grapes with the Catholic Church had to do with the selling of Indulgences for forgiveness of sins. That is one of the classic cases of him knocking their dorks in the dirt. He caught them changing wording of one pope to allow another to grant forgiveness by selling it. However, rather then just admit what they were up to was wrong they started trying to force his silence at first, and when that did not work they went to killing people to cover it up…. What a bunch of greedy losers…



Martin Luther
Luther took part in an Augustinian convention at Heidelberg, where he presented theses on the slavery of man to sin and on divine grace. In the course of the controversy on indulgences, the question arose of the absolute power and authority of the pope, since the doctrine of the "Treasury of the Church," the "Treasury of Merits," which undergirded the doctrine and practice of indulgences, was based on the Bull Unigenitus (1343) of Pope Clement VI. Because of his opposition to that doctrine, Luther was branded a heretic, and the pope, who had determined to suppress his views, summoned him to Rome.



Originally posted by FlyersFan
When someone says 'to the devil with Moses' and when someone says
'go and sin well' ... they hate the ten commandments or at the very
least don't understand that when Christ says to try to live a
holy life, that DOES NOT include adultry which Luther advocates
when he says 'if the wife is unwilling, take the maid'.


Again, show me the above from a non-Roman Catholic slander source, or stop bringing it up. The reason that you cannot do this is that no other source exists…
This is getting old…

Defcon 5: Here is a unbiased sources that says O’Hare is full of bunk.
Flyerfan: But O’Hare says…
Defcon5: Here is what it says in Wiki, BibleHistory.com, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc..
Flyerfan: But O’Hare says…

Or maybe if you want to continue that way we should start discussing how the unbiblical doctrines of confessional and celibacy in the priesthood is the source of the Catholic Priests raping every child they can get their hands on?


Originally posted by FlyersFan
The bible was available for all who could read.


Absolutely untrue, I suggest you go study your history some.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Most couldn't read.


This is true though.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Those who went to the
universities learned to read and could read the bible anytime they
wanted.


University was not what it is now. If you were not a noble or the child of a rich merchant back then your chances of going to University were about zero. There was no government aid for poor students, no scholarships, and there were mainly two classes back then the haves and the have nots.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
It was available in both Latin and German.


And you had to be collage educated to read Latin or high German back then.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Luther didn't
give the bible to the common man. It was available for any
'common man' who learned to read. This is a matter of education,
not the church withholding knowledge.


Despite your RCC hate of Luther for giving them a very well deserved black eye, I believe that I have shown enough unbiased sources to show that you are incorrect in this statement. Now if you want to wallow in ignorance its your right to do that, but know that you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I am in the deep south, farther south then you even. Like Florida

Actually, I don't consider Florida to be the deep south. It's in the
south, yes. But there are many transplants down there and people
are better educated in Florida then the rest of the south. Yes,
I have a bias against the deep south. Living there for 10 years
gave it to me. Florida is fine. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi are
backwards and .... well ... I'll leave it at that.


This is getting old…

I agree. I have listed sources other than Catholic, but you don't
like them and call them biased. Those Catholics who tell the truth
about Luther, you don't like and claim they are biased. Whatever.
You go on believing Luther was a wonder worker. I'll continue to
(correctly) believe the truth - he was an egomaniac with mental
health and sexual addiction issues. Any good changes in worship
happened around him and despite him, not because of any grand
leadership of his.


we should start discussing how the unbiblical doctrines of
confessional and celibacy in the priesthood is the source of the
Catholic Priests raping every child they can get their hands on?

Let me educate you .... being celebate doesn't cause a person
to become gay, and it doesn't cause a person to act out with
pedophilia. It doesn't work that way. Confessing sins doesn't
cause someone to fondle children. You need to open a good
psychology book and learn exactly what pedophilia is. Celebacy
is a discipline of the church, not a rule. It can be changed as
the church sees fit. People enter the priesthood knowing the
rules and they can leave anytime they wish to.

As far as 'unbiblical doctrines' of confession and celibacy - again
let me educate you. These do not go against scripture. The
Catholic Church has two things - scripture AND sacred tradition.
This has been discussed many times already here in BTS.


Now if you want to wallow in ignorance its your
right to do that, but know that you are wrong.


1 - that's just plain nasty.
2 - when people say 'you know you are wrong'
... that's freakn' ignorant.



[edit on 12/31/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   


in Egypt, the Mother and the Child were worshipped under the names of Isis and Osiris.


Wrong it is Isis and Horus. Osiris being Horus' father and already dead at the time of birth, actually at the time of conception.





I have never heard of anything like this, beyond what some of the Fundamentalist groups did to the Abortion Clinics.


Do the names Jack Chick, Texe Marr, "Doc" Marguilles, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts ( rumor has it he is VERY oral),etc,etc,etc. ring a bell?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I have listed sources other than Catholic, but you don't
like them and call them biased.


Who?

Look…


Kinda shows exactly how much respect Luther had for the Word of God.
None. Which is rather evident considering what he thought of the 10
commandments and especially the commandment about adultery. His
rather famous (unless you are Lutheran, then you aren’t taught this)
saying in regards to sex – his advice to the married man – ‘if the wife
is unwilling, then take the maid’. Gotta’ have that sex, and if the one
you are married to won’t, or can’t, have sex, then you are
free to commit adultery and rape. (Sicko.) Of course, considering
that he is also known for telling his fellow reformers “to the devil with
Moses” and he said the same about the Ten Commandments.

Other quotes about the Word of God from Luther – (quoted from ‘The Facts about Luther’ –
ISBN 0-89555-322-8 – author Patrick O’Hare)


You admit right here that these quotes about Luther come from a Catholic source, O’Hare is a Catholic writer. Show me where these remarks are made by anyone that is not biased. The other two guys were Zwinglian’s, they certainly did not say this about Luther as they wished to unite the two churches…



Bucer's opinions were decidedly Zwinglian, but he was anxious to maintain church unity with the Lutheran party, and constantly endeavoured, especially after Zwingli's death, to formulate a statement of belief that would unite Lutheran, south German and Swiss reformers




Originally posted by FlyersFan
Let me educate you .... being celebate doesn't cause a person
to become gay, and it doesn't cause a person to act out with
pedophilia. It doesn't work that way. Confessing sins doesn't
cause someone to fondle children. You need to open a good
psychology book and learn exactly what pedophilia is.



Well what does the bible say about this:



1Ti 4:1 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;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


Seems pretty clear here that you’re supposed to be married, and not supposed to engage in things such as meatless Fridays. What about for priests specifically:



1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.




1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.


Paul says that if a man can do away with the sins of the flesh totally, and not be burning with lust, then by all means abstain, but it’s not for every man and not required to be a pastor or a priest. It is better that a priest marry then he burn with lust and it should not disqualify him in any way from being a man of the cloth…

Now as to confession, the problem with confession is that you have placed children under the authority of someone that may be burning with lust. Then they are required to tell them their deepest sins, including and especially those of a sexual nature. If you truly are a psychologist, then you should be aware that there are studies specifically on this subject including within the Church itself, as this combination is a hotbed for these kinds of issues:


Catholic Church denies sex abuse cover up claims
he Roman Catholic Church has strongly denied that a Latin document sent to all bishops 40 years ago imposed a secret code for dealing with sexual abuse by priests that stopped victims seeking redress outside the Church. According to the document, priests who spoke out were to be threatened with excommunication.
The Vatican document from 1962, carrying the seal of Pope John XXIII, was discovered by a German priest with close links to the Vatican and leaked to a lawyer in Texas, Daniel Shea, who acts for victims of sexual abuse by priests.

The document is entitled "Instructions on proceeding in case of solicitation". In Vatican jargon, "solicitation" means an attempt by a priest during confession to procure sexual favours from the person who is confessing.


If there is not truth to this, then why is it not an issue in other faiths that do not incorporate these two dogmas?

Whether the situation creates the type of man that does this, or attracts them is somewhat of a moot point. The point is that it provides the opportunity, and the motive for it to happen.


[edit on 1/10/2006 by defcon5]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join