Pope Apologizes for Clergy Sex Abuse in Australia

matthewr1 »

Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:34 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

What really gets under my skin is point (2). I never pray to some rock, or stone, or dog, or cat, or person.

Neither do I pray to any saint, whether on earth, or asleep, to interceed for me to the Mediator. It's outlandish! That tradition was born from men, and born out of the middle ages, when the Papists stuck the reformers up on stakes, simply because they held to the Word of God, and they wanted to read the Bible in English, rather than Latin.

matthewr1 »

Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:29 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

With regards to point (1): I realize that dead saints are still part of the body, and they are infact alive before the Lord in paradise - but - since they've finished the race, there is no need to pray for them (at least that I can judge). What do we say "I hope Mary gets to heaven?" "Please help Mary so she can overcome temptations?" "We pray that she is strong in the Lord, and that you would use her to spread the gospel?"

The last statement the Papists probably would agree with. But she's dead. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that we are to pray for, or especially to dead saints in the Scriptures. If anyone could point out one Scriptural evidence to support that we should, then I'd be all for it.

matthewr1 »

Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:18 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

1. Ok, kindly explain to me how we can pray for dead saints?

2. It isn't 'for' at all. I've heard with my own ears a Papist priest pray directly to Mary, so she may interceed for us to Christ. There simply is no way around it. Papists pray to saints.

3. Whoever deleted my last comment simply can't handle criticism, for I said nothing derogetory in there - I was only being plain with the issues.

FullGospel »

Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:32 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

It's interesting that we think the solution to homosexual pedophile priests is to allow them to get married, which will provide none of what they were involved in (gay sex, with boys). Point #1.

It's also interesting that we think the solution is to let priests get married. Where does most pedophelia occur? You're right: among married men. Point #2.
http://www.catholicleague.com/specialreports.php?id=10

Maybe Jesus did have it right after all, and maybe when he built a Church that he speaks through, it was him all along who called some to live like they were members of the kingdom of heaven already, where marriage does not occur.

---------------------------------------
Praying "to" Mary
It's a misconception that Catholics pray "to" Mary, as it is that we have made her a mediator between God and man, in violation of 1 Tim 2:5. First point: Christians ask others to join their prayers with their own to God on their behalf (Rom. 15:30)

With, not to.

Death cannot separate us from the body of Christ, and there is only one body of Christ. We can still pray for each other, both now on this imperfect earth and in our perfect heaven.

The mediator issue: when you bring someone to Christ and say "do whatever he tells you," you have become a mediator. The mediator talked about in 1 Tim 2:5 with Jesus is the ability to mediate a new covenant with God (see Hebrews 9:15).

These misconceptions we all have against each other merely perpetuate unnecessary division, to the detriment of all within the body of Christ. Peace, my brothers and sisters in Christ.

matthewr1 »

Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:07 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

The0ph1lus: First I just want to tell you, I'm not one of those Protestants who think all Catholics are going to hell. I just believe there are a huge amount of errors the papal church makes (I won't go into full details, but another example would be praying to Mary - I've seen a Papist priest pray to Mary - a detestable and abhorrent practice which as far as I'm concerned is worshiping Mary - for we're to pray to God alone).

But with regard to the 'disciplinary' rule. It's not a disciplinary rule, it's a stumbling block. Christians are free in Christ (I realize that is a much abused statement), so why are the Papists insistent on setting up a stumbling block like this in clergy? If a clergyman wants to sacrifice himself of his own free will to do this - that's great! But don't institute it as a 'disciplinary' rule! (We Christians aren't bound to such rules for Christ set us free).

I hope this helps brother, again I'm not out to banter against the Roman church, I'm just trying to address theological problems in it.

msnchris70 »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:50 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

When I was a Reformed Pastor, we had many cases like this that were either swept under the rug or the Pastor went to another city, not much unlike the Catholic situation.

All have sinned and fallen short. Let us pray that all denominations will be quicker to respond to these horrible actions in the future and let us all have Pastors and Priests who do not have such inclinations in the first place.

Moreover, let us also honor the vast majority of good Pastors and Priests who tirelessly give of themselves and do a fantastic job for God's flock, that they won't be falsely judged for the actions of the few.

The0ph1lus »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

hello matthewr1,

for a better understanding what catholics believe see http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp


...The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Fundamentalists make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Fundamentalist time lines of "Catholic inventions" (a popular literary form) assign "mandatory priestly celibacy" to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.

These Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.

The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married...."

Peace

believer »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

matt, thanks for pointing out that verse from 1 Corinthians 9:5, believer.

matthewr1 »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

My apology, it's 1 Corinthians 9:5

artm »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Where is 1-Peter 9:5.?

believer »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:05 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

While I agree that the way this issue was orginally handled was wrong, we need to be very careful and realize that this is not a Catholic thing it is a sin thing, the sin of the worst kind considring children were involved. But it is a sin that permeates all denominations and unfortunately many of our denominations have done a poor job in handling these matters of sexual sin within the ranks of those in ministry positions in our denominations. Let's pray that all denominations will have the courage to do the right thing in these matters regardless of the fallout to our denomination.

Online4Him »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:52 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

This sex scandal could have been avoided if the leadership of the church would have had these fallen priests step down instead of switching them around from parish to parish and then trying to cover up the whole ordeal.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-details/Pope+%27led+cover-up+of+child+abuse+by+priests%27/article.do

matthewr1 »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

The ridiculous thing about the whole circus of Romanism is they make contrary 'infallible' statements to the Scriptures. 1 Peter 9:5 says that Peter took for himself a believing wife, and made clear reference to the fact that this is not sin. What I don't understand is if the Papists say that "Peter is the first 'pope'" then the first 'pope' had a wife - which is not allowed now.

Can someone help me out with the feeble reasoning of the Roman church?