April 24, 2004
Why John Kerry can’t receive Communion
The hot political topic of the day seems to be John Kerry and whether he should receive communion or not. Communion, for those who don’t know, is the reception of the Eucharist – the “source and summit of the Catholic faith” as the Catechism calls it. The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. So why would the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church attempt to stop John Kerry from receiving Jesus?
The key issue involves the correct reception of the Eucharist. St. Paul teaches in the Bible:
1 Corinthians 11:23-30. For I [Paul] received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Paul is teaching a key truth of the Eucharist – you cannot accept it if you are in a state of serious sin otherwise you “eat and drink judgment upon” yourself. John Kerry is not simply one who tolerates abortion, but a man who ardently and consistently works to defend and expand the practice of killing unborn children. He recently voted against a bill that made murdering a pregnant woman two criminal offenses, rather than just one, because he is so worried that mothers won’t be able to kill their unborn children whenever they want. This reflects a persistence in a state of serious sin.
The Bible also teaches:
Matthew 18:15-17. [Jesus speaking] “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Over time John Kerry’s actions have lead to this point. Who is being sinned against in abortion? Obviously the child who no longer has an opportunity to live (and learn to love Christ), but also the mothers who obtained abortions. Abortion is a violence against mothers just as it is against children. Finally, our society loses millions of potential brothers and sisters every year to this horrible crime. About a week or two ago a Catholic Bishop spoke privately to Kerry, obviously exhorting him to stop his persistence in supporting this terrible act. And yet this week John Kerry is speaking publicly before the pro-abortion march in Washington (something abortion-supporter and former president Bill Clinton always refused to do). John Kerry has refused to listen to the Church and persisted in serious sin. He has chosen the potential for power over the potential for heaven.
Ultimately the Bishops are trying to save souls. They want a fully pro-life president in the US, but obviously that won’t happen this election. But more importantly, they are trying to save the soul of John Kerry and those of the Catholic faithful. What would it say if the Church allowed a self-professed Catholic to persist in saying abortion should be supported? It would likely suggest to the faithful that it is possible to be pro-abortion and Catholic, which is untrue. John Kerry has not received excommunication – this is merely a strong warning that he must either change his views or risk losing his soul. Let’s all pray that Kerry reconsiders his ignorant position on abortion and returns to being one of the Catholic faithful. Remember, he could choose God and the Church would instantly forgive him and (after confession) allow him access to communion again. The question is: can John Kerry choose life for himself and for others?
God bless,
Jay
UPDATE: I recommend Catholics take a look at the debate over the term CINO at Catholic[?] Kerry Watch. "CINO" stands for "Catholic In Name Only" and is seen as a designation for politicians such as Kerry which claim the name Catholic then publically denounce basic Catholic beliefs. I think it's a decent way of getting to the heart of the matter: these politicians aren't Catholic.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
As a catholic who was baptised in the Roman rite and now worships according to the Lutheran rite of the catholic church, I feel it is necessary to point out that many Roman Catholics and protestants cross commune. My pastor has officiated at ceremonies where the Catholic priest would only give communion to Catholics and at another where she and the Catholic priest gave communion to each other. It is a fact that Presidents Clinton and Carter have received Catholic communion. We must always follow our conscience. Divine positive law is promulgated to our conscience. There should be no refusal of communion to anyone who heeds the words of our Lord,"Take and Eat...."
Posted by: Joe Apicella at April 26, 2004 11:43 AMI believe that in light of all the sex crimes and coverups perpetrated
by the Catholic church in America over the last 50 years, I think that
the Vatican should be concerned in cleaning its own house before insisting
that John Kerry clean his.
The Church needs to start practicing what it preaches.
Just because some people in the church sin doesn't mean that other people shouldn't continue to try to help others. Everyone in the church should try to help others whether they are a sinner or not, in addition to that, the bishop who told John Kerry he couldnt receive communion has no authority over the one who covered up sex crimes. They are both bishops.
Posted by: Tom Ace at April 30, 2004 2:41 AMIn Corinithians 11:17 Paul warns that people that partake in the Lord's Supper(Eucharist) yet don't recognize the body of Christ "eat and drink judgement upon themselves." As such, we, as God's Church, have the scripturally assigned duty to do our best to only give Communion to those who are in proper union.
Concerning "Catholic Watch":
If, while harvesting apples, you find a few sporatic rotten apples, you should pluck them out from the rest. But if you dedicate all your time and effort into finding the rotten ones, the rest of the harvest goes bad.
The thing about humans is that the reasons for rottening are much more complex than apples. In the human body, cancer can spread and kill the body if it is not cut out. If the Church allows someone to completly throw out God's teachings, then how many more will assume that there is no consequence in doing so...
I think the Pope ought to keep his nose out of U.S. politics, (this is CLEARLY what he is trying to influence). Are priests going to start cutting off adulterers, their OWN pedophiles, and the like? This is a political move at best. The Pope is completely out of line, and furthermore, it is laughable that he believes anyone considers him a man with moral authority after what has happened. The jokes just never end.
Sue
Posted by: Sue at May 4, 2004 4:36 PMThe funny thing is that you really believe that the Pope is somehow responsible for the scandal in the Church in the USA. Did you ever think that maybe this is mainly a problem with the Church in the United States, and not the rest of the world? Also, do you really think the bishop of certain Archdiocese went to Rome and proclaimed to the Holy Father that priests under their control were abusing children? The hierarchy of the church doesn't have the Pope controlling the priests, that's the role of the Bishop. Say the supervisor of a company finds out that some of his employees have been working with inside information. The supervisor doesn't want to reveal this information for fear of the consequences. He or she might move the employees to other departments or fire them for undisclosed reasons. Say the Feds find out about the actions of these employees and the coverup by the supervisor, is it fair to say that the CEO, who is very busy running the company as a whole, should have known exactly what was going on with lower level employees and should be held responsible? Of course not.
Yes, the Pope is interested in politics, 'cause if they are acting in opposition to Christ's mission then we need to do something about it. Remember that entity called the USSR? The Pope played a big role in ending communist rule there. Maybe he should have not gotten into politics and left our greatest nuclear threat intact.
Dear Michael,
You bet I hold him responsible.
Sue
Sue, it's easy for you to say that you hold that CEO responsible because you don't live his/her life and you don't know how busy he/she is. You should watch or read a biography on the Pope because you obviously don't realize how busy he is. The Pope has NO free time in a given day and spends every minute busy doing something for the church. Here are a couple of problems with your thinking. 1st, Pope or any other person can not ask every bishop in the world what is going on in there diocesis every single day. There simply isn't enough hours in a day to do this. 2nd, if there were enough hours, how would the Pope know if the bishop simply didn't tell him everything. The Pope is NOT a mind reader. Either way, there is no way you can hold the Pope accountable.
Posted by: Tom Ace at May 10, 2004 9:50 PMTom,
Your naivety is astounding. The Pope is too "busy" to know what goes on?
This is not an American problem, and this was not, I am sure, the first time he heard about it.
Let me repeat myself. YOU BET I HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE.
Your argument is quite weak.
Sue
Sue,
It sounds like you just don't like what the Pope has to say, so you are using the sins of a few to condemn him and therefore not listen to him.
Unfortunately, Sue, the Pope hasn't said a thing. The recent document on the Eucharist was a long time coming and doesn't directly address this issue, but what we know is clear: the Bible itself condemns those who accept the Eucharist unworthily.
Let's hope John Kerry takes the message to heart: it's his soul we're talking about.
God bless,
Jay
Dear Jay,
Your comments are even sillier than Michael's.
Sue
Sue, you haven't quoted one single line of scripture that proves that the leaders in the church are wrong for telling John Kerry not to receive communion. Just calling people silly doesn't mean they are wrong. Jay showed several passages from the Bible that clearly show the church should not let John Kerry take communion, and whether you like it or not his argument is based 100% in scripture. If you think scripture is silly that is your opinion, but then why are you on this blog? If you believe in scripture, then you shouldn't call it silly, and you should probally try to use it to back up your arguments because they way you are avoiding the issue makes you are the one that ends up looking silly.
Posted by: Tom Ace at May 11, 2004 5:39 PMTom,
The church teaching is that ANYONE in a state of sin should not receive communion, NOT JUST JOHN KERRY. This is between God and John Kerry, unless of course you want to start singling out adulters, etc. in the communion line. The Pope in my opinion (and many others) has no moral authority after what has happened. He is a joke.
This is purely a political move on the part of this very ineffective, turn your head, immoral man we call a "Pope." He is a disgrace to the Catholic religion as well. He has done NOTHING to heal this church, take responsibility, or to ensure the safety of children. I don't need scripture to tell me what has happened, and his lack of response is WRONG. How dare he pipe up now.
Sue
Sue,
The difference between John Kerry and an adulterer is that John Kerry is that Kerry (and other pro-abortion politicians, this isn't Kerry alone) is publicly flaunting his faith. I don't even understand why he wants to be Catholic - he basically disagrees on every key issue of the Church.
Secondarily, you and I will disagree on the Pope role in the scandals of Massachusetts (one of the most liberal Catholic dioceses). However to suggest that once a person commits an error they can never try and stop any other wrong again is silly. If your reasoning is correct, you can't condemn the Pope because you have committed a sin!
I'll pray for you, Sue. You seem very angry about this whole issue, but I hope you will take the time and read the recent document on the Eucharist. It is a powerful document that does not intend to take up the issue of John Kerry and communion.
God bless,
Jay
Jay. In your opinion should a Roman Catholic who does not believe in a church teaching, follow his conscience and remain in the church or leave the church for another denomination.
Suppose, the doctrine was purely man made, like celibacy for the clergy. Joe
Posted by: J.Apicella at May 12, 2004 11:05 AMJoe,
There's a difference between issues where you can dissent, such as celibacy (although the Bible strongly recommends this for clergy) and issues where you cannot - doctrines like the Eucharist.
If you don't believe in the Eucharist, for example, why would you be Catholic? It's the central tenet of the faith. But you are free to believe that priests should be able to marry (they are in some areas) or that apparitions are not real. These aren't doctrines.
I do think that "following your conscience" can be dangerous if you do not have a well-formed conscience. This means you must understand the subject and understand why you dissent - dissenting on the church's teaching about sex because you are single and like having sex, for example, is not "following your conscience," but rather ignoring God and doing what you want (selfishness). Sometimes this distinction isn't made clear.
Does that answer your question? It is an interesting point you make - I'll be curious to see others thoughts on this issue as well.
God bless,
Jay
See the latest update on the "BUSINESS AS USUAL":
I just wonder how far this would have gone on if none of those brave men and women would never have come forward.
They (The Church) would've just kept on "sweeping it under the rug".
Posted by: Catholic Watch at May 12, 2004 1:20 PMSue,
I'm not nearly as nice as the people that run this website. Make sure you read this next sentence very slowly so that you get ALL of it.
You are an idiot.
You've mis-stated the Church's doctrine; one must be in a state of grace to receive communion. It is supposed to be a matter of sincere internal reflection and judgement, and the importance of this process is emphasized by the nature of the Blessed Sacrament.
John Kerry makes the state of his dis-grace known publicly. His will must be reconciled to that of our Father in Heaven. His behavior is gravely disordered.
Regarding your comments on the Holy Father, I can only say that you remain an idiot.
Regarding your comments that attempt to bring childrens' safety into this discussion, I can only guess that you are a card-carrying member of VOTF. There is a different thread on this website regarding that group: http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=149
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Dennis
Posted by: Dennis at May 13, 2004 1:36 AMDear Dennis,
Read this slowly.
YOU ARE AN ASS.
And no, I wouldn't bother with VOTF. Moral authority is the issue. The Pope has none.
Dear Dennis,
Sue is right. You do seem like an ass and furthermore, you sound like an angry old lady.
Jackie
Girls,
Did you call each other and coordinate your outfits before posting to this thread?
Sue, here's a little tidbit for you. It is poor form to mimic the insults of your antagonist; it smacks of an immature and witless nature. You should avoid it.
That was your freebie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did either of you really think that EVERYONE at this website was going to tolerate your particular variety of crap? Get over yourselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you actually want to debate a point, I will be happy to refrain from harsh language.
Until then, your harshness will be met and exceeded at every turn.
Hugs,
Dennis
Posted by: Dennis at May 15, 2004 9:28 PMI think the girls have a point.
I am anti-abortion. That DOES NOT mean I believe the Pope has a right to my vote.
Posted by: JohnB. at May 18, 2004 3:56 PMDennis,
You seemed to be filled with anger and hatred. Perhaps examining through prayer where it originates would be a start.
A difference of opinion hardly calls for the response you gave.
You, and your angry heart are most certainly in my prayers.
Bill
How can any faithful Catholic vote for a man who mis-lead our nation into a war the Pope has described as "unjust" and that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women, and children? How can any faithful Catholic vote for a President who has so degraded our environmental policies when the Pope has stated that protecting the environment is a "moral and spiritual" duty?
Posted by: Mary Dodd at May 18, 2004 7:20 PMJesus, who is the High Priest, gave communion to Judas even though He knew that he had betrayed him. So how can a priest deny someone communion just because he thinks he know whats in their heart.
Posted by: Harry at May 18, 2004 8:29 PMI think that the Holy Spirit has lead me to this thread. I am a practicing Catholic but not one who often opines on matters of faith with strangers, although my sisters and brothers in faith are not actual strangers. Before I comment more on this subject allow me to offer a prayer for all on this thread, the Church, and John Kerry. Mr. Kerry does not have my vote. I would like to comment that if he does not deserve to receive God via the Eucharist because of a lack of Grace then we must examine those who make that decision. A Cardinal or a Bishop who knowingly allowed and in some cases assisted a child molester in continuing to contact children is without Grace. Do those men deserve the Eucharist, or the privilege to consecrate the Host? If any of you on this thread wish to call me an ass or an idiot please think: Is that an intellectual or faithfull response.
Yours in Christ,
Patrick
Patrick,
I received communion for years from a priest who is now in prison. Those men are the true disgrace to the church.
I completely agree with you Patrick.
And for those who are trying to convince yourselves that these were the "actions of a few," perhaps you should become more educated on just how many lives were ruined because of this INTENTIONAL, disregard for innocent children
Pam
Posted by: Pam at May 19, 2004 9:15 AMTo each of you, in turn:
John,
Perhaps a child still in the womb is worthy of your vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill,
There was certainly anger in my words as I wrote my response to Sue and Pam. I get angry when I read comments about the Holy Father such as those written by Sue on May 11th (6:42pm). If you find her comments objectionable, then perhaps our only obstacle to agreement regards the issue of how to respond to such language. I make no apology for my anger. My opinion is that if Sue can dish it, she can take it.
Hatred is not part of my persona, and I appreciate your prayers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mary,
It would seem that we voters are left with deciding between the lesser of two evils. I consider the murder of the unborn to be paramount in my voting decisions. I would quite like it if a candidate would demonstrate pro-life ambitions assertively and aggressively. The candidate that gets the closest to expressing such ambitions in a genuine fashion will get my vote.
Abortion must end!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Harry,
You'll have to ask Our Lord your question regarding Judas when you meet him. Until then, you'll have to remember that every priest has the power to bind and loose the sins of the faithful, and a responsibily to see that the sacraments of the Catholic Church are not desecrated. It is our individual responsibility to ensure that we are in a state of grace prior to receiving those sacraments.
John Kerry is not Judas, and by his words and deeds, has publicly failed in the responsibilities of his faith. His disgrace is no longer a private matter. Further, it is a BIG stretch to put Kerry on the same footing as one of Christ's disciples.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Patrick,
I will have to respond to your comments after I have reflected on them further.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pam,
Every single person associated with the Catholic Church that abused a child, or contributed to the abuse of a child, must identified and dealt with. This scandal is analogous to a vile cancer which must be cut out of one's body. Those responsible for the scandal are indeed a minority of the Catholic body, just as cancer tissue constitutes a minority percentage of a person body. As with a person, it is important to remove the cancer without killing the patient.
Remember that we do not abandon the person upon the discovery of cancer. Rather, the nature of that person's affliction brings out our compassion.
We pray for the health of that person.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dennis
Posted by: Dennis at May 20, 2004 12:22 AMFor all readers,
Within the Canons of Catholic Law, there are specific sections which address situations such as John Kerry's.
Canon 209 §1: Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions.
Canon 210: All Christ's faithful, each according to his or her own condition, must make a wholehearted effort to lead a holy life, and to promote the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification.
Canon 211: All Christ's faithful have the obligation and the right to strive so that the divine message of salvation may more and more reach all people of all times and all places.
Canon 213: Christ's faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments.
Canon 915: Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canon 213 is included purposefully. John Kerry's openly pro-abortion position cannot be interpreted as being faithful to Christ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These are the Canons of our Church. They are non-negotiable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Kerry's mindset is not a private matter held within the heart, it is public knowledge. Kerry demonstrates a spirit which is obstinately persistent, and has been made manifest.
Dennis
Dennis,
John Kerry is one issue.
There is a bishop out west who is denying communion to anyone who votes for a candidate who is pro-choice regardless of the broader issues they are voting on as well.
Do you really believe a man who is has killed thousands in Iraq is pro-life? Does it matter why he did it? How can he claim to be pro-life? Is the life of an Iraqi child less important than that of an unborn American?
Life is life. If you ask me, neither candidate is pro-life.
Bill Richter
Posted by: Bill at May 20, 2004 7:58 AMThe authority in the Catholic Church is responsible for the crimes, coverup and abuse of power (and control) that has occurred for the last 50 years in America. And if it wasn't for the brave men, women and children to come forward, these crimes would still be going on now. (What else is being swept under the rug?)
To place the blame on a few is ridiculous at the least. If the leaders of the Church are not privy to what's going on then my question is this: "What good are they?"
So much for the 'perfect' Catholic Church that has always preached in knowing the truth and preaching all that they claim is right and correct.
'This' Catholic Church is NOT the Catholic Church being led by the Holy Spirit, rather it's an imposter. And if anyone believes that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, I don't blame you. Because this organization is definitely not acting "Christ-Like".
No Catholic in his or her right mind should continue their financial support of this corrupt organization. Hit them in the pocketbook then they'll listen.
(I call on all Catholics, in this country and around the world to withhold this coming Sunday's collection. If the Church can't change it's ways on it's own, then it's up to us to change it.)
And as for Canon Law: Any religious organization that holds a monopoly on power can write their own 'laws' and then call them 'non-negotiable'. The theocracy in Iran is no different.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the Catholic Church is no exception.
If you believe that THIS church is perfect in every way, then you're dreaming (or smoking something).
The Church should start thinking WWJD.
Posted by: Catholic Watch at May 21, 2004 2:49 PMBill,
We live in a different time than that which saw the realization of the judicial mandate now known as legalized abortion. The positions being taken by Bishops in different parts of our nation are no surprise. I am sad that it has taken 31 years for our Bishops to be definitive.
A good many people who share my beliefs about abortion are making their thoughts known in a multitude of ways. One of those ways involves the support of our President. In November of 2003, President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Act. In signing that act into law, he reached people of all different faiths, and probably some atheists and agnostics as well. Abortion is an offense against humanity on so many levels. When George signed that legislation into law, he did two things. First, he delivered what was promised. That is virtually unheard of in the political realm. Second, he paid zero attention to the status quo. Let's face it - he didn't do this for the sake of good press from the popular media. Since late last year, our President has been under near-constant attack by those who hate his politics and fear his compatibility with the religious MAJORITY of this nation.
You posed the following question, "Do you really believe a man who is has killed thousands in Iraq is pro-life?". My answer is a resounding YES! A child in the womb is the most defenseless and sacred creation on this planet. An Iraqi brandishing a rocket-propelled grenade, or firing a rifle, or placing an improved explosive device next to a road has CHOSEN to set aside the interests of personal protection in exchange for the purpose of killing America's military forces. An unborn child has made no choice at all. Your query does not suffer scrutiny well, Bill.
Your last question is truly the best of the bunch - "Is the life of an Iraqi child less important than that of an unborn American?". The direct answer to this question is ABSOLUTELY NOT! But here's the rub - Iraq is a Muslim country with a secular history during Hussein's regime, and abortion has long been illegal. Because of our President's military success in Iraq, we may actually see the disgrace of Roe v. Wade promulgated into Iraq! How's that for irony?
I understand your positions that life is life, and that neither candidate is pro-life. Perhaps it is easier to select the candidate that will at least allow God's children to be born.
Best regards,
Dennis
Posted by: Dennis at May 21, 2004 9:24 PMCW,
I will not do you the courtesy of responding to specific portions of your most recent post. Since I don't care much for your inflammatory and unfounded comments, I will take a different course.
The premise of your post can be summarized with the following statement: The Catholic Church is false and therefore unworthy of followership because of the current sexual abuse scandal.
My response will be short.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your position has been stated by others and refuted previously in my post of May 20th, 12:22am. It would help if you would actually READ the comments written in this thread before you respond.
Your comments lack a foundation, are without faith, and fail to demonstrate the characteristics of critical thought processes. You strike me as being one who is resolute in tearing down our Lord's Universal Church.
In the spirit of General Anthony C. McAuliffe, Commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the siege of Bastogne, I say. . . NUTS!
With disrespect,
Dennis
Posted by: Dennis at May 21, 2004 11:02 PMHarry is incorrect in thinking that Christ gave the Eucharist to Judas. Judas had departed the group at that time to betray Christ.
As for the other comments, my only thought is that immorality, sexual and otherwise, will only be fought by adhering more closely to the teachings of the Church. It is true that many men of the Church have betrayed us. In Henry the 8th's England, only St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, and a few others, resisted the sin that overtook the entire English church. We have only been promised that the Church will preserve the faith and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, not that its bishops will be moral or holy men. Unfortunately.
I do believe it is merciful to deny communion to anyone not in a state of grace, because otherwise they damn themselves by profaning the Eucharist.
God bless you all, let us pray for one another.
Posted by: Zorak the Mantis at May 23, 2004 4:08 AMZorak,
Do you believe communion should be witheld from those bishops who participated in the cover up?
Pam
Dennis,
You have a serious case of denial, not to mention an enormous chip on your shoulder that is probably the cause of your anger and rude behavior.
I would love to hear someone address Pam's question.
Andrea
There seem to be two parallel threads going on here:
1. how dare the Roman Catholic Church speak up after being found guilty of sin (covering up sex abuse scandals)?
2. how dare the Roman Catholic Church deny commuion to anyone?
I find both questions important and I will try my best to to justice to them. (Incidentally, both questions have relevance to my own walk with God).
1. Since members of The Church have been found guilty of sin (covering up sex abuse), should they now remain silent on the abortion issue?
In my own struggles with my personal sins, I often found myself thinking the same way. Perhaps I should just ask God for forgiveness and let more upright people carry on the task of spreading the gospel and being faithful witnesses to the Kingdom of God. Peter's words "depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man" echoed deeply in my own heart.
Over the years I have come to realise how these thoughts which paralyzed me were really lies planted by the devil. While I was right in realizing that the sins of others were no worse than mine in kind or number, I was wrong in thinking that there was essentially no difference between the situation others are in and the situation I am in. One day I learned what the essential difference was.
I heard a priest declare during his homily that the sinner who publicly proclaims that he has done no wrong is far worse off than the one who admits to having done wrong. Was he making stuff up just to ease my conscience? No, he was explaining the Jesus' parable of the pharisee and the tax-collector. The tax-collector admitted to wrongdoing but not the pharisee.
I eventually realised that by admitting wrongdoing, I was on my first step to returning to God's favor. As a recipient of God's overflowing love and forgiveness, the last thing Our loving Lord wants is for me to not allow others this opportunity to seek forgiveness. It is the devil who wishes to chain people to their murky pasts and remain silent about their forgiveness.
This is the situation we have with John Kerry and the American bishops. The American bishops have, like the tax-collector, admitted to wrongdoing, and asked the Lord, the Church, the public, and the victims for forgiveness for their role in allowing innocent children to be victimized. John Kerry ought to do the same for his role in allowing innocent children to be victimized in the womb. John Kerry, like the pharisee, claims that he is being faithful to his religion.
2. Should the Roman Catholic Church deny communion to anyone?
This issue kept me from returning to the Roman Catholic Church for years until I learned that it came from the Church's desire not to jeopardize the souls of those to whom they were giving communion. St. Paul says that the reason some people in the Corinthian community had "fallen asleep" was that they were partaking of the Lord's Supper "unworthily" without "discerning the body of the Lord".
The issue between the American bishops and John Kerry here is, unfortunately, not as clear as I would like it to be. Years ago, I wished that the bishops would drop the hammer on our politicians (Canada has had five "Catholic" prime ministers all of which continued the culture of death). Like James and John, the sons of Thunder, I wanted to call down fire and lightning to destroy those who would reject the teachings of the Lord.
The Lord saw things differently than James and John, thank God. I similarly thank God that the bishops are more reluctant than I am to start seeking out dissenters and publicy sanctioning them. They chose instead to continue with the "honor system" and recommend that those who find themselves outside of Church teachings refrain from taking communion by their own choice.
While the problems with an honor system are obvious, I shudder to think of the alternatives.
Posted by: Richard Wan at May 26, 2004 4:28 PMAndrea,
I find it amusing that your way of responding to ALL of the things I've posted here is to insinuate that I am emotionally and socially deficient.
Here are my thoughts for you, Andrea:
1. Sticks and stones, baby, sticks and stones!
2. Tee hee!
3. If you have such an interest in Pam's question, why don't you speak to it directly?
whatever,
Dennis
Posted by: Dennis at May 27, 2004 12:07 AMPeace be with you all,
Richard, I think your posting is insightful, moving, and that its tenor should be an example to all on this site. I disagree that the Bishops have genuinely admitted to wrongdoing, however Bishops O'Malley and Gregory certainly have and are genuinely working as men of faith. My problem with the entire situation (as you have properly identified) is one of hypocrisy. As a sinner, I am certainly not one who should pass judgment. However, I do have a stake in this. I am pro-life but wish and spend time thinking of a better way to get that message across than the current mode of rancor and alienation. As terrible as abortion is (has anyone seen the beauty of life via an ultrsound?)we as a community have spotlighted this as the ultimate issue in judging our politicians. If i take the entire teachings of the Church as a basis to cast my vote, am I left with any candidate who deserves my vote? I struggle with this and ask all for your prayers.
Peace and Good to you all
Patrick
Dennis,
You are proving my point, and showing yourself and your bitter attitude once again.
"Emotionally, and socially deficient" are YOUR words, but perhaps they are words familiar to you, and have been used to describe you before.
Richard,
I appreciate your response, however the bishops only "admit" their wrongs because they have been forced to. How many did you see coming forward voluntarily 3 years ago?
Andrea
Andrea,
With respect to the first part of your most recent comments, I direct you to points 1 & 2 of my most recent post.
The second half of your comments are an insult to Richard. He wrote passionately and cogently, and you responded by offering lip-service appreciation for his comments followed by sour grapes for the Bishops of the Catholic Church as it relates to the sex abuse scandal.
These things do not go together.
The topic of THIS thread concerns the example of hypocrisy being presented to the public by John Kerry.
Try to keep up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard,
I quite liked your post, and appreciate the conflict evident in your words. I wish to address some of your final comments.
Our Bishops have not established a uniform position on situations such as John Kerry's, and are not seeking out dissenters to any extent. Quite the opposite is true; John Kerry is receiving scrutiny because of his remarkably PUBLIC, obstinate, and persistent unwillingness to live the faith to which he professes to believe.
Thus far, Kerry has not repented. That path remains open to him, but he must make that choice. Until he does, he must not be allowed to lead others to sin.
On May 17th, the New York Post Online ran a short article regarding a tiny portion of The Holy Father's new autobiography. From the article:
'...the pope says church leaders must admonish people as well as lead them in faith. "I think that in this aspect, maybe I have done too little. There is always this problem of how to balance authority and service. Perhaps I need to criticize myself for not having tried hard enough to lead," the pope writes in the book, titled "Get Up! Let Us Go!" '
Best regards,
Dennis
Posted by: Dennis at May 27, 2004 9:25 PMDennis,
You sound like you could convince yourself swampland in NJ was a good buy.
Your thought process is amazing.
Avery
Dennis,
It sounds like you could convince yourself that swampland in N.J. was a good buy.
Your thought process (for lack of a nicer term) is amazing.
Avery
Dennis,
It sounds like you could convince yourself that swampland in N.J. was a good buy.
Your thought process (to use a polite term) is amazing.
Avery
Dennis,
It sounds like you could convince yourself that swampland in N.J. was a good buy.
Your thought process (to use a polite term) is amazing.
Avery
Avery,
Do you have a point? Please give some argument to support your comments.
God bless,
Jay
Hello All,
I have read your posts and I would like to add
my 2 cents. As posted by Jay and others it is
scripturally and traditionally appropriate to
disipline a church member. The church as any organiztion or group has a right to disipline its
members. Especially when a member Publically proclaims to be a part of that organization or
group and the member's views or actions are in
direct conflict with the core teachings and or
rules of that group. That is what the church
has done in the case of John Kerry and rightfully
so.
Now what I am about to say will probably draw
criticism from the Main Blogers, but you can not
claim that the Pope is the head of the church
and list all of the scriptures and traditions
to prove that point and then in the next breath
say he is not ultimately responsible for the
sex abuse going on in the church. That is hypocracy and illogical.
This is a moral and a spriritual issue which is in his perview of responsability as the
head of Christ's church on earth.
He needs to do much more then just issue proclaimations against this sin. The church needs
to DEAL WITH the problem and STOP covering up with HUSH MONEY and PAY OFFS. If it is proven that a priest has committed this sin. He must be dealt with, Not moved to another unsuspecting
church to do it all over again. This has been the practice of the church and it is wrong.
If this BLOG is to be credable, then the people
running it should have enough courage (Jay, Dennis Et Al) to admit the wrong doing instead of
making excuses , like saying the pope is a very busy man.
I have seen valid criticisms of the church
explained away on this BLOG instead of being honest and dealing with them. I realize their
is NO Perfect church, but if the Catholic church is the One true church as this BlOG claims and I
agree with that claim. We should strive to constuctively deal with the problems in the church. The apostles dealt with error and sin.
Most of the new testament letters are evidence of
them dealing with problems in the churhes they
started.
The pope as the Head, needs to do much more than
make statements that what the priests have done is wrong. He needs to institute a system for effectively dealing with this problem.
If he did that it would leave Christ's church in better standing. The church needs to set the example as the apostles did. Instead of sweeping
the sin under the rug. Priests that commit this sin should be stripped of ALL of their powers.
If they repent and seek help, they should not be
allowed to be around children. If the pope instituted these measures or something along those lines he would do much to restore the standing of Christ's church.
Grace and Peace to you all,
Clem
Posted by: clem at June 4, 2004 10:33 AMClem,
Thank you for your comments. I think that they are by and large justifiable. There is nothing wrong with seeking accountability in the Church. I happen to agree with you that the Pope is ultimately accountable for the actions of the priests. However, you should be more careful in how you address this. Just as President Bush is the head of the country, so the Pope is the head of the Church (on earth). And just as President Bush cannot be blamed for the misconduct of a single U.S. Marshal in Juneau, Alaska, so the Pope cannot be "blamed" for the misconduct of some priests half a world away. We must be consistent. That having been said, once the problem is discoverd, and discovered to be so widespread, he has a responsibility to resolve the problem.
There are a few things to bear in mind about the Pope's approach. First, remember that the U.S. has less than 6% of the world's Catholics, and the sex abuse scandal is very localized to the U.S. Thus, in the context of the global Catholic problems, the scandal is not at the top of the priority list (for the Pope).
Second, the Catholic Church is run by bishops, who are just as much successors to the apostles as the Pope. It would be inappropriate for the Pope to unilaterally jump into the fray without giving the local bishops the opportunity to clean up their own mess.
Third, the bishops are in fact addressing the problem. The two year long study on the abuse just concluded in February, and the John Jay College of Law, commissioned by the bishops, has released its findings to the public. The analysis and implementation of solutions is now well under way.
Fourth, the wide spread nature of the problem in the U.S. church indicates that it is a complex and insidious demon that faces us. It is easy for those of us on the sidelines to launch criticism of how it is being handled. While constructive dialogue may be helpful and appropriate, we should be cautious before venting frustrations and attempting to substitute our judgment for that of our God-given leaders.
All of that having been said, I think it is fair to say that the initial "hush hush" mentality of the U.S. bishops caused a great deal of harm to the image of the Church. More harm has come from the failure to adequately discipline the priests who committed these crimes. While their "power" can only be taken away by God, the Church can (and should have) taken away their authority. I Timothy is clear that priests must be men beyond reproach. These men have caused scandal to the Church and should not be permitted to function as priests and thereby cause further scandal. This does not mean we should not accept them back with forgiveness. Merely that our priests receive great authority and responsibility and they must live up to that calling or be removed from its practice. That's my two cents.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
I guess basically we are in agreement on a few
points. Priests that commit this sin should have their authority taken away.
The American Bishops were wrong in hushing up the
problem.
We can only wait and see if this Study will come
up with concrete measures to handle this problem
in the future.
Even though the church in the U.S. is only 6%
of the world population I would disagree with
your letting the Pope off the hook by saying it
is not at the top of his priority list. As the Visible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ, it should be a priority to protect innocent children from preditory priests
misusing their Power and Authority no matter
where they are in the world. After all they
are reprentatives of the Church.
When the president was made aware of the problem
with the prison guards in Iraq. Steps were taken to court marshal these soldiers and the investigation is on going. Concrete measures were taken to correct the problem. The problem was not covered up.
Jesus was very plain about the fate of someone
harming a little child. Matthew 18:5-6 and Mark 9:42. These priets should bear the consequences of their actions. If prosecution and encarceration are appropriate then so be it. Anyone covering it up should pay the consequences also.
I am asking a question now that I do not know the answer to. Does the pope have the power to
discipline a Bishop? If he does then he should have disciplined the bishops who covered up the
sin of the priests in their juristiction. Did he?
If he did I did not hear about it in the news.
You may not agree with this but, but if the church wants to be credable in the eyes of the rest of the world and if it wants to draw others to the Catholic faith, It can not continue to point out the sins of others, such as the injustices the pope and the church speak out against. But then the Catholic church fails to take care of the sin in their own house.
As I said, we will see if this commission follows through. It is not enough to admit a problem, the church must show that they are putting measures in place to correct it. Not just paying lip service to the problem. The commission was a good first step. Let's see if
they follow through.
Grace & Peace,
Clem
Posted by: clem at June 6, 2004 2:17 PMI can only hope there is a here is a special place reserved in hell for Cardinal Bernard Law. In the meantime, the Vatican has appointed him archpriest of St. Mary Major Basilica in Rome.
Is there anyone here who still thinks the Pope understands the problem?
Miranda,
I never thought the Pope understood the problem. I am disgusted with our church, and make no apologies for my anger.
Pam
Miranda and Pam:
I share your anger and do not think apologies are necessary. That said, I would like to share that the Pope and Cardinal Law are not the Church. We are the Church lead by Christ, and our dismay and anger about the scandal is not only justified but a manifestation of the Spirit moving us to action. Do not give up on the Church because of the wicked men who hurt our children or the men who covered up those atrocities
Pam and Miranda:
To finish my thought: Our Church is beautiful despite the molesters. I look around my parish and see the grace of God apparent in ethnic diversity, various socio-economic situations, and political persuasions; a bunch of decent people dealing with the complexities of life. Our Church will survive this scandal, but we must be honest and hold those who caused it and facillitated it to task. Keep rattling your swords, but keep the Faith,
With Christ's Love, Patrick
Patrick,
You are obviously a good man. Thank you for not making excuses for them as so many do. I have no problem with God, only with the men who abused their power in his name.
Peace,
Pam
Pam and Patrick,
I share your disgust and outrage over the molestation cases that have actually occurred. Yet I would also like to point out that we do not fully understand the extent of the problem. There have been many accusations made but many are still being reviewed within our judical system. We do not know the outcome yet. So let us not be too hasty to cast stones.
Second, these "this is our Church" comments are dangerous because, the last time I checked, we belong to Christ's Church. It was Christ who established the Pope and the Magisterium as the earthly source of guidance and authority of His Church here on this earth. That truth is supported by Sacred Scripture, the Early Church Fathers, and Catholic Tradition down through the ages.
I find it utterly tradegic when "Catholics" take on this attitude of "we know better than the Pope"... Yet it is more than tradegic it is foolish. Maybe you should read Pope John Paul II's life story or some of his writings. He is a saintly man and our spiritual leader here on this earth, appointed by Christ to "feed his sheep".
I will leave you with this quote from the book of Hebrews:
Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you. - Hebrews 12:17
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Would this scripture apply to leaders who mistreat or mislead the flock ? Example ,priests
who molest young boys? When we stand before God
on judgement day, we will be judged for choices
we made. We are responsible to know what God's word says for ourselves. It will not be acceptable to say, I believed this because the priest or the pope says it is true, or because my parents or teachers said it is true. We must search the scriptures and have a relationship on our own with God. He is a relational God.
I am asking you and the other main bloggers,
Are you saying that we should blindly believe
and follow a church leader just because they are
a priest or a pastor?
We are to have faith. God rewards faith, but show me a scripture that says are faith is to be
blind ? Just like many protestant teachers that like to take scriptures out of context we must be careful when we quote a scripture like the one
you quoted. Are you saying we are to obey
someone just because they are in authority?
Is that what the scripture is saying?
Just think, if we literally obeyed all of our
leaders. We would still be subjects of England.
No one would have fought against Hitler or
communism. My point is I don't believe God expects us to blindly follow and obey our leaders. My opinion of course.
In Christ Jesus,
Clem
Posted by: clem at June 15, 2004 8:17 AMWe are to obey the teachings of the Church, because the Church is the Body of Christ as clearly pointed out by Sacred Scripture. We are to be obedient to our priests as long as what they are teaching us is in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. We are different, in this sense, from Protestant denominations...we can't make it up as we go along. If a priest is molesting a child then clearly that priest is violating the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are God's teachings.
God has shown us how he wants us to come to Him - through the Church and through the sacraments. This has been supported by Sacred Scripture, the Early Church Fathers, and history itself.
Catholics experience a personal relationship with Jesus, in the truest sense, through the Eucharist. For it is in the Eucharist that we receive the Body and Blood of Christ into our very bodies.
Yet the Catholic Church also has encouraged the reading and meditating on the Sacred Scriptures in order to know Christ as well. Keep in mind, it was the Catholic Church that gave you the Bible you have before you today.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
I respectfully disagree with your statement about making it up as they go along. Look at Catholic church history . I have and the source is the on line Catholic Encyclopedia. The doctrine and dogma you speak of was not all there from the very beginning. Point in fact, the immaculate conception was not made OFFICIAL church dogma or doctrine until 1854.
Also, Look at the link below and study the various ecumenical counsils :
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
There were 21 in all. Each one dealt with various
doctrines that became official at each counsil
Various teachings and doctrines have developed over the past 2000 years. The chuch of the first century is not the same church of today. Otherwise we would still be meeting in Synagogues
and in peoples homes. That is where the apostolic
church met in the first century. See the book of Acts.
Yes the Catholic church put together the bible and I am thankful to them for that. But in my opinion they put more importance on Tradition then on the Holy scriptures they put together. Where does the Holy scripture say I need the Magistrum or the priests to interpret the scripture for me and tell me what it says ?
On the contrary in Acts 17:10-15 it says, "10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."
My Point being that the Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures daily to see if the word they received was true. They were considered more nobile minded.
Plus whenever the term Scripture is used in the New testament it is always refering to the Old Testament, since the New testament hadn't been written yet. Or at least It hadn't been put together as a book until the council of Nicea.
So don't say that the Catholic church doesn't
make changes as they go along. At least most protestants claim that their beliefs are based on
the bible. The Catholic church uses traditions more than the scripture they put together to make church Dogma. Point in fact, Mary remaining
a virgin after the birth of Christ can not be backed up with one verse of scripture. It is all
based on Church tradition and other church writings which are not a part of scripture. If the Holy Spirit felt it were so important then why didn't He have the church include these church writings in Holy Scripture so there would be no doubt or debate.
The immaculate conception can not be proved directly from scripture either.. I have copied the text from the text on the website regarding this: PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE
Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
Read the sentence above CAREFULLY. NOTE what it says about the doctrine of the immaculate conception.
Another quote from the website is that Theology
evolves over time.
Now, if I didn't believe in the Immaculate conception prior to 1854 my soul would not be
in jeopardy but if I do not believe in it after 1854 I am condemmed or called a heretic..
That doesn't make sense to me.
Now I do not condemn or criticize the Catholic
Church for making doctines as they go along.
I realize that as questions came up church counsils were assembled and decissions were made as to what should be the official chuch teaching.
So please don't make flipped statements about the protestants when the Catholic church does the same thing.
Respectfully in Christ,
Clem
Posted by: clem at June 15, 2004 12:35 PMClem,
Understand that the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church were clearly defined by the Church at various points, but it was only due to the fact that different beliefs that had existed since the beginning of the Church were suddenly being questioned. It wasn't that the Church decided to created some mandatory new doctrine. The Immaculate Conception is the perfect example. You are correct in saying that it was not declared a dogma of the faith until 1854, but this was due to the confusion that had been cause by the Protestant movement and the pre-modern philosophers of the day. Yet many of the Early Church Fathers attest to Mary's Immaculate Conception including St. Ephraim (370 A.D.), St. Ambrose of Milan (389 A.D.), St. Augustine (415 A.D.), St. Fulgence of Ruspe (512 A.D.), St. Andrew of Crete (740 A.D.), and St. John Damascene (743 A.D.). All of these Fathers don't speak of it as though it were something new, but rather as something that was obvious and commonly believed. I've linked to an article on Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption for better clarity as to what these dogmas actually teach:
"Immaculate Conception and Assumption"
Again, keep in mind, that the Bible itself was not concretely assembled until 392 A.D. although several canons of Scripture had been proposed previously.
On the disagreeing with my comment about Protestantism's ability to "make it up as they go along" I will leave it at this - there are now approximately 20,000 Protestant denominations in the world. These denominations may share some common beliefs but there is enough disagreements on other beliefs to necessitate separate churches. If Protestantism's claim to adhere so closely to the Bible is true, why the lack of unity? Clearly Protestantism does not display the unity Christ spoke of in John 17:20-26.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
I have read the explanations of the Immaculate
conception and the assuption. The Catholic encyclopedia also states that some early church fathers were careful not to endorse and in some cases disagreed with this teaching.
There may be One Roman Catholic Church, but there
are churches like the Eastern orthadox which considers themselves Catholic too. Also within
the Catholic church there are Clergy and Lay people who do not hold to all of the teachings or
dogmas of the RCC. Yet they still consider themselves catholics and Rome has not excommunicated them. If you took a pole of people who were active catholics and considered themselves catholics in good standing you would find that they do not believe or hold to ALL of the dogmas and teachings of the church. So
is the Catholic Church truly One ?
I have read on this BlOG that the people who don't believe ALL of what the MAIN BLOGGERS consider Essential Dogma are not really Catholics. I think these people who are priests, lay people and devout followers of most of the tennents of the faith would disagree and would
consider themselves Good Catholics.
Read the accounts of Jesus in His own words regarding His mother. He didn't seem to publically put her on a pedistal.
When his disciples told Him His mother and brothers were waiting for Him. His response was
who is my Mother and who are my brothers ?
Another instance is when a woman calls out to Jesus and say blessed is the womb that bore you and blessed are the breasts that nursed you.
Now this would be a perfect opportunity for Jesus
to give His mother Honor, but His response was "
"On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." Luke 11:27-28.
I understand the logic behind why Mary had to be
sinless. But that logic is flawed.
The very fact that God inhabits or dwells in
something or in Someone makes that person Holy.
Holliness comes from God. If He declares something Holy, then it is Holy. The RCC teaches that Mary led a sinless life and that
she was born without sin. Yet she declares in her own words in Luke 1:47 that God was her Savior. If she was without sin then why would she need a savior?
If Adam and Eve had not sinned God would not have needed to send a Savior. A Savior is needed to save people from the death sentence of their
sin. If Mary was sinless as the RCC teaches then she would not have needed to be saved.
I am about to speak heresy according to the RCC,
but Mary was a sinner too. She may have led a
devout and obedient life but she did sin and was in need of a savior. The scriptures that the RCC
put together, the bible, states that Jesus was without Sin. In Romans 3:23 All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. Now clearly Jesus was exempt from the All because there are pages of scripture Old and new testament which declare that the savior had to be without sin. So obviously Jesus was exempt from the ALL in this verse.
Yet there is not one shread of Scripture that says that Mary was sinless. That teaching is based on Church tradition only..
It has been said that Mary is the new ark of the covenant . That is a nice analogy and an interesting concept, yet she is not called that in scripture. If Mary was sinless then she would not need a savior, yet her own words say that God was her savior. If He wasn't saving her from sin then what was He saving her from..?
It's not that complicated. Adam sinned, God sent Jesus to redeem mankind from the curse of sin and death.
You guys just don't realize that when you elevate Mary to some sinless being you take away from the gift and the incredible sacrifice that
Jesus made.
Anything or anyone who takes Glory or focus off of Jesus makes themselves like God.
And isn't that really what the sin of Satin was ?
He wanted to be God...
Mary wasn't born to be paid adoration or whatever term you want to use. She knew her purpose. It was to be the vessle that brought the Savior into the world. She did not seek
praise or attention or veneration. That is something man has done, elevated her to a place she did not seek. Jesus is sitting the right
hand of the Father.
Is Mary sitting at the right hand of Jesus ?
Jesus never says I had to believe in His Mother
or in a doctrine that His mother was born without sin.
His words are Clear. I am the way the TRUTH and the LIGHT. NO ONE comes to the FATHER except
through ME. You can venerate Mary. I will Worship Jesus.
In Christ,
Clem
Posted by: clem at June 16, 2004 1:03 PMClem,
In reference to Mary's sinlessness and her need for a Savior, the two are not contradictory as you would contend. As the papal definition of the Immaculate Conception declares:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, was preserved immune from all stain of sin, by a singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was revealed by God and must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful. - Ineffabilis Deus
So it was through the merits of Christ's sacrifice that Mary received the "singular grace and privilege" of being freed from sin prior to the coming of the Christ. God is "omnipotent" and "omnipresent" the restaints of time do not apply to Him. Blessed Duns Scotus (d. 1308) described this principle as "Preservative Redemption", which simply means that Mary's preservation from Original Sin was an application by God of the saving graces merited by Jesus Christ through His sufferings and death. Mary was in need of a Savior like all of us, but she was redeemed at the moment of her conception through sanctifying grace an application of Jesus' merits on the Cross at Calvary. Again, God, being out of time, has the power to apply the graces of redemption to individuals at any time, and chose to do so for His Mother. In truth, it is a higher form of redemption because, unlike us, Mary, by being conceived immaculately, never experience the fallen nature of man caused by Original Sin. It is due to that reason that she is preserved also from the inclination toward sin that we experience.
Mary's Immaculate Conception was accepted and taught by the Early Church Fathers and, more importantly, the Catholic Church has declared it to be true. As Jesus said to Peter, "what you bind on earth shall be bond in heaven" - Matt 16:19.
As for those who claim to be Catholic while not accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church, I will only say this - being Catholic entails unity with the Church. Unity is defined as the complete acceptance of the fullness of the Catholic Faith, not parts. We cannot take our religion cafeteria style, picking and choosing what we want to believe. That simply isn't faith.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Again, the elaborate explanation you gave above
I realize is what the Catholic church teaches
about Mary, based upon church tradition and not based on scripture. Using your arguement God
being out of time could have done what you said
but where is the evidence of that in scripture?
There is none. He also could have made her womb
Holy when Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.
I don't understand why the RCC puts Mary up on this pedistal and venerates her. Your belief is
also based on the belief that Peter and the other Apostles power to Bind and loose was transfered on to their successors. I have doublts about whether that power was transfered to the successor of Peter. The RCC makes the assumption that this power was passed on, again
based on Tradition.
The Apostles were a unique group. If they passed
on their power and authority then why didn't the
writings of the popes after Peter become a part
of Holy Scripture ?
The church leaders had specific critera that needed to be met before a book for the New testament would be accepted as Holy and Inspired
by God and included in the bible.
So if the successors of the Apostles had inherited the power and authority that Christ
gave the apostles why aren't the edicts of these
popes added to the canon of Holy Scripture ?
My point about Mary is why waste time venerating
Mary when we can use that time to worship God or
Jesus. Or use it to do good works or to spread
His gospel. Venerating Mary serves no purpose.
I don't need to pray to her to ask her to ask her Son to grant my request. I can go directly
to Jesus and ask.
When I pray with a brother or a sister or a group those prayers go directly to Jesus or to God the Father. Jesus said where ever two or more gather together in My Name I am there in the midst of them.
My Lord is Jesus. My relationship is with Him.
He teaches that He is the ONLY Mediator between
God the Father and Man. I don't need a mediator
to get to Jesus. I can go to Him directly.
In Christ.
Posted by: clem at June 17, 2004 10:38 AMA couple of thoughts, Clem. First, tradition precedes Scripture. In other words, Scripture is the child, the birth of tradition in written form. It is impossible to say that only written Scripture is valid - written Scripture doesn't even agree with that, it often insists we obey the verbal teachings as well as the written teachings.
See early in Acts as the apostles select Matthias as the successor to Judas. If there were any seat that wouldn't continue on, it would have been Judas'. Also look at the historical writings surrounding the early Church and it is very evident that all believed the position of Peter would pass on.
The writings of the Popes (I assume you mean the infallible writings) are not "new", they are merely extensions and explanations taken from Scripture. This is why they aren't added on, although they are to be taken just as seriously (since the Holy Spirit guarantees their accuracy).
A question for you: do you ever ask a friend to pray for you? You should, Scripture says that the prayers of the holy are very powerful. So why not ask those in heaven who are far holier than any of us on earth? Catholics also teach that Jesus is the one mediator, but clearly the Bible shows there is validity in asking others to pray for us. It's silly to suggest that prayer is only worthwhile if you do it yourself.
By the way, when Jesus said He is with two or three gathered in His name, He wasn't talking to the masses, but to the apostles, the Bishops of the early Church.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
So you are saying that if I gather in prayer with other brother or sisters, because I am not a bishop Jesus is not there in the midst of us. I do ask friends to pray for me.. But it only makes sense that if God gets one petition of prayer He listens, but if Many are praying for the same thing this may cause God to grant the request because so many people are constantly asking Him about it.
But to suggest that God plays favorites and
gives weight to Mary or Peter's prayers over
the prayers of some one else is absurd..
I guess there is no point in discussing anything
further on this blog. You and the other main Posters to this board have bought the RCC's
teachings. They are the perfect church. Their
interpretation of scripture is always right.
You ignore valid questions and don't address
answers.
For example, I was reading the Blog on Mary.
I believe it was Jeff or Sandy that quoted scripture and the early church fathers regarding
checking doctrine with scripture. But of course
you only use scripture and the early church
fathers when it supports your position.
I posted earlier from the Catholic encyclopedia
on line where it stated that some of the early
church fathers disagreed with the teaching of
Mary being ever Virgin and with the immaculate
conception. But you and others conveniently leave
that out when you answer people who disagree.
You make it seem like everyone of the early church leaders were in perfect agreement with every teaching of the RCC but of course that is
easily proven false if someone takes the time to
actually read what they wrote.
You would have everyone believe that the immaculate conception was a doctrine believed
and taught from the apostles, yet according to
the Catholic encyclopedia this teaching was not
made official dogma until 1854. Why did it take them so long to make this teaching official?
Gee, I can guess why, the church had a problem
because their teaching on original sin caused
a problem in their minds, if Mary was born with
original sin, then Jesus could not have been
born without sin. But their own teaching contradicts itself. Mary being born of two
human parents was some how exempted from original
sin. But Jesus having God as His actual Father
and being God in the flesh couldn't have done what they claim was done with Mary. In other words there was no need to concoct this story about Mary.
Jesus was God and that made Him exempt from original sin. Also the very fact tha Jesus was Holy made Mary's womb Holy. She didn't need to be sinless.
Can God make that which is not Holy, Holy? If you
answer No then Jesus can not save us from our sin
because He is making us all Holy by covering our sin with His Holy blood.
I do not see from scripture any need or requirement from God that Mary needed to be sinless. This was purely a concoction
of Men. But I know you won't agree with this
since it goes against what the RCC teaches.
You have to stay with the party line even when it
goes against logic. Then it becomes a mystery of
God. If this was a widely held dogma why did it
take 1900 years to become offical dogma (1854) ?
You use the term veneration when speaking of
what Catholics do concering Mary. Just because
you use another word doesn't change what it is,
Worship. Semantics is all that it is.
Jesus had the opportunity to put HIS mother up
on a pedistal in various instances. The one in
particular is when a women cried out Blessed is the womb that bore you and blessed are the breasts that fed you. Now this was a PERFECT chance for Jesus to give honor to His mother.
But what was his response : "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." Luke 11:27-28.
All the time spent venerating Mary could be better spent doing good works, preaching God's
word, Studying God's word. What purpose does it
serve. It wastes time. Mary never asked to be
venerated. She was a humble woman. She would be
embarrassed by all the attention paid to her.
Who is the one who wants to take honor and glory
and the spotlite off of God and off of Jesus.
It is the father of lies, Satan, HE is described
as an angel of light.. Gee, who could be behind
the idea of the veneration of Mary ? I don't see it being God's idea, at least Jesus never commanded anyone to venerate His mother. What were the two commandments Jesus left. Love God with all your heart and Love your brother as yourself. He did not infer by word or action that anyone should venerate His mother.
I honestly don't see how the scripture of Jesus commanding John to take care of His mother translates into all Christians needing to take Mary in as their mother as stated by someone on this BLOG. Talk about reading into scripture
something that isn't there.. But of course that
Idea is probably in some early church fathers
writings or some other Catholic writings so
of course this is Gospel because the RCC says
it is so....
I will leave you all in your fantasy world of
the perfect Church. The Roman Catholic Church.
I expect a scathing response or reproof from the
all wise all knowing .. I however will not waste
another minute posting here.
You don't want debate. People like Jay and others have come up with valid criticism of Catholic teachings. But you just ridicule
and explain away things by saying it is what
the RCC teaches so it has to be true.
I sometimes wonder if we ever get the chance to
meet people like Peter or Paul or some of the
early church fathers we ALL are so quick to
quote. I wonder if they will come up to ALL of
us and smack us up beside the head and say, you misrepresented what I wrote ..?
Farewell in Christ Jesus,
Clem
Posted by: clem at June 18, 2004 9:57 AMSo Clem, time to run I guess...
For the record, Sacred Scripture does provide us with the proof that Mary was conceived immaculate:
And he came to her and said, "Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you!" - Luke 1:28
I will allow Mark Miravalle, a reknown theologian from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, to explain this:
From the New Testament the principal scriptural seed for the Immaculate Conception is revealed in the inspired words of the Angel Gabriel, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Lk 1:28). In the angelic greeting, Mary's name is nowhere used. Rather, the title "full of grace" is used as a substitute for Mary's name by the angelic messenger of God. These angelic words refer to a fullness of grace, a plentitude of grace that is part of Mary's very nature. So much is Mary's very being full of grace that this title serves to identify Mary in place of her own name. It is also true that no person with a fallen nature could possess a fullness of grace, a plentitude of grace, appropriate only for the woman who was to give God the Son an identical, immaculate human nature. Mary was conceived in providence to be the woman who would give her same immaculate nature to God when God became man. Certainly we can see the fittingness in God receiving an immaculate nature from a truly immaculate mother.
In the Greek text of Luke 1:28, we have an additional implicit reference to Mary's Immaculate Conception taking place before the announcement of the Angel. The Greek word "kekaritomene," is a perfect participle, and so we translate Luke 1:28 most accurately in this way, "Hail, you who have been graced." The Greek translation of the angel's greeting refers to an event of profound grace experienced by Mary that was already completed in the past.
- Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Dr. Mark Miravallle, STD
I do hope you have at least come back to read how we have responded to your final post, but, all the same, it is necessary for us to speak the truth.
A religion based on the Bible alone is not only not found in Sacred Scripture but it is also not practical. With so many people, most of the world's population, down through the ages being illiterate it would not seem that Jesus would have chosen the written word to be the only means of choice for the conveying of His truth. We also have to take into consideration the fact that the printing press wasn't invented until approximately the 15th century. So how would enough bibles have been published for all believers to have a copy? On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that Jesus would establish a covenant with a "chosen people," a "Church," to safeguard and proclaim His truth to the world, in writing or by word of mouth (cf. 2 Thess 2:15).
Pray about these things and keep searching for the Truth...
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
I read your post. I tried to email you directly
by clicking on your name but it is not allowing me to send you an email. I will not respond on this BLOG any longer. I would be happy to respond to you directly. Click on my name and email me so I can respond back to you.
In Christ,
Clem
Posted by: clem at June 18, 2004 6:21 PMClem, I just shot you an email. I'm not sure what the problem is with the link.
Jay, maybe you could take a look at that to see what the problem is.
In Christ,
Joe
No problems with the link, that's how it's supposed to work. If the person posting has a blog, their name links to the blog rather than their email address - this is a "blogging custom" if there is such a thing.
However, I did add a Contact Us link on the upper left that points out any of us can be contacted by simply putting our name in front of "@deoomnisgloria.com" - all of the contributors have one of these email addresses.
God bless,
Jay
Joe,
I received your email and I shot several emails back to you over this past weekend, I hope you received them.
Regards in Christ
Clem
Posted by: clem at June 22, 2004 7:42 AMAll killing is wrong!!!
I disagree with abortion and don’t agree that just because some one is born genetically unpopular they are free to be aborted. I never here any of you speak on the issues of killing those who are born, and those giving birth. Has it not occurred to you that in a war a bomb do not care if a woman is carrying a child? Even the people considered unimportant are loved by the lord. When a politition turns a blind eye, a deaf ear, and leather heart to some one who just want a safe neighborhood so their children won’t get “Aborted” by a stray bullet of a drug terrorist no one calls him on this? Why do the least of our brother’s blood flow so justly to the church?
But John, those who had a chance to live at least had the opportunity to love and serve God. They had an opportunity to worship. And they have a voice that can fight for their rights.
An unborn child has no opportunity to protect his/herself. The unborn never have the opportunity to love and serve God. In essence, the unborn only have us to depend on - we can act as their voice. The right to life at the beginning is the right that all other rights are based on. Until we can solve this problem and end abortion, the other issues are secondary.
God bless,
Jay
I have been opposed to the invasion of Iraq and hence have been contemplating voting Democratic in the upcoming presidential election for the first time since Nixon. Now, however, after reading what Pope John Paul II has had to say about Kerry, I am totally confused. It was my understanding that the Pope verbally chastised George W. when he visited the Vatican last month (for his invasion of Iraq) but I guess the Pope is saying that the greater "sin" is supporting gay rights and/or abortion. Perhaps I will abstain from voting this year.
Posted by: Tom Y at July 10, 2004 11:54 AMTom, I dont mean to add to your burdens but Catholics have a solemn obligation to vote in elections. If you find Bush and Kerry to be unworthy of your vote, you could as statement of protest intentionally spoil your ballot.
Others have suggested instead that the political process should be reformed to allow voters to vote for any un-nominated candidate by "filling in a blank section".
Posted by: Richard Wan at July 12, 2004 12:15 PMTom, I think the difference there is that the Pope's opinion on abortion and gay rights deals with fundamental doctrines of Catholicism and he is infallible on those issues. As for a war, there is a difference between a just and unjust war and the Pope is free to voice his opinion on a war but I don't believe he is infallible on that issue. To a believer, the Pope is 100% correct on abortion and gay rights, however, his opinion on a war is human and not divine.
In addition to that, as Jay pointed out, the victims in abortions are unborn children who never had their chance to love God. I would also like to add, that if you disagree with the war, we can at least admit that the people who are responsible for this war are at least trying to help others, whether it be freeing Iraqi's or protecting Americans. People that have abortions on the other hand are looking out only for their selfish personal reasons. I would argue that abortion is definitly a worse than the war.
Posted by: Tom Ace at July 13, 2004 1:10 AMMr. Ace et al.
Be careful, your statements that the unborn do not have a chance to love God diminishes those precious unborn beings status as humans. They are conceived so they are people. We all have a different relationship with God at different stages of life. How dare you say a person in the womb cannot love the God who has established all life.
Peace
Patrick
Obviously the last thing I want to say is that the unborn aren't people yet because they clearly are. However, these people still have not been baptised, ect., and the fact that the perpetrators of abortion delibertly murder these people denying them their chance to live and participate in sacred sacrements such as Baptism and the Eucharist makes Abortion one of, if not the most morally reprehensible crimes one could commit. There is no doubt from a spiritual sense that abortion is a horrible wrong and no Christian should endorse a politican that has stated their approval of legal abortions and has said that they would do anything possible to keep these crimes legal.
Posted by: Tom Ace at July 17, 2004 5:23 PMTom,
I just wanted to point out that very few pro-abortionist, if any, are deliberate murderers, as your last note suggests.
What we are dealing with is not a bunch of blood-thirsty baby killers, but people who honestly do not understand/believe that life begins at conception. Thus for them, the issue is not even about murder, but rather about "a woman's rights regarding her body."
Vilifying rhetoric directed at pro abortion folks does little to help the process, or even the possibility of educating them about what abortion is really all about - killing innocent human life.
The very worse rhetoric in this regard is when pro-lifers (like myself) describe the phenomenon of abortion in terms of the Holocaust - even likening it to the Holocaust (which I do not/will not ever do).
The act of abortion is intrinsically evil, but it is being perpetrated by folks who, for the most part, really "Know not what they do!"
On the other hand the Holocaust of 1939-1945 consisted of a group of people attempting to programmatically exterminate an entire race. In fact, when the Nazi's realized that they were going to lose the war, the decision was made to increase the operating pace of the extermination camps. The "Final Solution" was moved to the very front burner of the Reich's stove (pun intended).
If pro-lifer's are going to make any head-way in the conversation with pro-choice-ers, then it would stand well to start by dropping the name-calling rhetoric, and embrace an instructive stance. If not? Then pro-life name calling directed at pro-choicers will only add fuel to their passion for what they (mis)understand to be an issue about rights - and not an issue about LIFE!
Posted by: Jack at July 20, 2004 11:47 AMJack,
While I agree that name-calling will not suffice, I would vehemently disagree with your objection to the holocaust label. First, that term is most definitely accurate. Abortion has killed many times the number of people as the holocaust. Language is a critical tool and it is crucial that we not give up any ground in this battle of words. This holocaust is what it is; calling it something less makes it "not as bad." Second, the term is not a personal insult or label. It applies to the action, not the person. Third, as to the intentions of the Nazis, you are not entirely correct. Much Nazi rhetoric was filled with labels suggesting that the Jews were not real persons. American slavery was filled with the same sort of rhetoric. On the other hand, many abortion supporters acknowledge that the fetus is a human life (it's hard to logically justify a different opinion), but merely say that it is not entitled to the same rights as other people and that a woman has a superior interest in protecting her body. The Nazis said the same sort of thing except that they were protecting their country. We must not villify, but we must also stand firm in our outcry against this reviling evil. We must never flinch from calling evil what it is!
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
To respond to your points in order Dave:
First, no one is contesting that less people were murdered in the holocaust than have thus far been killed by abortion. It is not the numbers that justify (or not) the descriptor “holocaust.” It is the manner and the intent behind the murder. What the Nazi’s did was systematic, programmatic, determined, and driven toward one goal – the elimination of a race. Dave, this scenario is simply NOT what is happening with respect to abortion (I seriously doubt that number of pro-abortionists who recognize that they are in fact, choosing to kill a human being is even anywhere close to a majority of them). There is no stated pro-choice/abortion ideology that seeks to “exterminate” the “unborn human being” with a “final solution”; no “unborn humans” being separated for “special treatment.” I will grant you your point if indeed a majority arises among pro-choicers who are thus, driven by an ideology or a hatred of the “unborn human” to the extent that they seek to round up pregnant women (whether these women want to abort or not), and seek to make abortion of ALL unborn humans "policy."
Language is indeed, critical. In the mid-20th Century, 6.5 million Jews were systematically, purposefully, and in a determined way murdered by the Nazi’s; millions of them were gassed and burned in the ovens – a true holocaust. To borrow this language is to diminish what is, in my opinion and many others, the single most heinous, willful atrocity committed thus far in the history of humankind.
Second, no comments come to mind re: your second point.
Third, my understanding of the intentions of the Nazi’s is borne out quite well, I think, by the fact (stated previously) that when the outcome of the war became evident, the “final solution” became the priority – time, money, and resources that remained were funneled into the operation of transporting Jews to death camps, as well as the operation of the gas chambers and ovens being bumped up to 24/7 – not to mention the production and use of mobile gas chambers & ovens.
Dave, I understand that you and I are likely functioning here with our own biases. Your opinion is, perhaps!, driven as it is because of your deep commitment to the Gospel of Life over-against the culture of death as it is today encapsulated in the praxis of abortion. I share your passion as well. However, I spent ten years of my life immersing myself into the history of the holocaust, both academically and personally, and via a dear friendship with a Professor of Old Testament – a Jew – who was forced to flee Germany when the writing on the wall became clear. He died in 2000, but only after – thank God! – he had instilled in me a commitment to both teach people about Jews and Judaism, and to safeguard the memory of what happened.
I will, with you, use every descriptor available to color the intrinsic evil of abortion as it truly is – abject, utter evil. Every word available, save the word “Holocaust” – THE Shoah!
“For it is the doom of men that they forget.”
Blessings!
