Home - List All Discussions

Long live the Pope

but i'm really disgusted.

by: sheri

As a devote Catholic I was excited to hear the holy Father was coming to America. I have alot of respect for the Pope and had so many hopes for what this visit could bring. Those hopes were flushed completly away today when I saw Rudy Guiliani in the communion line at the Popes mass. Would it have killed anybody to make an announcement before communion that a proabort may not recieve? Thats all it would have taken.
How about redirecting our Bishops to be more steadfast in the fight for life?
Please forgive me for airing our dirty laundry to the world, however i believe a public scandle should be reputed in public.
God forgive me, and forgive America for her lack of faith and bless us with some good, God FEARING bishops to lead us.

reply from: pilgrim

I read in a Catholic newspaper that the vatican made a statement that pro choice politicians were to refrain from receiving communion at the masses. Thats all they can do they can't watch them all. I also read later at the washington mass Kennedy was the only pro choice democrat that did not receive.

reply from: galen

soryy to disagree... but because we do not know that they were not in the confessional the hour before mass started then we have no way of knowing what was in their hearts at the time they recieved communion.
Mary

reply from: faithman

did vatican 2 do away with the sin of divorce and adultry? I thought any catholic who commited adultry divorced and married another was permently banned from communion?

reply from: galen

from what i understand both can be forgiven.... any sin can really... you are only ex'd when in direct violation for prolonged periods of time , and then only by the Vatican council and the Pope. It is never a single instance that gets you ex'd.... even the priests that committed those well published vile rapes were forgiven if they confessed and even then only stripped of their priesthood... not their ordination mind you. God does not 'take'back' the sacraments.
My first marrige was annulled by the Church. My second was confirmed by the Church.... no excommunication was required for either of us in the first marrige for it to be annulled... only documentation of severe abuse.
Mary

reply from: faithman

Boy!!! Things shure have changed. Somethings used to be mortal sins, which meant only the hot place for you.

reply from: galen

even a mortal sin can be fogiven for Christ has infinite forgiveness if sought.
Mary

reply from: faithman

Thats not the way it use to be.

reply from: galen

The Church grew up. each Pope brings a new bit of wisdom... but every religion has its growing pains catholics have just been at it a while longer than most. The arguments are never new except for the people having them.
Mary

reply from: joe

Why do men fear men? The Pope has great power to show the world the truth of God. I hope he does, with great power comes great responsibility.

reply from: Teresa18

No. Adultery can be forgiven. For example, if a married man had a one night stand with another woman, he can be forgiven. A couple can get a divorce, but they are not permitted to pursue another relationship or remarry unless they are able to obtain an annulment. If they do pursue another relationship and/or remarry without an annulment, they are not permitted to recieve Communion.

reply from: Faramir

Thats not the way it use to be.
It's ALWAY'S been that way.

reply from: faithman

Thats not the way it use to be.
It's ALWAY'S been that way.
Oh gosh, here we go again. No it wasn't. Pre vatican 2 adultry divorce and remariage were mortal sins. You were perminantly thrown out and considered hell bound. divorce and remarriage were strictly forbidden.

reply from: galen

FM
where are you getting your info?
Mary

reply from: Faramir

Thats not the way it use to be.
It's ALWAY'S been that way.
Oh gosh, here we go again. No it wasn't. Pre vatican 2 adultry divorce and remariage were mortal sins. You were perminantly thrown out and considered hell bound. divorce and remarriage were strictly forbidden.
Anyone who commits a mortal sin IS hellbound, but ANY mortal sin can be forgiven, and be restored to God and Salvation. That's what Confession is for.
That was ALWAYS the case in the Catholic Church.
Vatican II did not change one ioata of dogma.
Divorce and remarriage IS a mortal sin.
Divorce in and of itself is not necessarily a sin. Remarriage is a sin, because in the eyes of the Church a marriage still exists, and a new relationship would be adultery. But some marriages can be annuled, depending upon the circumstances of the marriage, WHEN the couple married, not because of things that happen after the marriage.
Regardless of all this, if Hiter confessed on his deathbed, he would be forgiven. There is no sin outside of the realm of God's mercy and willingness to forgive it.

reply from: faithman

Thats not the way it use to be.
It's ALWAY'S been that way.
Oh gosh, here we go again. No it wasn't. Pre vatican 2 adultry divorce and remariage were mortal sins. You were perminantly thrown out and considered hell bound. divorce and remarriage were strictly forbidden.
Anyone who commits a mortal sin IS hellbound, but ANY mortal sin can be forgiven, and be restored to God and Salvation. That's what Confession is for.
That was ALWAYS the case in the Catholic Church.
Vatican II did not change one ioata of dogma.
Divorce and remarriage IS a mortal sin.
Divorce in and of itself is not necessarily a sin. Remarriage is a sin, because in the eyes of the Church a marriage still exists, and a new relationship would be adultery. But some marriages can be annuled, depending upon the circumstances of the marriage, WHEN the couple married, not because of things that happen after the marriage.
Regardless of all this, if Hiter confessed on his deathbed, he would be forgiven. There is no sin outside of the realm of God's mercy and willingness to forgive it.
You are simply wrong, and that is not what was taught in catacism class before 1964. They taught there was no cure for mortal sin. That is why it is called mortal sin.

reply from: faithman

From the catacism class i was taught as a child pre vatican 2. We were taught mortal sin was deadly and unforgivable. That is what is was called mortal sin. That was in the days of the latin mass. I went to C schools up until 5th grade, and that is what was taught to us. 1968 was my last year, and 1970 was the last year I served a mass as an AB. When my parents split, my mom was told she could not recieve communion, or even go to mass a a divorced woman. when she got remarried it was concidered a mortal sin and she could never be let back in. Seems thing have changed in 30 something years.

reply from: Faramir

From the catacism class i was taught as a child pre vatican 2. We were taught mortal sin was deadly and unforgivable. That is what is was called mortal sin. That was in the days of the latin mass. I went to C schools up until 5th grade, and that is what was taught to us. 1968 was my last year, and 1970 was the last year I served a mass as an AB. When my parents split, my mom was told she could not recieve communion, or even go to mass a a divorced woman. when she got remarried it was concidered a mortal sin and she could never be let back in. Seems thing have changed in 30 something years.
You've got some incorrect information.
There is no catechism that now teaches or ever taught, that mortal sin is unforgiveable.
A divorced person most definately can receive Holy Communion, unless remarried without having received a Decree of Nullity.
Vatican II did not change anything as far as dogma is concerned, and most definately did not change whether mortal sins could be forgiven.
That's why we have Confession. Venial sins don't have to be confessed (but should be).
A mortal sin cuts off the relationship with God, depriving the soul of the "Sanctifying Grace" needed to have a life in Heaven. Confession of the sin, with sorrow and sincerity, and with an intention to not repeat it, restores supernatural life to the soul, enabling it to enter Heaven.
This is not a new invention, but has been the case since the first day the Church began.

reply from: pilgrim

The only sin that cannot be forgiven is a sin of blasphemy against the Holy spirit. All other mortal sins can and could always be forgiven with a sincere contrite confession. The only way to hell is to die in mortal sin. I am in my second marriage also. I also went through a annulment. I attend daily Mass and thank God every day for his divine mercy. God will forgive the worst person on Earth if on his death bed he ask for forgiveness. he may have to spend a great deal of time in purgatory I would assume he would but that we don't know. In any event he would get to heaven eventually which would be the blessing of his repenting

reply from: galen

Annulment is not only for a problem WHEN a marrige is new but also for the ones that turn severly bad ( read...violent) after a few years.
Even suicides by the mentally ill are given the benefit of the doubt by the priest and bishop, especially when burial in consecrated ground is formost in the families minds.
Mary

reply from: Faramir

They might take present circumstantes into consideration to help determine what was going on when the marriage happened, but as I understand it, an annulment declares that there was no real marriage in the first place.
If there was a real marriage, no matter what behavior there was after the marriage, it could not be annulled.

reply from: galen

hmmmm i see what your saying... i don't think that is the whole story though.
Mary

reply from: Faramir

A "Decree of Nullity" means that whatever tribunal it is that examines the case, declares in effect, that a "sacramental marriage nevevr happened."
Something was deficient at the time of the marriage, and it would be declared that God did not join this particular couple.
One blatant justification for an annulment would be a serious misrepresentation. If someone hid a criminal record or hid a health condition, with an intent to deceive the intended spouse, an annulment could be granted. There are lots of other reasons as well.
But if a sacramental marriage did occur, there is nothing that could happen after the fact to justify an annulment. The only thing in this case that could be justified would be a separation and possibly a divorce, but not a new relationship or marriage.

reply from: sheri

Thank you Faramer, for your clear and accurate defence of the Faith. What are your feelings about how the Pope handled the abortion issue?

reply from: galen

I understand what you are saying... in my case though i do not remember it happening that way... i do remember how quickly it was done... i wasn't out of the hospital for more than a few weeks before it was over... i still had the wires in my jaw.
I do not remember too much about it though... i was on mucho px meds. I do remember looking at the documents when my husband now and i went through UNITAS and all the precanna meetings. They were more concerned that the documentation was there rather than all the circumstances of how we came to that point.
Mary

reply from: sheri

I have a friend who was a priest on the marriage tribunal here, and he said 90% of todays marriages are nullifiable.

reply from: galen

under what reasons or did he say?
Mary

reply from: sheri

Mostly having to do with sex before marriage. Not that fornication in and of itself would be grounds, but the stuff that comes with it, contraception, false expectations or out right lies. Pre cana in our diocease rotts. I shouldn't wonder that the divorce rate is so high.

reply from: sheri

what pre cana program do you use?

reply from: galen

sorry kiddo.... its been 7 years sense i last looked at the lit... all i know is the divorce rate in this diocese is really low.
Mary

reply from: sheri

what diocese? and to what do the atribute their success?

reply from: galen

telling you the diocese would break confidentiallity... sorry. i can tell you we are in the midwest.
Attribute hmmm i think its more along the lines that we do not have much movement out of the diocese... that the community as a whole really looks out for one another and the clergy are always available to parishoners at pretty much any time.

reply from: 4given

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1934271420080419
By Claudia Parsons
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Twice-divorced former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani took Communion at a Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict on Saturday, breaching rules that bar those who remarry outside the Church from doing so.
As he left New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral with his third wife, Judith, the failed presidential candidate confirmed to Reuters that he took Communion from a priest.
Asked if he was uncomfortable with having broken the Church ban on the divorced and remarried taking Communion, Giuliani said, "No."
The Church does not recognize divorce and teaches that divorced Catholics are still married to their earlier partner unless the Church grants them an annulment, or ruling that the initial marriage was invalid.
Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1934271420080419

reply from: 4given

Pelosi takes Communion at papal Mass
She worries about human rights and climate change, but loses no sleep over abortion or human embryos used as spare parts
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who throughout her political career has ignored Church teaching as an untiring advocate for abortion on demand, embryonic stem cell research and same-sex marriage, was gushing with enthusiasm at her weekly press conference last week just after she took Holy Communion at a papal Mass in the nation's capital. http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=c3ebd2e0-d32f-4a58-bf45-5ad0d751a165

reply from: lukesmom

From the catacism class i was taught as a child pre vatican 2. We were taught mortal sin was deadly and unforgivable. That is what is was called mortal sin. That was in the days of the latin mass. I went to C schools up until 5th grade, and that is what was taught to us. 1968 was my last year, and 1970 was the last year I served a mass as an AB. When my parents split, my mom was told she could not recieve communion, or even go to mass a a divorced woman. when she got remarried it was concidered a mortal sin and she could never be let back in. Seems thing have changed in 30 something years.
Prevat 2, my uncle remarried after his wife died. But he married a nonCatholic woman and didn't remarry in the Catholic Church. He was told he could not take communion because the church didn't recognise his marriage. His new wife, my aunt was divorced from her 1st husband. First person I ever knew who was actually divorced. NOBODY in our community EVER divorced at that time. Yes, a lot HAS changed.

reply from: faithman

From the catacism class i was taught as a child pre vatican 2. We were taught mortal sin was deadly and unforgivable. That is what is was called mortal sin. That was in the days of the latin mass. I went to C schools up until 5th grade, and that is what was taught to us. 1968 was my last year, and 1970 was the last year I served a mass as an AB. When my parents split, my mom was told she could not recieve communion, or even go to mass a a divorced woman. when she got remarried it was concidered a mortal sin and she could never be let back in. Seems thing have changed in 30 something years.
Prevat 2, my uncle remarried after his wife died. But he married a nonCatholic woman and didn't remarry in the Catholic Church. He was told he could not take communion because the church didn't recognise his marriage. His new wife, my aunt was divorced from her 1st husband. First person I ever knew who was actually divorced. NOBODY in our community EVER divorced at that time. Yes, a lot HAS changed.
Thank you. I think most of these posters do not know how it was prevat2. Mass in latin, fish on friday, and no divorce. You couldn't touch the eucerist like they do now. You stuck your tonge out period. to hold comunion as a common person was a greivious sin. Only a priest could touch it.

reply from: Faramir

Nothing has changed in this regard.
Your uncle would still be in the exact same situation today.
The only remedy would be to separate from his from his second wife unless and until her first marriage was annulled.
That was how it was THEN AND NOW.
Vatican II did not change one drop of Catholic dogma, and the teachings about marriage, divorce, and remarriage have not changed.

reply from: Faramir

By a special indult, the laity may receive Communion in the hand, but that could revert to on the tongue only, at any time.
This is not a Vatian II change, and neither is abstaining from meat on Fridays, which is still the case during lent.
These are disciplines that can be changed according to circumstances.
The new Mass is substantially the same sacrifice as the old Tridentine Mass, which is still practiced in some churces.
Vatican II made no changes whatsover to dogma, or to what is a sin and what is not a sin, etc. etc.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

If the Democratic legislators have said, "We don't care one iota what the Church says, we are supporting abortion, period." It is wrong for any Church to even allow such individuals in the door.
This week is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. We just remembered Jesus Sacrifice as the Passover Lamb a few nights ago during the Passover meal. As part of Unleavened Bread we each individually search for the leavening of sin in the nooks and crannnies of our life and expell it. In I Corinthians 5 Paul commands the Church to put out the sinners who bear the name of brother if they continue engage in inappropriate behavior and not associate with them.
I Corthinians 5:6-13 "Do you not know that a little leaven (one person) leavens the whole lump (the whole Church)? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality, or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler - not even to eat with such a one....Purge the evil person from among you."
This seems clear, anyone claiming to be a Christian brother is to be purged out of the Church if they are a willful sinner. We are not to associate with or even eat a meal with such a person. Isn't taking communion both an association and meal?

reply from: lukesmom

Nothing has changed in this regard.
Your uncle would still be in the exact same situation today.
The only remedy would be to separate from his from his second wife unless and until her first marriage was annulled.
That was how it was THEN AND NOW.
Vatican II did not change one drop of Catholic dogma, and the teachings about marriage, divorce, and remarriage have not changed.
No Vatican 2 didn't change dogma but a lot of American Catholics changed their attitude. Reverence toward the host and several other things became more "relaxed" for the lack of a better word. No one other than the priest would even think of touching the host with anything but their tongue and fasting for at least 12 hours before taking the host was a MUST. So was confession. If you hadn't been to confession in the last couple weeks, had a sin to confess or had eaten, you DID NOT go to communion. Never, ever did everyone communion age go up for communion like today. If the priest dropped a host, it was covered with a hankerchief until the priest could remove it properly. During communion we knelt at a rail to prevent dropping the host. Everyone was very careful of any action that could possibly desicrate the host. Just last year my dad started talking communion in the hand. We fasted and religiously went to church on Holy days and we NEVER ate meat on Fridays. Still don't. Ours was a small farm community and our priest knew each and every one of his sheep. I remember one priest liked to come get us kids and take us into town for ice cream and his car had windows controlled with buttons! BIG treat for us! My aunt was a nun and was never, ever seen without her habit. She loved baseball and would tuck the skirt in, get the head veil out of her way and play like us kids. She sure could hit and she was fast around the bases! No dogma changes but pre vat 2 was a lot different because the people actually believed in and followed the chruches rules.

reply from: Faramir

I'm relatively new to the Church--I've been a Catholic for the past 14 years of my almost 53 years, so I only can go by what I've heard about it in the past.
I don't know if Vatican II should be blamed for the changes in attitudes, though.
I think there could be a lot more to it than that.
I think it's horrible that people leave mass early, or that they the visit with each other in the Church instead of in the Church hall or outside. There should be a reverence and a holy silence within the Church, but so many don't seem to respect that.
When I became a Catholic I felt like I found a wonderful treasure, and wondered why I had to discover it so late in life. One of the best things I did for my family was to bring them into the Church, but one of my sons left it and is now an atheist.
People can only be brought to water, but they can't be forced to drink, and that might be the case with some of the changes in the past decades.
All that those of us in the Church can do is hope and pray, and be good examples, and frankly, the past few years I have not bee that good of one myself, though I am working on that.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

When a Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi step forward to receive communion, they must be turned away. They know what they are doing. They are trying to gain acceptance for abortion and their other liberal positions. They are trying to influence other's in the Catholic Church to be accepting of their wickedness. A little leaven will leaven the whole lump. If a priest knows who they are, and gives them communion, that Priest is evil. How about a John the Baptist attitute? To unrepentant sinners who came to be baptized he said, "You snakes, why are you coming to me to be baptized. Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance." John the Baptist refused to baptize the unrepentant. He said we needed to see some changes first before he would baptize them. Kennedy and Pelosi are enemies of the Church coming in to cause damage. A Church is foolish to permit it.

reply from: Faramir

Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi, because they are in defiance of the Church and because they support the injustice of abortion, should most definately be excommunicated, and should not be receiven Communion.
I don't understand the thinking that allows them to receive Communion.
It could be that they HAVE been excommunicated.
But what else can they do? I don't know if they can physically restrain someone from receiving Communion.

reply from: yoda

That's a rather silly statement...... isn't every priest in control of his own actions?

reply from: Faramir

That's a rather silly statement...... isn't every priest in control of his own actions?
It's not a silly statement.
First, people who are in a communion line are not wearing name tags identifying themselves, or signs that say they are in a state of sin or are disobedient to Church teachings, and they are given the benefit of the doubt. Nobody who is in a state of mortal sin should be receiving Holy Communion, but that is up to the conscience of the communicant.
Second, the priest who celebrates the Mass is not necessarily distributing communion to everyone. There are other priests who distribute communion, as well as members of the laity who distribute communion, and there is no way to control everyone who receives commuion.
If Ted Kennedy came to our Church and got in line to receive Communion, even if recognized by our priest, there would be no way for him to know whether Mr. Kennedy had repented of his position about abortion, and I believe he would be given the benefit of the doubt.

reply from: faithman

Why not? they physically restrained Jews in the inquistition. they physically restrained protestants to the stake for roasting? They have the experiance and history of restraint. Whats the big whoop?

reply from: Faramir

Why not? they physically restrained Jews in the inquistition. they physically restrained protestants to the stake for roasting? They have the experiance and history of restraint. Whats the big whoop?
I think you need to learn a few things about the Church you abandoned, especially since it is the best friend of the life in the womb.

reply from: nancyu

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Cor. 11:27-29.

reply from: MC3

The issue is not just that our culture has changed but the blinding speed at which it has done so. As just one example, in the 1960s it was generally accepted that Nelson Rockefeller was a lock to become President of the United States. But it turned out that he had one fatal problem. He was divorced. Once that was revealed, it was considered a character flaw significant enough to eliminate him from consideration and this golden boy of American politics faded into the background.
In less than two generations, we went from that standard to Bill and Monica frolicking in the Oval Office.
As for the Catholic Church and the issue of communion, I want to relate an incident that happened to me several years ago. I was asked to give the keynote address at a pro-life event that was being held at a Catholic church. This pro-life meeting was to begin in the church sanctuary immediately following mass. One of the younger priests came up to me prior to the mass and haltingly advised me that I should not present myself for communion since I was not Catholic. It was clear that this man was extremely uncomfortable having to deliver this message and I could only conclude that he must have drawn the short straw. I reassured him that I was in no way insulted or upset by this and that I hade been through it many times before. I also made it clear that I appreciated the fact that his church had standards to which it would adhere even when it would be easier to just let them slide.
I sincerely meant that then and I still do. It is the duty of the Catholic Church to uphold their standards and, as a Baptist, I have no right to get my feelings hurt if they refuse to bend rules that they have had for 2000 years just to suit me. But I do have one problem related to this issue.
Recently, there have been some widely publicized incidents in which pro-aborts and homosexuals have invaded Catholic masses and disrupted communion. Of course, these godless degenerates have been angrily criticized for this and rightly so. But I think we need to consider that when a priest knowingly gives communion to someone like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Rudy Giuliani, et all, that priest insults and demeans the communion to a far higher degree than do the antics of these baby-killers and sodomites. After all, we cannot logically expect people like that to have reverence for religious practices, but we should demand it from church leaders. I would also suggest that something is seriously amiss when Christians of other denominations are barred from communion while it is freely given to self-excommunicated heretical Catholics. And the problem isn't that Christians of other denominations are barred.

reply from: faithman

Why not? they physically restrained Jews in the inquistition. they physically restrained protestants to the stake for roasting? They have the experiance and history of restraint. Whats the big whoop?
I think you need to learn a few things about the Church you abandoned, especially since it is the best friend of the life in the womb.
Number one, I did not abandon the church, it abandon me. I think my post is historically accurate. It may be a freind, but I don't think it is a best friend by far.

reply from: sander

It is odd that the Catholic church would make such a statement to someone who is truly pro-lilfe as MC3 and then freely give the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, etc. communion.
There's a definate dis-connect.
Remove God from public life and it sure didn't take long, you call it blinding speed, I termed it warp speed.

reply from: Faramir

Remove God from public life and it sure didn't take long, you call it blinding speed, I termed it warp speed.
The bottom line is that MC3 or you or anyone could get in a Communion line and receive Holy Communion.
I don't know how someone would be physically refused from receiving Communion, though I'm not saying it's impossible.
It has been made clear that those politicians who support abortion are in defiance of Church teaching and should not receive Communion.

reply from: Faramir

You are one step away from being back in the Catholic Church. The Church is not preventing that from happening. It's entirely up to you.

reply from: faithman

Remove God from public life and it sure didn't take long, you call it blinding speed, I termed it warp speed.
The bottom line is that MC3 or you or anyone could get in a Communion line and receive Holy Communion.
I don't know how someone would be physically refused from receiving Communion, though I'm not saying it's impossible.
It has been made clear that those politicians who support abortion are in defiance of Church teaching and should not receive Communion.
UUUUUHHHHH let us see... The preist has the host in his hand. He can choose to give or not to give. He does not have to give comunion to those he knows are apostate. I would say the folk in question are well known to be . Once again, whats the big whoop?

reply from: sander

Why can't they do to the above mentioned proaborts exactly what they did to MC3?
It was simple enough to refuse him communion.
And those politicians are easily reconized.
I still say there's a disconnect, especially in light of your clear as mud clairification.
Personally, I think it's the role of the ministry to offer communion and then the onus is on the recepient as to whether they are in right standing. Only God knows the heart.
But, if the ministry saw fit to tell MC3 not to get in line, the Catholic stance is odd in that regard.

reply from: faithman

You are one step away from being back in the Catholic Church. The Church is not preventing that from happening. It's entirely up to you.
I will not go back to an organization that abandon me when I needed it most, whos "minister" asked me out for a "date", and is SSSSSOOOOO full of hypocracy and scriptural error it ain't even funny. I know many catholics and consider them friends. But I would never be a part of that church ever again. I know way to much truth to do that.

reply from: Faramir

You are one step away from being back in the Catholic Church. The Church is not preventing that from happening. It's entirely up to you.
I will not go back to an organization that abandon me when I needed it most, whos "minister" asked me out for a "date", and is SSSSSOOOOO full of hypocracy and scriptural error it ain't even funny. I know many catholics and consider them friends. But I would never be a part of that church ever again. I know way to much truth to do that.
It's sad if you were mistreated by someone in authority who should have known better.
But a rotten apple is not "The Church."

reply from: faithman

You are one step away from being back in the Catholic Church. The Church is not preventing that from happening. It's entirely up to you.
I will not go back to an organization that abandon me when I needed it most, whos "minister" asked me out for a "date", and is SSSSSOOOOO full of hypocracy and scriptural error it ain't even funny. I know many catholics and consider them friends. But I would never be a part of that church ever again. I know way to much truth to do that.
It's sad if you were mistreated by someone in authority who should have known better.
But a rotten apple is not "The Church."
But the church harbors them, and just about always has.

reply from: MC3

The suggestion that there is no physical way to prevent politicians who support legalized abortion from receiving communion is preposterous. That is proven by the fact that there are courageous Catholic clergymen all across America who are publicly stating that they will not give communion to these people.
Returning to my previous post, when I was advised not to take communion by this young Catholic priest, I was so impressed that the leaders of this church took communion so seriously that they would risk offending an invited guest rather than compromise. Being from a Baptist background, I have seen how often that is not the case in our church. However, I still say that this dedication to the core principles of the Catholic faith are flushed down the toilet when self-excommunicated heretics are openly served at the communion rail. If I were a parent trying to raise my children to be devoted to the teachings of the Catholic Church, I would be outraged that they would be forced to witness such a disgrace, especially one that is so easily preventable.

reply from: faithman

The only difference is political prominance. Litttle ole common catholics would have been instantly bullied out. But you get a free walk if your last name is Kenedy. With the right last name you get a life time indulgence.

reply from: Faramir

You don't know what an "indugence" is.
And there are plenty of "common catholics" who are receiving Holy Communion who should not be, and that is most unfortunate.

reply from: faithman

You don't know what an "indugence" is.
And there are plenty of "common catholics" who are receiving Holy Communion who should not be, and that is most unfortunate.
So inform us oh great wise one!! just what is an indulgance? I say I used the term quite accurately.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

You don't know what an "indugence" is.
For those who like to indulge in a little sin, I visualize an indulgence as paperwork that you get back from the Catholic Church after paying them a sum of money. The indulgence is good for the remission of a certain number or type of sins, probably lower class sins as opposed to "mortal sins".
I'm sure this a misconception in the eyes of Catholics. But that is how the garbled message has gotten down to me. It might even be true!

reply from: Faramir

You don't know what an "indugence" is.
And there are plenty of "common catholics" who are receiving Holy Communion who should not be, and that is most unfortunate.
So inform us oh great wise one!! just what is an indulgance? I say I used the term quite accurately.
Before I became a Catholic I totally misunderstood the meaning of an "indulgence" and I thought it meant to allow someone to indulge in a particular sin.
But it has nothing to do with that.
And indulgence is simply a partial or total removal of temporary punishment due to sin (that has been forgiven).
A soul goes to either Heaven or Hell, but some of us who go to Heaven still have some cleaning up to do, and need to go through a process we call "purgatory," which deals with whatever lefover attractions we have to sin and self-love.
It's similar to the idea that we might be forgiven for breaking a window, but still have to pay for the window.
In the case of sin, the payment has been made by Christ, but we still play a part in the process, and have some "punishment" to go through, either here on earth or in purgatory.
An indugence removes part of this progress of purgation.
And I invite fellow Catholics to step in and correct or add to this explaination.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

You don't know what an "indugence" is.
For those who like to indulge in a little sin, I visualize an indulgence as paperwork that you get back from the Catholic Church after paying them a sum of money. The indulgence is good for the remission of a certain number or type of sins, probably lower class sins as opposed to "mortal sins".
I'm sure this a misconception in the eyes of Catholics. But that is how the garbled message has gotten down to me. It might even be true!
After reading Farimir's defense of indulgences, it appears I was pretty close to correct. Fork over the bucks to the Catholic Church and part of your penalty for sinning is bought, paid for and forgiven.

reply from: Faramir

An indulgence cannot be purchased. There was a specific time and place when there was such an abuse, but it was an abuse and it was wrong.
An indulgence can be obtained by doing certain prayers or peforming certain pious acts, such as going on a pilgrimage.
If you have any other misconceptions about the Catholic Church, I'll be happy to attempt to address them.

reply from: faithman

An indulgence cannot be purchased. There was a specific time and place when there was such an abuse, but it was an abuse and it was wrong.
An indulgence can be obtained by doing certain prayers or peforming certain pious acts, such as going on a pilgrimage.
If you have any other misconceptions about the Catholic Church, I'll be happy to attempt to address them.
No misconception on my part. If your name is Ted Kenedy, you can indulge in debotched living, drive girls into a river, and advocate killing womb children, with no fear of chastizment from the church. If that ain't an indulgence, then nothing is.

reply from: Faramir

An indulgence cannot be purchased. There was a specific time and place when there was such an abuse, but it was an abuse and it was wrong.
An indulgence can be obtained by doing certain prayers or peforming certain pious acts, such as going on a pilgrimage.
If you have any other misconceptions about the Catholic Church, I'll be happy to attempt to address them.
No misconception on my part. If your name is Ted Kenedy, you can indulge in debotched living, drive girls into a river, and advocate killing womb children, with no fear of chastizment from the church. If that ain't an indulgence, then nothing is.
Nope. Nobody gets a free pass to sin.
Even the pope goes to Confession.

reply from: faithman

An indulgence cannot be purchased. There was a specific time and place when there was such an abuse, but it was an abuse and it was wrong.
An indulgence can be obtained by doing certain prayers or peforming certain pious acts, such as going on a pilgrimage.
If you have any other misconceptions about the Catholic Church, I'll be happy to attempt to address them.
No misconception on my part. If your name is Ted Kenedy, you can indulge in debotched living, drive girls into a river, and advocate killing womb children, with no fear of chastizment from the church. If that ain't an indulgence, then nothing is.
Nope. Nobody gets a free pass to sin.
Even the pope goes to Confession.
That is only in word. Deed is a different story no matter how blind to it you choose to be.

reply from: Faramir

There is no physical way to prevent you as a non Catholic from walking into just about any Catholic Church and receiving Communion.
There is no physical way to prevent a Catholic who is in a state of mortal sin and who should not be receiving Communion from receiving it.
As a Catholic, I'm outraged that prochoice politicians receive Holy Communion.
I'm frankly not sure to what extent the Church should go regarding it.
At the very least, a statement should be made like that of Bishop Weignand's below:
">http://www.yourcatholicvoice.o...cles.php?article=28[/q

reply from: faithman

There is no physical way to prevent you as a non Catholic from walking into just about any Catholic Church and receiving Communion.
There is no physical way to prevent a Catholic who is in a state of mortal sin and who should not be receiving Communion from receiving it.
As a Catholic, I'm outraged that prochoice politicians receive Holy Communion.
I'm frankly not sure to what extent the Church should go regarding it.
At the very least, a statement should be made like that of Bishop Weignand's below:
">http://www.yourcatholi...cles.php?article=28[/q
UUUUUHHHHH let us see... The preist has the host in his hand. He can choose to give or not to give. He does not have to give comunion to those he knows are apostate. I would say the folk in question are well known to be . Once again, whats the big whoop?

reply from: sander

Seems to me, if the church is going to be double minded on the subject then they ought not make it an issue in the first place.
If anyone can walk in and take communion, then why speak to the idea of abortion supporters not having good standing to take it?
Are the bishops, or whoever is sanctioned to give communion, held responsible for knowingly giving communion to an abortion supporter?
Sometimes by working from the top down, an issue is better addressed and solved.

reply from: galen

i actuallygave a lot of thought to this...
because the Popes masses are so huge how can we be sure that in the midst of recieving communion everyone knows who everyone is??( those of us without sin should cast the first stone)
If i walked past Rudy on the street i am not sure i would recognise him.
BTW.. why so much intrest in what the catholics do these days.. especially in the light that some of those commenting here have made regarding us in the past.
Faramir... thanks for publicly clearing up the indulgance bit, where i live that one is a common misconception, along with the mistaken believe that we worship Mary.

reply from: faithman

If you want to keep your issues private, then don't post them on an open forum. You opened things up to scruteny when you made this thred.

reply from: Faramir

I agree. We don't know who everyone is. We don't know if they've changed their position. We don't know if they're going to go into the Communion line. ANYONE can attend Mass. They could go to any one of the Ministers of the Eucharist who might not know who they are. There are a host of difficulties with trying to physically prevent someone from receiving Communion.
I'm not saying it's not possible or that it can't be done. I think people like Pelosi have a lot of nerve to thumb their noses at the Church the way they do.
Regarding indulgences, I had the same misconception about it myself, as well as with Mary and a whole lot of other things about the Church. I'm very grateful I had the opportunity to learn otherwise.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Huh? You don't worship Mary?!? Sure fooled me! Appearances say otherwise.
Mary is dead and buried and of no assistance to anyone at present.
My understanding is that Catholics believe Mary was immaculately conceived. That people pray to her. That a "Hail Mary" is some kind of desperate last ditch hope through some prayer to her in the time of deepest need. There are all these statutes of "Mary" in yards, as if to ward off some evil, as if some masonry could do so. Mary seems to be shown as having some pull, some influence, with her son Jesus and God.

reply from: galen

UMM... i did not start the thread....sheri did... and i just posed a question about intrest??
HUH FM>??
Worship of anyone other than God is agains our religion... reverance and to ask for help is another matter.
IE... haven't you ever asked a guardian angle to look after you?

reply from: MC3

Look, two things are undeniably true about this situation. First, if the Catholic Church wanted to deny communion to its high-profile, and thus easily recognizable, pro-abortion politicians it could easily do so. In fact, it is ludicrous to say it could not. But, second, this is not a matter about which those of us who are not Catholic should concern ourselves. It is clearly a scandal but it is one for the Catholic Church to handle. My attitude is that until my Baptist denomination has disfellowshipped all the heretical Baptists, I'll just leave the internal discipline of the Catholic Church to the Catholics.
So my suggestion is that we not get too hung up on these sort of peripheral issues. There will be no defense for us if we allow such things to distract us from stopping these blood-thirsty cowards who are butchering helpless children by the millions.
Always focus on the real enemy. We can debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin at a later date.

reply from: galen

LOL! point taken

reply from: Faramir

No we do not worship Mary. We revere her as the mother of our Lord.
She is as dead as Moses to whom Jesus spoke.
As the first Christian and the most perfect of God's creatures, she can offer intercessory prayers on our behalf.
You are confusing the idea that a "Hail Mary" is a depearte last ditch hope, because unfortunately, this expression was adopted by football announcers to describe a long pass in the final seconds of a game with the hope that somebody just might catch it.
A statue of Mary is not something to "ward off evil spirits," though I don't see the harm in making an attempt to do so. A statue of Mary is a reminder of our faith, of the faith of our Lord's Mother, and that we should be true to her Son, as she was, up to the very end.

reply from: cracrat

Mary was immaculately conceived without original sin so that she would be pure enough to carry the Son of God. One of the ways the priests knew a miracle had occurred at Lourdes was the lady in the image said 'I am the immaculate conception', a title the Church had only recently confered on Mary.
The Hail Mary and the Angelus are important prayers to Catholics but not the most important prayers, I suspect the Creed or Our Father gets that honour.
The statues of Mary are no more icons to ward off evil than the statues of various Saints in chuch yards are.

reply from: sander

I'm just wondering that if the Catholic church held those who give communion and those proaborts who receive it were held accountable, that maybe MORE Cathloics would see the error of their ways and it would translate into more prolifers? How's that for a run on sentance, but I'm trying to make the connection to the pro-life stand.
Polls show that most Catholics say they are proabortion, so maybe if they cared about being Catholic they would line up their views to the chruch's teaching? To me, a proabortion Catholic is the same enemy as a proabortion atheist.

reply from: faithman

Or proabortion protestant

reply from: Faramir

Mary was immaculately conceived without original sin so that she would be pure enough to carry the Son of God. One of the ways the priests knew a miracle had occurred at Lourdes was the lady in the image said 'I am the immaculate conception', a title the Church had only recently confered on Mary.
The Hail Mary and the Angelus are important prayers to Catholics but not the most important prayers, I suspect the Creed or Our Father gets that honour.
The statues of Mary are no more icons to ward off evil than the statues of various Saints in chuch yards are.
You understand this better than most Catholics.
Maybe you really are still one of us at heart.
I think there's a good chance you'll return to the Chuch some day. And if not voluntarily...then...well, we have plans for you...

reply from: sander

Or proabortion protestant
Absolutley!
It's anyone that calls themself a Christian and spout the proabort line that has me stumped all the way around.

reply from: Faramir

I think these polls are skewed by non practicing Catholics. They are including everyone who checks the "Catholic" box, but over half of them are not showing up for Mass and are more "cultural Catholics" than anything.
If the poll were restricted to those who go to Mass every Sunday and who intend to practice the faith, the percentage should be 100% prolife, but factoring in a few who might be ignorant, it might be 98 or 99%.

reply from: sander

I think you missed my point.
I'm saying that if the Bishops were held accountable as well as the participants then maybe they would either stop calling themselves Catholics or better yet, start adhering to the Church teachings.
Seems it would be worth a try.
If a Priest was sanctioned for doing so, then he would be more inclined to know who he is offering communion to and the one particpating would think twice.
Maybe all it would do would weed out the non-practing Catholics, but maybe it would be worth a try all the same?

reply from: galen

IMO... you can't break the seal of the confesional... and no matter how they vote you do not know what goes on between a person and their confessor.
so that point is moot. No one is excommunicated for voting... especiallyin our country. A persona can be for or aginst a bill for many reasons.
If there was an abortionist out there who recieved communion... THAT i would like to hear about!

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Mary was immaculately conceived without original sin so that she would be pure enough to carry the Son of God. One of the ways the priests knew a miracle had occurred at Lourdes was the lady in the image said 'I am the immaculate conception', a title the Church had only recently confered on Mary.
The Hail Mary and the Angelus are important prayers to Catholics but not the most important prayers, I suspect the Creed or Our Father gets that honour.
The statues of Mary are no more icons to ward off evil than the statues of various Saints in chuch yards are.
You understand this better than most Catholics.
Maybe you really are still one of us at heart.
I think there's a good chance you'll return to the Chuch some day. And if not voluntarily...then...well, we have plans for you...
I hope you are talking to cracrat and not myself. I read the Scriptures through at least once annually (Genesis thru Revelation) and take my studies vey seriously. We are called disciples (students) afterall. There is absolutely zero chance I would ever reassociate with the Catholic Church. I was baptized a Catholic and my brothers were both alter boys in the RCC. But then a thing happened; I actually read the source book. There was no reconciling the two (Catholic traditions and what the Good Book said.) Yes, there were some devilishly bad things that happened to people like me centuries ago when they rejected the Pope and observed "supposedly Jewish things" such as Law, Sabbath, Passover, etc. One who was a "heretic" was an enemy of the "state" and could be subject to execution. The Inquistion tried to feret out these people. The Holy Roman Empire was under assault by barbarians and Moslems. Like the McCarthy days of finding the Communist enemies amongst us, the Holy Roman Empire and European society searched out the "betrayers" among them. One who was not Catholic was an enemy of the State.

reply from: Teresa18

Good news on Catholics staying faithful to Church teachings.
More British Catholic Adoption Agencies to Close Doors instead of Bowing to Sexual Orientation Regulations
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08042306.html

You can also read in the article that an adoption agency tried to take kids away from a couple because of their Christian faith - attending church weekly and opposing homosexuality.

reply from: galen

Well it looks like Cardinal Egan went after Guilliani publicly yesterday.

reply from: faithman

Bout time a red bird did something right!

reply from: Faramir

An angry Edward Cardinal Egan pounded New York's pro-choice former Mayor Rudy Giuliani from his Internet pulpit on Monday for taking the Eucharist at Pope Benedict's historic Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
"The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God," Egan said in a statement on the archdiocesan Web site.
"Throughout my years as archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind."
Egan said he had "an understanding" with the failed Republican presidential hopeful "that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion."
And yet the twice-divorced Giuliani, accompanied by his third wife, Judith, received Communion from a priest standing near the Pope on April 19.
"I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding," he said in a statement.
Giuliani acknowledged last night that he had an understanding with Egan, but refused to elaborate.
"It's a personal religious matter," Giuliani said outside his upper East Side apartment. "I never comment on those. It's such a personal matter."
Giuliani spokeswoman Sunny Mindel said he is "certainly willing to meet with Cardinal Egan."
Giuliani wasn't the only pro-choice politician who received Holy Communion during the papal visit. So did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward Kennedy at Nationals Park in Washington.
Some Giuliani supporters surmised the timing of Egan's statement had more to do with a column on Monday by the conservative commentator Robert Novak, who called the church's granting of Communion to Giuliani "even more remarkable" than the other pro-choice politicians.
"Unlike Pelosi and Kennedy, who are regular Mass attendees," Novak wrote, "the former mayor of New York says he goes to church only 'occasionally,' usually for holidays or funerals."
The Daily News reported Giuliani's "sin" the day it happened. Asked by a reporter if he felt uncomfortable about taking the sacrament, Giuliani replied, "No."
Diocesan spokesman Joseph Zwilling said Egan waited nine days before lowering the boom on Giuliani because his transgression happened in the midst of the papal visit.
"Cardinal Egan did not realize it occurred when it occurred," Zwilling said. "I did not address it with the cardinal at the time. There was a lot going on."
Zwilling said the meeting between Egan and Giuliani, where the question of the mayor taking Communion was discussed, happened between June 2000 and December 2001, when he left City Hall. He could not provide any other details of the sitdown, other than it was "person to person."
Shame on Giuliani. He's made himself into a stumbling block.

reply from: carolemarie

An angry Edward Cardinal Egan pounded New York's pro-choice former Mayor Rudy Giuliani from his Internet pulpit on Monday for taking the Eucharist at Pope Benedict's historic Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
"The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God," Egan said in a statement on the archdiocesan Web site.
"Throughout my years as archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind."
Egan said he had "an understanding" with the failed Republican presidential hopeful "that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion."
And yet the twice-divorced Giuliani, accompanied by his third wife, Judith, received Communion from a priest standing near the Pope on April 19.
"I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding," he said in a statement.
Giuliani acknowledged last night that he had an understanding with Egan, but refused to elaborate.
"It's a personal religious matter," Giuliani said outside his upper East Side apartment. "I never comment on those. It's such a personal matter."
Giuliani spokeswoman Sunny Mindel said he is "certainly willing to meet with Cardinal Egan."
Giuliani wasn't the only pro-choice politician who received Holy Communion during the papal visit. So did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward Kennedy at Nationals Park in Washington.
Some Giuliani supporters surmised the timing of Egan's statement had more to do with a column on Monday by the conservative commentator Robert Novak, who called the church's granting of Communion to Giuliani "even more remarkable" than the other pro-choice politicians.
"Unlike Pelosi and Kennedy, who are regular Mass attendees," Novak wrote, "the former mayor of New York says he goes to church only 'occasionally,' usually for holidays or funerals."
The Daily News reported Giuliani's "sin" the day it happened. Asked by a reporter if he felt uncomfortable about taking the sacrament, Giuliani replied, "No."
Diocesan spokesman Joseph Zwilling said Egan waited nine days before lowering the boom on Giuliani because his transgression happened in the midst of the papal visit.
"Cardinal Egan did not realize it occurred when it occurred," Zwilling said. "I did not address it with the cardinal at the time. There was a lot going on."
Zwilling said the meeting between Egan and Giuliani, where the question of the mayor taking Communion was discussed, happened between June 2000 and December 2001, when he left City Hall. He could not provide any other details of the sitdown, other than it was "person to person."
Shame on Giuliani. He's made himself into a stumbling block.
I don't get why if you disagree with the church you would remain a member. It is just strange to me.

reply from: galen

it is possible to remain in an organisation that you feel close too. I have more in common with my Catholic faith than i do not even though i will talk about BC. Guliani may have problems... but i agree with him in principal that they are private...however when you put yourself in the public eye you must be able to back up your convictions and morals... and also be able to admit if/ when you are wrong. I'm not sure Guliani has done this. especially if he has broken an oath to someone who was clergy. of course it would be just as bad if the Cardinal has broken the seal of the confessional.

reply from: Faramir

I don't get it either.
Why stay if you don't like or intend to break the rules?

reply from: sheri

God bless cardinal Egan, i will be praying that saint Ambrose will inspire him to do more for the babies.

reply from: galen

here is a rule... charity

reply from: sheri

Carol we are in full agreement with the Church, which says human life is sacred and should be protected by the faithful, However the church is sheperded by mere humans who are imperfect and at this point not leading us along very well. Yet we at least have the comfort of knowing the Church will never mislead us in regards doctinal issues so i repeat Peters confession and say "to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life".

reply from: Faramir

That's kind of random.
Is there a relavance to Guiliani?

reply from: carolemarie

From Rudy's positions on the issues (and I like him, except on social stuff) he seems to be opposed to all the sexual teachings of the church and the divorce bit too.
I use to be Catholic, or rather went to Catholic school and church as a kid and those are mortal sins. If your not in a state of grace arn't you suppose to not take communion?
I am Protestant now, and if we refuse to submit to the authority of our church, we get kicked out. They call it church discipline.
I thought the Catholic church excomunicated you if you had a divorce or supported abortion or had one for that matter and didn't repent. Isn't it automatic excommunication for those offenses?

reply from: Faramir

You're automatically excommunicated for mortal sins.
But that doesn't mean that you will be physically restrained from receiving Communion.
But if you do, it's a sacrilege, and your sins are then greater.

reply from: galen

That's kind of random.
Is there a relavance to Guiliani?
-------------------------------
yep i think that all of us should be more charitable as far as his privacy is concerned... the church no longer condones inquisition.
carole... its pretty hard to get kicked out of the Church these days...Christ had infinite mercy and forgiveness. Guliani needs to have concern for his public image... this was not good for it... but as far as what goes on in the confessional that is private.

reply from: sheri

You do excommunicate yourself if you, like Guiliani, support abortion or help procure one. ( not so in the case of a divorced person, unless they enter another marriage without annuling the first.)
What i would like to see is a Public excommunication, I think that is called for because Guiliani has publicly caused scandle and that has to be dealt with in a public manner so as not to increase the scandle and "lead the little ones astray".

reply from: Faramir

That's kind of random.
Is there a relavance to Guiliani?
-------------------------------
yep i think that all of us should be more charitable as far as his privacy is concerned... the church no longer condones inquisition.
carole... its pretty hard to get kicked out of the Church these days...Christ had infinite mercy and forgiveness. Guliani needs to have concern for his public image... this was not good for it... but as far as what goes on in the confessional that is private.
He has no business receiving Holy Communion, especially in such a public way.
He is a disgrace to the Church and is thumbing his nose at the Pope and all practicing Catholics.

reply from: carolemarie

Oh, I actually thought that they WOULD restrain you. That clears it up.

reply from: carolemarie

That's kind of random.
Is there a relavance to Guiliani?
-------------------------------
yep i think that all of us should be more charitable as far as his privacy is concerned... the church no longer condones inquisition.
carole... its pretty hard to get kicked out of the Church these days...Christ had infinite mercy and forgiveness. Guliani needs to have concern for his public image... this was not good for it... but as far as what goes on in the confessional that is private.
I am all for mercy and forgiveness

reply from: Faramir

What goes on in the Confessional most definately is private, but Guliani is in a continual state of sin in a very public way and is causing a scandal by supporting aborion, and causing a further scandal by disobediently receiving Holy Communion.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Who do you think the "You" is in "You have the words of eternal life"? "You" is Jesus. Jesus is the "Word" of God. Jesus is the author of the Bible, he is literally the "Word". The Bible is called the "Word", it accurately reflects the "Word" Jesus. "To whom would we go?" Sola Scripture, we go to the "Word". The Bible is Jesus. The Bible has the words of eternal life. We go to the Bible, it is Jesus' "Word".
I would not capitalize the word church when referring to the Catholic Church, for she is a whore that has adopted pagan ideas and traditions. The Catholic Church has not retained what is in the Bible; much of the Bible has been treated as if it is null and void, meant for the trash.
You have the comfort of knowing the Church would NEVER mislead us in regards to doctrinal issues!?! The Catholic Church has misled you big, Big, BIG time on doctrinal issues. I don't think you have any chance at all of being a saint and receiving a position in the Kingdom of God if you are entangled in their worthless man made traditions.

reply from: Faramir

Who do you think the "You" is in "You have the words of eternal life"? "You" is Jesus. Jesus is the "Word" of God. Jesus is the author of the Bible, he is literally the "Word". The Bible is called the "Word", it accurately reflects the "Word" Jesus. "To whom would we go?" Sola Scripture, we go to the "Word". The Bible is Jesus. The Bible has the words of eternal life. We go to the Bible, it is Jesus' "Word".
I would not capitalize the word church when referring to the Catholic Church, for she is a whore that has adopted pagan ideas and traditions. The Catholic Church has not retained what is in the Bible; much of the Bible has been treated as if it is null and void, meant for the trash.
You have the comfort of knowing the Church would NEVER mislead us in regards to doctrinal issues!?! The Catholic Church has misled you big, Big, BIG time on doctrinal issues. I don't think you have any chance at all of being a saint and receiving a position in the Kingdom of God if you are entangled in their worthless man made traditions.
It would seem you have some issues wiht our Church.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Who do you think the "You" is in "You have the words of eternal life"? "You" is Jesus. Jesus is the "Word" of God. Jesus is the author of the Bible, he is literally the "Word". The Bible is called the "Word", it accurately reflects the "Word" Jesus. "To whom would we go?" Sola Scripture, we go to the "Word". The Bible is Jesus. The Bible has the words of eternal life. We go to the Bible, it is Jesus' "Word".
I would not capitalize the word church when referring to the Catholic Church, for she is a whore that has adopted pagan ideas and traditions. The Catholic Church has not retained what is in the Bible; much of the Bible has been treated as if it is null and void, meant for the trash.
You have the comfort of knowing the Church would NEVER mislead us in regards to doctrinal issues!?! The Catholic Church has misled you big, Big, BIG time on doctrinal issues. I don't think you have any chance at all of being a saint and receiving a position in the Kingdom of God if you are entangled in their worthless man made traditions.
It would seem you have some issues wiht our Church.
It Seems Sheri asked, Who else could we go to other than the Catholic Church since they have the words of eternal life. She also said she was comforted knowing the Catholic Church would never mislead.
Both of those statements were begging for responses, they were both so dead wrong. They were so blatant and glaringly off-mark that a comment was required.
The Church did hand people like me over to the authorities to be executed as heretics during the Inquisition and at other house cleaning times. Some animosity may be present.
I do believe the Catholic Church is described in Revelation 17. That isn't the part about the bride being ready in a garment of fine linen. It's the part about the woman who was suppose to be pledged for marriage to the Lamb committing fornication with the rulers of the earth. Jesus is King, we are to be married/bound to His Government; not the governments of man, that would be fornication.

reply from: Faramir

She just expressed how we as Catholics see the Church.
We see her as the Bride of Christ, and NOT a whore.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

She did work very closely with the Holy Roman Empire. I would characterize it as the Church being in bed with the Roman Empire. You see, the gospel is about the Government of God. God's Government is coming to replace men's government. We can be co-rulers in that Government with Jesus. God's coming Governmenbt is the "Good News". Isaiah said the Government shall be on Jesus' shoulder. I believe the Catholic church teamed up with man's government(s) and compromised on many principals so that she could receive the benefits she wanted.

reply from: GratiaPlena

The Roman Empire persecuted the Catholic church when it was first formed.
Which "benefits" are you referring to?
I also encourage you to read this article about the Whore of Babylon.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5743/rev17.html

reply from: sheri

A good example of how the church can not mislead on issues doctrinal, is the teachings on human sexuality. Almost all other churches have caved on this quintessential issue and yet the Catholic Church still holds strong on it's teaching.
Yes we used to jail (and do even worse) people who encouraged abortion and "free love" like the Manichees in France, the reason the church sided with the goverment on these executions was so the vast majority of catholics would not be lead astray. We take a softer line these days.

reply from: carolemarie

I have no doubt that you can be Catholic and be saved, just as you can be a baptist and not be saved. Obviously our personal expression of our faith is just that, personal.
I see no reason to fight about doctrine here.
I admire the Catholic church for being prolife and standing for life.
That is a positive thing!

reply from: Teresa18

Even if he repented and changed his stance on abortion, he still could not recieve Communion. He never got an annulment from his second wife, only a divorce, and he proceeded to marry his third wife outside the Church (had to).


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics