Posted on 09/29/2011 7:48:46 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Edited on 09/29/2011 9:22:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
VATICAN CITY — In an attempt to head off a tidal wave of lawsuits stemming from the sexual abuse of children by priests within the Roman Catholic Church, and Rome’s attempt to cover up the crimes, the Vatican is planning to replace all priests with robots.
Initially the priests to be replaced will be in the United States, but if the program is successful, it could be extended to other countries, said Marco Batelli, a lawyer for the Vatican.
Batelli said human priests wouldn’t be arbitrarily ousted from their positions, rather they would be replaced by robots as they retired or died.
The church has been developing robot priests for the past two years, Batelli said. A live test took place recently in Japan, he said. In the ceremony, which was held in a restaurant to avoid protests from devout Catholics, bride Satoko Inouye was married to her groom Tomohiro Shibata by I-Fairy, a four-foot robot wearing a wreath of flowers. This was the first time a marriage had been led by a robot, according to a statement issued by RoboPriest Japan, a joint venture between the Vatican and robot manufacturer Kokoro Co.
Vatican observer Kristof Klein said, “The beauty of RoboPriests is that they can be programmed to perform almost all the sacramental duties of priests. Their ultimate virtue, of course, is that they don’t molest little boys.”
No one is sure if the RoboPriest ploy will turn the tide for a church under severe pressure in the courts, but most experts on Vatican affairs agree that desperate times call for desperate measures.
“The church is running scared,” said Walter Lysburn, an ecclesiastical scholar in Rome. “They are desperate to do anything they can to placate victims of sexual abuse. The lawsuits could cost them billions. I know for a fact that Sotherbys has visited the Vatican and put preliminary prices on the Pieta and the Sistine Chapel. [snip]
BTW, I did go back and read what I wrote again. You're right, it wasn't clear. Thanks for the gentle reproof!
Yer Catholic religion kinda pointed out to Jesus who would make good Apostles, eh???
See it is just like I told you.
Why don't you just summarize it???
They didn't.
BTW, I did go back and read what I wrote again. You're right, it wasn't clear. Thanks for the gentle reproof!
Hopefully the next time that I post something unclear (a far too common occurrence), I will have somebody advise me as well. I have had the privilege of being corrected by a very nonCatholic on the matter of belief and publicly made a visible point of acknowledgement of that point as well as thanks for it.
Yet..nothing exists in His Word about the seven sacraments, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the assumption of Mary, etc. All NECESSARY for salvation, according to the Roman Catholic Church.
What are you talking about? Are you referring to the product ordering page at the Berean Call's website?
Whatever you're talking about, it sounds pretty juvenile and completely off topic from what Smvoice and I were discussing.
What is it, NL. Were they or not?
Are you going to blame your expressions of antiCatholicism on a website? Duly noted.
Since the See of Rome had not been created then, they could not have been Roman Catholics. I'm sure that NL has not made the error that Protestants on the FR RF regularly make: that the See of Rome equals the entire Catholic Church. I have corrected you specifically a number of times on this and yet you continue to make this error.
It would be post 157 of NL’s.
I will quote the entire post 157 to see if NL says that the Apostles were Roman Catholics.
"No, they were Jews." (SMV)
Only until they crossed the Tiber, so to speak. The Catholic Church became the new Israel and whether one had been a Jew, a pagan or a Gentile was no longer relevant. All that was important was that they were baptized and believed. (NL)
"They could not go to the gentiles until Israel believed and accepted. And Israel never believed and accepted." (SMV)
Now you are being ridiculous. The travels of the Apostles is well documented. PETER was martyred in Rome about AD 66 during the persecution under Emperor Nero. ANDREW went to the "land of the man-eaters," in what is now Russia. He also preached in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) and Greece. THOMAS preached as far east as India, where the ancient Marthoma Christians revere him as their founder. PHILIP had a ministry in Carthage in North Africa and then in Asia Minor, where he converted the wife of a Roman proconsul. MATTHEW the tax collector and writer of a gospel book, ministered in Persia and Ethiopia. BARTHOLOMEW had widespread missionary travels to India with Thomas, to Armenia, and also to Ethiopia and Southern Arabia. JAMES the son of Alpheus, is ministered in Syria where the Jewish historian Josephus reported that he was stoned and then clubbed to death. SIMON THE ZEALOT ministered in Parthia and Persia. MATTHIAS was the apostle chosen to replace Judas. He went to Syria with Andrew. JOHN is the only one of the company generally thought to have died a natural death from old age. He was the leader of the church in the Ephesus area (now in Turkey) where he is believed to have taken care of Mary the mother of Jesus in his home until her death. During Domitian's persecution he was exiled to the island of Patmos (in modern-day Greece) where he wrote the Book of the Revelation. (NL)
You see? NL does not make the Protestant error. I find him to be a good Catholic and Christian, most probably a better and more informed Catholic than I am. You are wrong and your acknowledgement of your error and public apology for it would be very suitable.
It also means fashion plus a number of other things...Paul forgave sins in the fashion of Jesus Christ...Wouldn't have mattered had Paul not forgiven them, Jesus still did...
Paul did not become Jesus Christ as you guys claim your priests do...
2Co 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;
You guys fail or refuse to notice that whoever Paul was speaking to had the same power to forgive as Paul did...But the power was not Paul's...It was Jesus Christs'...
If I forgive you for an offense against me, Jesus also forgives you...And if another Christian forgives someone for a fault, I forgive that person along with Jesus as well...
Do you know why??? Because it is the Holy Spirit within me that does the forgiving...
Either NL was referring directly to my post regarding the APOSTLES BEING JEWS, or he was referring to others in general. It is not my mistake to be apologizing for. My post was clear in who I was talking about.
See also posts 147 and 149. Both NL’s. Then explain to me once again why this is my mistake and that I should apologize to NL. I will be happy to admit my error, when it can be pointed out.
Post 147 was mine, in response to NL’s earlier post. Sorry about that! Post 149 is all NL.
Hmm, since there are multiple errors, I can only begin.
Post 147:
You are ASSUMING that all the writers of the NT were Catholic. Which is, at best, ridiculous. You know, LOTS of things happened before 367 A.D. Lots of deceit and corrupting of the Word of God. 2 Cor. 2:17. Since the Apostle Paul was saved and given his commission, the deceit and corruption was on. Who was doing all the corruption of God’s Word? That’s the question that needs to be answered. (SMV)
Post 149.
Of course they were Catholic, don't be silly. There was no other Church. Today's Catholic can trace its existence and identity in an unbroken chain to its founding upon St. Peter. Every Bishop and Priest is a product of the lineage of the laying on of hands to the Apostles. No other Church can make that claim. Of course lots of deceit and corruption occurred before 367 A.D. and since. There were many, many contemporaneously written works rivaling those that were established as Scripture. Some inspired yet errant and flawed, others forgeries and many more outright distorted heresies. That is why the Holy Spirit chose the Catholic Church and its Magisterium to compile, interpret, teach and defend the Word. The bottom line is if you reject the Catholic Church you reject the authenticity of the Bible. No other authority exists traceable to the eyewitnesses to the Word made flesh. (NL)
I can find no reference in these posts as to NL claiming that the Catholic Church is exactly, only, or consists entirely of the Roman Catholic Church. Your acknowledgement and apology will be well received.
Acts 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.
That was supposedly in 43AD. There is nothing in scripture abut Peter between then and 49AD when he is in Jerusalem. Given the incredible importance Catholics give to Peter being the pope in Rome it is inconceivable that scripture would say nothing about this. All other references or resources they use to attempt to show that Peter was in Rome are not from scripture. In other words they have established the extremely important concept of the hierarchy of the RCC on other then scripture.
It’s amazing to me that no scriptural reference of the total control the RCC exerts from Rome is given. It seems to me that if Jesus or the Apostles had thought it as important as the RCC does it would have been clearly articulated in the writings of the Apostles.
The entire structure of the RCC has been established not from writings or direct instructions from the Apostles or Jesus Himself but something other then those sources. From those same sources the Catholics have somewhat of a dilemma. Peter, according to RCC claims, was not supposed to be married. But in their own “tradition” and practices and the writings they use to show Peter in Rome is also the writings of Peters daughter. In fact, those writings also claim her tomb also is in Rome. A source of the RCC claim that Peter was in Rome are writings by Bede an English historian who in those writings chronicles the life of Petronilla the daughter of Peter. In fact, she became the special patroness of the French which supposedly exists to this day. That history is not something the Catholics talk much about obviously given that, according to them, Peter, as the Pope of Rome was not married.
You have changed what the "argument" is about, Mark. So. No apology this time. Post 149 stands as is, with NL claiming that "of course" they (all the writers of the NT) were Catholic. Don't use semantics to slither away from what his post CLEARLY states. That's beneath you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.