Posted on 08/17/2018 8:40:24 AM PDT by wardaddy
Cardinal Raymond Burke has called for “open recognition” of the Catholic church’s homosexual culture in light of recent revelations of sexual abuse. “I believe that there needs to be an open recognition that we have a very grave problem of a homosexual culture in the Church,” Burke said in an interview Thursday, “especially among the clergy and the hierarchy, that needs to be addressed honestly and efficaciously.”
he former head of the church’s equivalent of the Supreme Court said it was already “clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men.”
“There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this,” he said, referring to the mainstream media cover-up of the homosexual nature of the abuse as well as such denial within the church itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Yes, that was merely a summary.
Roman Church is the largest, and prior to the reunification with some Eastern Orthodox Church was then only Catholic Church. Naturally, she was called so often. For about a couple centuries at least it is no longer the case;; Melkites actually never went into schism to begin with.
It is not contrary, since both canons essentially match.
But there's way more than just one issue. There are major ones that according to Rome, result in ex-communication and damnation for believing.
So they technically damn the EO for their disagreements with then turn around and claim they are *in communion* with all other rites, even after they damn them.
The great irony, and hypocrisy, is that in almost every other area, Catholics appeal to *official* Roman Catholic teaching and yet here, when it's convenient and necessary to present a united front, they ignore it.
εαν δε βραδυνω ινα ειδης πως δει εν οικω θεου αναστρεφεσθαι ητις εστιν εκκλησια θεου ζωντος στυλος και εδραιωμα της αληθειας (1 Timothy 3:15)You couldn't look it up yourself? It is not what the Church "thinks", it is what she wrote.
Ask clearly. Sola Fide is explicitly condemned as heresy in the second half of the Letter of James, so I believe that.
what is your basis for assurance that they the separate class of sacerdotal Catholic priests taught with the voice of Christ?
That Christ sent them through the sacrament of the Holy Orders to do so.
I don’t know who told you what and on what particular matter of consent.
In general, any Catholic apologist would know that it is possible to find a quote from the Fathers to support nearly anything; the issue is whether that something made into consensus.
On matters of theology, we simply say Catholic. No, we don’t mean you guys.
On matters of liturgy, we speak of the Roman Rite, Roman Missal, etc.
That is the history of the slur, indeed.
The physical plant of a Catholic Church would have to further specify the Rite. I don't want to enter a "Catholic" Church in a town I am not familiar with and discover that the service is in Arabic.
It is also true, as you note, that "Roman Church" is often used, especially further back in history, because in the Middle Ages there was just one Church in the West, the Roman Church. It is no longer the case today.
It is proper to say "Roman [Catholic] Church" in a discussion about the liturgy, the order of Mass, the use of unleavened bread, the use of Latin language, etc. But in an ecumenical brawl with the Protestants these are hardly ever discussed. When I see "RCC" in a post, I skip over it quicker, since I know that the poster doesn't know what he is talking about.
That is what the Holy Scripture says; send your complains to St. Matthew and St. Paul:
Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me. (Matthew 25:34-40)
But God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,) And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:4-10)
I am not saying that either. What I WILL say, is Rome has enough things wrong, most importantly, the plan of salvation, to keep us all posting on these threads. After all, what does it matter what they might have right, if they are leading people to Hell, with a false plan of salvation? 😁
We don't. There is a reason, Metmom, I rarely read or respond to your posts.
Roman Catholic" is a Protestant slur invented to make Catholics foreigners in their English-speaking countries.
What does history show instead?
The term "Roman", as in the "Roman Church", has been used since the Middle Ages – often connoting the local particular church of the Diocese of Rome – the first known occurrence of "Roman Catholic" as a synonym for "Catholic Church" was in communication with the Armenian Apostolic Church in 1208, after the East–West Schism.[3][4]
[I don't think the Armenians were big on English as a language!]
When I see "RCC" in a post, I skip over it quicker, since I know that the poster doesn't know what he is talking about.
RCC is a shorthand abbreviation for Roman Catholic church. I use it from time to time when I don't feel like typing out the whole thing.
I've seen your fellow Roman Catholics refer to non-Roman Catholics as "prots". Doesn't bother me at all.
I think you need to get off your high horse.
I'll again refer you the Baltimore Catechism.
You might want to do some homework on this topic.
LOL!!!
They have some of the sorriest apologetics for Rome....aside from what we've witnessed on these threads.
annalex: It is not contrary, since both canons essentially match.
**************************
Wait....moving those goalposts again. They either match or that don't.
To use your logic.....the "Protestant" bible and the Vulgate essentially match.
That alone is a sufficient enough error to avoid Rome. If they can't get that right, then everything else is mute.
You couldn't look it up yourself? It is not what the Church "thinks", it is what she wrote.
I think Paul wrote that under the guidance of the Spirit.
ΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
Paul apostle of Christ Jesus
I will take that as an admission that you CAN’T rebut me and so threw an ad hominem in order to make yourself look less weak.
As I said, if it were so easy to rebut me, you would. An evidence-less insult is not a rebuttal; it’s an admission that you’re the clown and don’t want to admit it.
I find it funny that you quoted St. Paul who says that we are saved by grace through faith and NOT by works in order to claim that we ARE saved by works.
Judged by works? Sure. Works are the proof of faith, so naturally you’d be judged by them. But Rome’s anti-Apostle claim is that you are saved by works; read your own catechism and learn. That stupid idea of the treasury of merits is still a thing with the Vatican.
From your posts though, sounds to me like you’re a lot closer to Luther in matters of justification than you are Roman Catholic.
Your fellow Roman Catholics have told us that numerous times.
But as has been seen unanimous means different things to different people in Roman Catholicism. A lot seems to come down to which dogma they're trying to defend.
From catholiconvert.com
The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers (unanimem consensum Patrum) refers to the morally unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers on certain doctrines as revealed by God and interpretations of Scripture as received by the universal Church. The individual Fathers are not personally infallible, and a discrepancy by a few patristic witnesses does not harm the collective patristic testimony.
The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: únus, one + animus, mind. “Consent” in Latin means agreement, accord, and harmony; being of the same mind or opinion. Where the Fathers speak in harmony, with one mind overall—not necessarily each and every one agreeing on every detail but by consensus and general agreement—we have “unanimous consent”. The teachings of the Fathers provide us with an authentic witness to the apostolic tradition.
St. Irenaeus (ad c. 130–c. 200) writes of the “tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome’ (Against Heresies, III, 3, 2), and the “tradition which originates from the apostles [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches” (Ibid., III, 2, 2) which “does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us” (Ibid., III, 5, 1). Unanimous consent develops from the understanding of apostolic teaching preserved in the Church with the Fathers as its authentic witness.
St. Vincent of Lerins, explains the Church’s teaching: “In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors” (Commonitory 2). Notice that St. Vincent mentions “almost all priests and doctors”.
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.