Posted on 01/08/2007 5:34:25 PM PST by dcnd9
Deliver Us From Evil Movie Synopsis: AND Movie Trailor: http://mcwindows.arcostream.com/media/arco/lionsgate/streams/windowsmedia/deliver_us_from_evil/dufe_Absolute_V18_Trlr_1B_300.wmv
"Deliver Us From Evil" is the story of Father Oliver O'Grady, the most notorious pedophile in the history of the modern Catholic Church. Completely lacking in moral fiber and devoid of any sense of shame or guilt, O'Grady used his charm and authority to violate dozens of faithful Catholic families across Northern California for more than two decades. His victims ranged from a nine month-old infant to the middle-aged mother of another adolescent victim.
Despite early warning signs and complaints from several parishes, the Church, in an elaborate shell game designed to avoid liability and deflect criticism, lied to parishioners and local law enforcement, while continuing to move O'Grady from parish to parish.
Over the years, O'Grady successfully exploited mothers and fathers in order to get to their children. His penchant for sexual mayhem was as essential to him as breathing, and internal Church documents prove that since 1973, he raped and sodomized with the full knowledge of his Catholic superiors.
Remarkably, "Deliver Us From Evil" filmmaker Amy Berg tracked down Father O'Grady and persuaded him to participate in the making of her film. O'Grady's account of his years in various Northern California parishes is chilling and he tells his story without remorse or self-reflection. Also included in the film is never-before-seen footage of the deposition of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and his former second-in-command, Monsignor Cain. She also interviews canon lawyer and medieval historian Fr. Thomas Doyle, former priests, lawyers and the abuse survivors themselves.
Director: Amy Berg Writer(s): Amy Berg Cast: Father Oliver O'Grady Release Date: October 13 2006 Official Site: Not Available Distributor: Lionsgate Genre: Documentary
A, we're in disagreement here. I never worshipped the Eucharist in the monstrance when I was Catholic, I shied away from kissing relics (I'm not conflating the two here) and I don't believe that the Holy Spirit appears only and merely at the request and through the hands of Catholic priests.
I'm not in communion with Rome, I don't know how else to express that. A, if you believe me to be in danger of Hell, just pray for me.
I didn't say that you are in danger of hell. I don't presume to know. I'm trying to understand what your beliefs are, and why you believe them.
If you think that the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus when the bishop or priest consecrates them, then you must think that the Church fell into serious error on this subject almost immmediately after the Apostles died, since all the early fathers are unananimous about the transformation of the elements in the Eucharist. See, for example, here.
-A8
I knew there had to be a solution between jumping ship on FR Religion forum and yet being able to read some articles of value and interest to me.
Your method sounds like the right track.
Be patient with me while I’m getting there. :-)
And who was leading Philip in his instruction?
"And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing." -- Acts 8:39
Our disaagreement is that you look to men and magisteriums to guide you while Scripture tells the believer he is led by the Holy Spirit.
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." -- Romans 8:14-17"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
One of the primary functions of the Reformation was to restore a correct and Scriptural understanding of the indwelling Holy Spirit in men's lives which Rome all but obliterated then and now.
The common gnostic error is the false dichotomy: "if God is doing something than He isn't using means". That's why gnostics reject the sacraments. And that is why gnostics reject the Church, particularly her Magisterium. According to the gnostics, God is leading them, and therefore they don't need the Church.
Likewise, the fact that the Spirit was leading Philip does not mean that (as a deacon) he was not under the authority and training of the Twelve Apostles. The Apostles had laid their hands on him, and bestowed upon him the gift of deaconal orders. So "Spirit" or "Magisterium" is a false dichotomy. It is, rather, *both/and*.
One of the primary functions of the Reformation was to restore a correct and Scriptural understanding of the indwelling Holy Spirit in men's lives which Rome all but obliterated then and now.
Since they all disagreed with each other, which of the Protestant Reformers was being led by the Spirit?
-A8
That's an example of the gnostics' false dichotomy.
-A8
The reformers are just as much "men" as Popes and bishops are, and you cite them as authorities all the time.
LOL> The unity of the Protestant Reformation dwarfs the confusion that exists today within the RCC.
As God wills.
"Strange as it may seem, it is still true, that those who fail to understand other churches than their own are not the people who care intensely about theology..."
Do you think the Protestants with whom you've been corresponding on these threads "fail to understand" Roman Catholicism?
The fact is among the Reformed we are usually of one voice in the doctrines that really matter.
“The Apostles had laid their hands on him, and bestowed upon him the gift of deaconal orders”
What, is there a spiritual gift to be a waiter?
Acts 6:2-6, “Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.”
I don’t see where they were given the gift of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor/Teacher. I do see where Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:8-9) had the gift of prophecy but do not see where they had hands laid on them to receive the gift.
Notice that you evaded my question. (Nor is that the first time you have done so.) Instead of answering my question, you attack the Catholic Church.
-A8
If that were actually true, there wouldn't be "many denominations", unless the founders of these "many denominations" (and those who continue to preserve their disunity) are guilty of schism without cause (i.e. are schismatics).
-A8
There is a sacramental gift given to deacon through the laying on of hands by the bishop. The deacon is not merely a "waiter". As St. Ignatius (d. 107 AD) says, "And, as ministers of the mysteries [i.e. the sacraments] of Jesus Christ, the deacons should please all in every way they can; for they are not merely ministers of food and drink, but the servants of the Church of God." (Epistle to the Trallians Chap. 2) The deaconate in the New Covenant corresponds the Levite of the Old Covenant.
-A8
St. Ignatius cannot stand in superimposition to the Apostles. I know there is some thought that asserts he knew St. John, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am in using that as some sort of spring board from which ultimate truth in doctrine is absolutely established, on the heels of which and in disagreement with, must follow Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
This adoration of or bowing down before the Eucharist isn't found or advised in any of the Gospels to the best of my knowledge, and from what I've read I don't think the early church held a monolithic view concerning the Eucharist, nor the term 'real presence' advanced until much later. I can't remember where I read it, but St. Augustine is reputed to have said, why prepare teeth and gums, believe and you have eaten.
It is impossible for me to believe that that which Fr. Kimel advances, St. John and the other Apostles thought nothing of remaining silent about. Fr. Kimmel's assertion has such huge implications that one or the other of the Apostles was bound to speak of in some manner: 'let us bow before the Loaf of the Body and Blood of Christ. let us remember that without this display we reject the crucified and risen Christ', 'let those who do not acknowledge this be anathema', or something along these lines.
I cannot imagine the Jewish Paul and Peter and John and James doing this, and I'm not sure the Eastern church does it to this day.
100 or 120 A.D. is not 63 or 70 A.D., a lot can happen in nearly half a century. And, yes, I do think it is possible that the church fell into error or misunderstanding or mishandling of texts that early, but as I said before, error is not sin nor does error or mishandling of texts mean the gates of hell have prevailed. Eusebius flatly states that things started to head south pretty quickly once the apostles passed away, and that comports perfectly with human nature and history.
And if the way in which the church developed began to show it's political face, as I guess it had to, that again should have carried with it a tremendous amount of respect and Timore di Dio as it relates to apostolic integrity and burdening the consciences of the faithful. Schism and separation are the fault of prideful men, but the schisms remain a fact that I don't believe can be dealt with effectively until the solution and the Truth which is always the same prevails: Repent! The Kingdom of God is at Hand!
I do believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. How that's accomplished, I don't know. I lead with C.S. Lewis who said that our Lord said take and eat, not take and understand. But, that which you posted and I'm assuming you subscribe to, which purports that unless I bow down before the Eucharist in adoration, I cannot believe in the Real Presence states the case in such a way that classifies me as an unbeliever in the Real Presence. Where then do we go from here, really, in this discussion?
This will probably be my last post to you on this subject A, because as I said before, I don't know how else to get you to understand that I'm not in communion with Rome, that that doesn't particularly worry me, and that this precludes me from receiving the Eucharist in a Catholic church.
Christ left us the Eucharist as a gift, not as weapon to use against each other while advancing the idea that the Holy Spirit can be contained within the confines of an episcopacy and subordinate clergy that resembles that of the apostles hardly at all.
You can contend that the Holy Spirit does not recognize the voice or hands of Protestant ministers, but that is just a contention and not one that can be established with much outside of another contention that says the Catholic church is the only legitimate mind or voice that can speak for Jesus and the Apostles He left behind.
We will have to wait and see which one of us is closer to understanding the Truth, but until such time, we will have to agree to disagree, and in the meantime bid each other peace.
Perhaps St. Augustine's explicit teaching regarding the Eucharist would be helpful for determining what he believed it to be. Here's an example:
"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. Through those accidents the Lord wished to entrust to us His Body and the Blood which He poured out for the remission of sins. If you have received worthily, you are what you have received...."
-A8
I don't know about that, but he did say that we sin by not adoring the Eucharist. (Explanations on the Psalms, 98, 9)
I cannot imagine the Jewish Paul and Peter and John and James doing this, and I'm not sure the Eastern church does it to this day
Bowing before the Eucharist? Certainly they do.
ok. do they have something similar to perpetual adoration, and if so, what's it called or like?
Indeed not. Nor am I trying to make him such. But we should be wary of the "hermeneutic of suspicion" that posits such a discontinuity between the Apostles and the early fathers. John 6 is as clear to me a presentation of the Catholic position as any, and in perfect agreement with the Catholic notion of the Eucharist that we see in the early fathers. Why exactly would Paul warn the Corinthians about "discerning" the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist if they were mere bread and wine?
As for your argument from silence (if x were important, it would have been included in the Bible), well, it is an argument from silence, which is a fallacy. It carries with it the implicit assumption that the Apostles intended to write down (for all time) all that was important for the Church to know. But that assumption is not itself written down in Scripture, and so it fails its own test.
If you do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then why won't you bow to Him in the Eucharistic elements? If you won't bow, it implies that you don't in fact believe He is really present there (in any more significant way than He is anywhere, being omnipresent).
You seem to be using a WCIITAD test [What Can I Imagine The Apostles Doing?] for judging the Church's doctrines and practices. Such an approach assumes that you have the authority to judge the Church, and therefore that the Church has less authority than do you. I know a Protestant who has a similar approach, but takes it even a step further. She judges the Apostles themselves by whether they are doing what she imagines Jesus would do. So, for example, she thinks that the Apostles were mistaken in choosing Matthias to replace Judas. She thinks that Paul was the actual twelth Apostle, since God chose him, but that the eleven rushed ahead and acted on their own human wisdom. It is that same skeptical hermeneutic, second-guessing the Apostles, based on what the individual imagines Jesus would do. And your methodology seems very similar to me, but applied only one step down the hiearchy, i.e. to the Church fathers and bishops, instead of to the Apostles themselves.
100 or 120 A.D. is not 63 or 70 A.D., a lot can happen in nearly half a century. And, yes, I do think it is possible that the church fell into error or misunderstanding or mishandling of texts that early,
There it is, that ecclesial deism that doubts Christ's promise never to let the gates of hell prevail over His Church. It is that same unbelief we find in the Mormons, who claim that the Church fathers, even at the end of the first century, were apostate, and that the Church was preserved during this time only in North America.
Eusebius flatly states that things started to head south pretty quickly once the apostles passed away, and that comports perfectly with human nature and history.
I've read Eusebius, and that's not what he says. He says that the attacks of the heretics grew stronger as soon as the Apostles died, but that the bishops held firm against them, refuting them by showing that the heretics (unlike the bishops) could not trace their line of succession to the Apostles. Eusebius was a Catholic, and he firmly believed that the Church could not be overcome by the world or the devil or by heresy, even though individuals in it (even bishops) could fall into heresy.
I don't know how else to get you to understand that I'm not in communion with Rome, that that doesn't particularly worry me, and that this precludes me from receiving the Eucharist in a Catholic church.
I'm not sure why you think I don't understand that.
You can contend that the Holy Spirit does not recognize the voice or hands of Protestant ministers, but that is just a contention and not one that can be established with much outside of another contention that says the Catholic church is the only legitimate mind or voice that can speak for Jesus and the Apostles He left behind.
It is not a mere contention. The Apostles received this power from Christ. That is how they could give it to those they themselves ordained. But no one can give what he has not received. Therefore, those Protestant pastors who cannot trace their orders back to the Apostles cannot justify their claim to be able to tranform the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, for they do not know if those who ordained them could even give this gift to them.
We will have to wait and see which one of us is closer to understanding the Truth, but until such time, we will have to agree to disagree, and in the meantime bid each other peace.
I agree about bidding each other peace. But I don't agree that unity is something we just have to wait for. I think it is something we have to work for *actively*. The heart of Jesus revealed in John 17 demands no less from us.
-A8
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.