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
-A8
And I told you which one it couldn’t be.
Jesus said, “Those who are not against us are for us.”
That’s early in the gospel of John. Should I look it up. Therefore, it’s inappropriate to put restrictions on saying that all true believers are His church.
I would encourage you to look at the notion advanced in Rev 2 that a “church” can have its candlestick removed. In other words, it is no longer “light,” so why waste a perfectly good candlestick.
That being said, you've skirted the Catholic/Orthodox question. They still don't agree doctrinally with what is written down in canon law. Original sin, purgatory, papal authority, atonement, the filique, etc are all very serious doctrinal differences. So which one is right? Which one of you are in schism? You're the one making the claim that you are in perfect communion, yet not really.
Personally, whether a person takes communion or not is not a mark of being a Christian in my book nor do I believe they are receiving God's grace. We don't disperse God's grace to people who live however they please. It's wrong to tell that to people. I bring all this up because you're the one who complained about the division of Protestants. Actually, Protestants are simply a very loose knit bunch.
Neither did the Marcionites.
While Protestants do have their doctrinal differences, most Protestants view ourselves as being in communion with one another as believers in the Lord Jesus.
If that is what "communion with one another" looks like, what does schism look like? But even if there were only one Protestant institution of which all Protestants were members, they would still all be in schism from the Catholic Church.
That being said, you've skirted the Catholic/Orthodox question.
No I didn't. You didn't ask me who is right; you asked me who caused the division, and I told you -- both sides.
They still don't agree doctrinally with what is written down in canon law. Original sin, purgatory, papal authority, atonement, the filique, etc are all very serious doctrinal differences. So which one is right? Which one of you are in schism?
As St. Ambrose said, "It is to Peter that He says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church." Peter was given the keys of the kingdom. And Peter is the visible principle of unity of the Church, the rock which is the foundation of the Church. Therefore, where Peter goes, there goes the Church. Those who (to whatever degree) separate themselves from Peter (or whom Peter separates from himself), are to that degree separated from the Church.
You're the one making the claim that you are in perfect communion, yet not really.
I never claimed the EOCs and Catholics are in "perfect communion".
If half the Cardinals choose one Pope and the other half choose another, where is apostalic succession in all of this? How do you determine.
The election of a pope requires a majority vote, so if there is a tie, then no pope has yet been elected.
A8: But they are still "within the Church". We still are one body because we partake of one bread.
HD: You guys keep repeating it to yourselves, as if that will make it true.
No, we repeat it because it is Scripture. St. Paul wrote: "Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." (1 Cor 10:17)
Are you one with a homosexual or a pediophial priest who receives the Eucharist? Are you one with Ted Kennedy?
Yes. God will separate the wheat from the tares. I'm not the Magisterium; I cannot excommunicate anyone. As hard as it is for me to say it, I am indeed "one with Ted Kennedy", because as a Catholic he is my brother in Christ. (Ok, I'll probably be banned eternally from FR for saying that.) Of course that doesn't mean that I agree with Ted Kennedy's political positions.
If you're going to say that the Eucharist is the means of being "in communion", then you have to be "in communion" with everyone who takes communion.
That is correct. Through the Eucharist I am in communion with all those within the Catholic Church, regardless of their sins or political positions.
Actually, Protestants are simply a very loose knit bunch.
Right. And that very 'loose' level of unity falls far short of the kind of unity Christ wants all His followers to have, as seen in John 17:11, 21, 22, 23.
-A8
If only the early church had known this, they could have avoided all those conflicts with the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. Determining who is in or out of the Church would have been as simple as saying: "Are you for Jesus or against him?". All the heretics would have answered "Yes", and then the Catholics and the heretics would all have been one big happy family.
-A8
No he didn't. The existence of Limbo is a Catholic doctrine derived from passages like Luke 16:22 (where it is referred to as "Abraham's bosom"), and Eph 4:9, Luke 23:43, and 1 Peter 3:18-20.
You are referring to the notion that unbaptized babies remain in Limbo eternally, which has never been a doctrine of the Church. The Church knew that *at the very least*, such babies would be in no worse state than Limbo. The Church could say at least that. But as for whether they go to heaven or not, the Church never established any doctrine. Even the recent statement by the ITC "Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision" is still not Catholic doctrine.
-A8
I am quoting Jesus, by the way.
It is a balance.
All who say to Him, “Lord, Lord” shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Those also are His words, so you are correct to some degree.
However, he identifies them as those who use His name but are “workers of iniquity.”
So, His people are all those who have “confessed with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe(d) in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead.”
It’s an irrefutable bible fact that “whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”
Indeed, but you are presuming a very modern notion of "believes in Him". Even the devils believe (James 2:19), and they do not have everlasting life.
Did the Arians "believe in Him"?
Jesus said to His Apostles: "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me". (Luke 10:16) That is how we know that the Arians, while claiming to believe in Jesus, actually rejected Him, for they rejected the Church's teachings.
-A8
I can only assume that since you read the last line of my previous post that you also read the 2nd last line.
In which case your entire post is moot.
-A8
Throughout the history of the Church, a [material] heresy has been a teaching that is contrary to that promulgated by the Magisterium of the Church. As your tagline notes, your own position, insofar as it falls under the anathemas of the Council of Trent, is the heresy, not the Church's.
-A8
It is moot because your post pretended I don’t know the difference between true faith and false faith. Paul’s verse clearly says “confess with your mouth and believe in your heart.”
Doesn’t it?
Indeed it does. But now comes the task of interpreting the verse. Did the Arians and Eutychians and Nestorians "confess with their mouth and believe in their heart"? On the simplistic Protestant reading of this verse, the answer would be yes.
-A8
I believe that anyone who “confesses with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believes in their heart” is saved. I don’t care what label you hang on them.
They are your brother or sister in Christ, if you, too, have like faith.
"If only the early church had known this, they could have avoided all those conflicts with the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. Determining who is in or out of the Church would have been as simple as saying: "Are you for Jesus or against him?". All the heretics would have answered "Yes", and then the Catholics and the heretics would all have been one big happy family."
What you have done is eliminate the very concept of 'heresy'. According to your position, it does not matter what a person believes, as long as he or she "confesses with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believes in their heart".
-A8
:>)
I didn’t realize that 2+2=5
How does my saying that true faith in Jesus = Salvation mean instead that true faith in Jesus = 100% accurate doctrine?
It doesn't, nor did I claim that it does. But you are claiming that whoever believes in the Lord Jesus and confess with his mouth is a true believer and belongs to "His Church" (see #242). So you are using a conception of the Church as only an "invisible Church", i.e. the "set of all believers". That notion of the Church is entirely foreign to the fathers. According to your position, excommunication does not *do* anything to the person being excommunicated, since as long as he "confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in his heart", he is still saved, whether or not He is in the visible Church. Your notion that the Church is only invisible fails to recognize the significance of the keys given to Peter such that whever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven (Matt 16:18-19), and that if the Apostles (and the bishops that succeeded them) forgave the sins of any, they are given, but if they retained the sins of any, there were retained (John 20:23).
-A8
What do you think that “confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus” means?
St. Paul specifies in the preceeding verse: "that is, the word of faith which we are preaching" (Rom 10:8). That refers to the deposit of the faith, the doctrine preached by the Apostles and perpetually guarded and passed on by the Church. The "confess with your mouth" St. Paul refers to is not just some kind of private statement (in one's bed at night), or in a conversation at the lunch table with friends that 'magically' makes one saved. It refers to the confession of the faith before the Church at the rite of initiation (baptism and confirmation/chrismation), through which one is incorporated into the Church. At that moment, one states that one believes and professes all that Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God. Evangelicals and fundamentalists typically take the verse (Rom 10:9) completely out of its historical and ecclesial context, and turn it into 'sinner's prayer' theology.
-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.