Isn't it interesting that the hollywood Jews can crank out anti-Christian hate like this,and it's just fine,but if anyone says the slightest thing critical of them they are instantly branded a "hate monger","anti-semite" or "Nazi"?Why is it that the only people it is still OK to hate are people Jews hate?
share[deleted]
1) This movie isn't anti-Christian. It's about the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, which is hardly a Christian organization.
2) You sound like you yourself have some anti-Semite issues, something that is NOT Christian.
3) Before you pass judgment on a film like this, maybe you should SEE it first.
4) Child molestation within a "Christian" organization is a problem that needs to be addressed. While this movie may fictionalize the situation some, the fact that this problem even occurs is still fact. By ignoring it, you are condoning it.
John
[deleted]
No, I am NOT Catholic, and I praise God everyday for that.
You say that a movie like this is an insult and a slap in the face. Yet how do you think the people who were molested feel about the preist who hurt them simply being transfered to another area of the country to continue their habit? How do you think Christians not under the rule of the Roman Church feel every time we here some catholic claim to be a member of the TRUE church of Jesus Christ, when THAT church was destroyed when Rome took the religion over?
Your mere suggestion that this "dark time" in the Roman Catholic Church be forgotten and let go is a HUGE slap in the face to God Himself. It's because of people trying to "let it go" that the problem STILL exists.
You may very well be right when you say that the original poster of this thread is anti-Semitic, and I happen to agree with you. Yet you are justifying his remarks because the Passion of the Christ was attacked for being anti-Semitic. Stop for a moment and take a look at the past history of the Roman Catholic Church and their treatment of the Jews in the "passion play", and then you may understand WHY so many groups were afraid of the backlash POTC might have on the Jewish faith. Read a copy of the script for the Oberammergau Passion Play before it was revised in 2000, and you will hopefully be shocked. While I personally loved the Passion of the Christ and didn't find it anti-Semitic at all, I can understand why some would.
I used to work in a lawfirm that represented insurance companies that had several Catholic churches as clients. When a local priest molestation case came to light, we ended up representing the "church", NOT THE PRIEST, in both the criminal and civil trials. I have seen the depositions of the young boys that were molested. I have seen the "church" sit there and claim not to know. It was disgusting, and is one of the reasons I no longer work for that firm.
So, you go ahead and try to forget this dark time in your church. You can add it to the long list of OTHER "dark times" the Roman Catholic Church has been responsible for.......and Jesus will continue to weep for you.
John
Take a history class, John!
1. Christ firmly stated that just like the apostles themselves, there would be both GOOD and BAD in the church.
2. The fact that the church has had the problems shows that it IS the TRUE church that Christ founded. Satan will try to breakdown the church until the end of times. He's not messing with those Protestant churches because they do not hold the fullness of the faith.
3. The Catholic Church is the same church Christ founded. Until Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century, Christ was worshipped in secret. When Constantine converted to the faith and made it legal, he gave Vatican Hill to the church since that is where it was rumored that St. Peter was buried after his death by crucifixion. The Vatican was built and here we are 2005 years later.
The abuses by the priests and associates should NOT be condoned, but it is not an indicator that Christ is not with His church (which He promised He would be when He gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven)... instead it shows at what lenghts Satan will go to try to destroy Christ's church.
PAX.
Take a history class, John!
Let's do just that, shall we....
The Roman Catholic Church claims that the early Christians were all Roman Catholics and that (aside from the Orthodox Church) all Christians were Roman Catholics until the Protestant Reformation. It also claims that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope, ruling from Rome.
But do these claims stand up to the test of history? Or are they false credentials?
There is historical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church began with Emperor Constantine. Many Protestants believe that, throughout Church history, there have been many true Christians who were not Catholics, and these Christians were often killed by the Catholic Church. They also believe that Peter was just one of the apostles.
On October 28, 312 A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine met with Bishop Miltiades. (Catholics would later refer to him as Pope Miltiades, but at the time he was known as the Bishop of Rome.) Miltiades was assisted by Silvester, a Roman who spoke educated Latin and acted as interpreter.
The previous day, Constantine had seen a sign in the heavens: a cross in front of the sun. He heard a voice say that he would conquer in the sign that he had seen. Constantine painted crosses on the shields of his soldiers. They won an important battle. He believed that the victory was due to the power of the sign he had seen. He asked for two of the three nails that were used to crucify Jesus. One nail was made into a bit for his horse. Another nail was made a part of his crown, signifying that Constantine ruled the Roman Empire in the name of Jesus. He allowed Miltiades to keep the third nail.
The fact that Constantine saw the cross and the sun together may explain why he worshiped the Roman sun god, while at the same time professing to be a Christian. After his "conversion," Constantine built a triumphal arch featuring the sun god (the "unconquered sun"). His coins featured the sun. Constantine made a statue of the sun god, with his own face on it, for his new city of Constantinople. He made Sunday (the day of the Roman sun god) into a day of rest when work was forbidden.
Constantine declared that a mosaic of the sun god (riding in a chariot) represented Jesus. During Constantine's reign, many Christians followed the Emperor's example and incorporated worship of the sun god into their religion. They prayed kneeling towards the east (where the sun rises). They said that Jesus Christ drives his chariot across the sky (like the sun god). They had their worship services on Sunday, which honored the sun god. (Days of the week were named in honor of pagan gods.) They celebrated the birth of Jesus on December 25, the day when sun worshipers celebrated the birthday of the sun, following the winter solstice.
Historians disagree as to whether or not Constantine actually became a Christian. His character certainly did not reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ. Constantine was vain, violent and superstitious. He worshiped the sun god. He had little respect for human life. He was known for wholesale slaughter during his military campaigns. He forced prisoners of war to fight for their lives against wild beasts. He had several family members (including his second wife) executed for questionable reasons. Constantine waited until he was dying before asking to be baptized. Historians disagree as to whether or not he actually was baptized.
Constantine wanted to have a state church, with Christian clergy acting as civil servants. He called himself a bishop. He said that he was the interpreter of the Word of God. He claimed to be the voice that declares what is true and godly. According to historian Paul Johnson, Constantine saw himself as being an important agent of salvation, on a par with the apostles. Bishop Eusebius (Constantine's eulogist) relates that Constantine built the Church of the Apostles with the intention of having his own body be kept there along with the bodies of the apostles. Constantine's coffin was to be in the center (the place of honor), with six apostles on each side of him. He expected that devotions honoring the apostles would be performed in the church. Constantine expected to share the title and honor of the apostles.
Constantine told Bishop Miltiades that he wanted to build two Christian basilicas, in honor of the Apostles Peter and Paul. He offered a large, magnificent palace for the use of Miltiades and his successors. Miltiades refused. He could not accept the idea of having Christianity be promoted by the Roman Empire.
Constantine rode off to war. By the time that he returned in 314 A.D., Miltiades had died. Bishop Silvester was Miltiades' successor. Silvester was eager to have the Church be spread, using Roman roads, Roman wealth, Roman law, Roman power, and Roman military might. Constantine officially approved of Silvester as the successor of Miltiades. Then he had a coronation ceremony for Silvester and crowned him like a worldly prince. No bishop had ever been crowned before.
Before Constantine's "conversion," Christians were persecuted. Now, instead of facing persecution, Bishop Silvester lived in luxury. He had a beautiful palace, with the finest furniture and art. He wore silk brocade robes. He had servants to wait on him. Near his palace was a basilica that served as his cathedral. This luxurious building had seven altars made of gold, a canopy of solid silver above the main altar, and 50 chandeliers. The imperial mail system and transportation system were placed at Silvester's disposal. It was now possible to have worldwide church councils.
Have you read the Book of Acts and the Epistles? If so, compare the Church, as portrayed there, with the Church of Bishop Silvester. Here is how the Apostle Paul described the kinds of things that he had to endure, as a leader in the early Church:
"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness." (2 Corinthians 11:24-27)
After Constantine's "conversion," the Church was radically changed. Suddenly, being Christian resulted in power, prestige, and promotion (whereas previously it had resulted in persecution). Suddenly, by the Emperor's decree, Christianity became politically correct. As a result, ambitious people joined the Church for worldly reasons. The Bishop of Rome was supported by the military might, political power, and wealth of the Roman Emperor. Worldwide church councils were convened.
This was the birth of the Roman Catholic Church. It was created in the year 314 A.D. by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester.
Would you like me to continue?
In replying to the original message:
The guy is more or less correct. This movie will come out but is there any media on how bad the movie depicts the catholics? no! (i am an orthodox btw).
When Passion of Christ came out what happened with at least 6 months before it's release? Everywhere you looked people bashed Passion... as beeing an anti-semitist movie, a jew basher. There was all this hate with the movie and yet Passion was just a visual "painting" of what the bible says and Mel Gibson never pointed the finger towards them (in the movie) and say "You are at fault!".
From a previous post....
You may very well be right when you say that the original poster of this thread is anti-Semitic, and I happen to agree with you. Yet you are justifying his remarks because the Passion of the Christ was attacked for being anti-Semitic. Stop for a moment and take a look at the past history of the Roman Catholic Church and their treatment of the Jews in the "passion play", and then you may understand WHY so many groups were afraid of the backlash POTC might have on the Jewish faith. Read a copy of the script for the Oberammergau Passion Play before it was revised in 2000, and you will hopefully be shocked. While I personally loved the Passion of the Christ and didn't find it anti-Semitic at all, I can understand why some would.
Please also bear in mind that as good a film as "Passion of the Christ" is, it is NOT completely Biblical. Much of the "storyline" was taken from non Biblical literature. To say that the film is "Biblically correct" is simply a lie.
John
John,
People like you piss me off: Unabashedly anti-Catholic, claiming to have some grasp of Church history, parading about the internet with your own version of the "truth." What, did you cut-and-paste your little tirade on Constantine from the myriad of "history" sites on the web? Congratulations, you have a mouse. In fact, you should be proud, your little post caused me to join this board.
Not that I would ever doubt your credibility, but what are your sources? Surely as a good lawyer (now there's an oxy-moron) you must know all about sources. But I digress. It doesn't even matter, your claims on Constantine hardly disprove any existence of a Roman church before the 300's. You really are a fool. A direct line of succession can be traced back to St. Peter (considered the first Holy Father by the Faithful). But let me guess, the Church fabricated all of these records? I'm sure you and Dan Brown get along well- conspiracy theorists and wannabe-historians, with the writing skills of a ten year old boy (Dan Brown I mean). Look, just read a scholarly book on the subject, not some cheap web site, or Protestant manifesto.
No doubt you belong to one of the myriad of Protestant sects claiming to have it all figured out. You're entitled to your own little piece of this *beep* called Earth. Do with it what you will. But honestly, that's the subject of my last question: Why are you Protestants so hateful and afraid of the Church? Look, I have some respect for Luther. I really do. But in his later years he simply got carried away, and I doubt any of your theology actually coincides with Luther anyways. But that's OK, the Protestants are a lost flock, without any real leader or direction on earth (although I guess you would say Christ is your leader- great answer).
I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but I just couldn't resist. IMDB posters are just too silly for any reasonable debate(oh crap, now I'm one!).
Yours,
The Mark of Cain
Thank you, Cain!
John sounds like one of those Baptists that follow the teachings of J.M. Carroll. And his history, while somewhat factual, proves nothing more than his fanatical Protestant approach to life.
He mentions the Bible in one post, perhaps he should take a look at HOW it was kept intact and WHO set the canon of the Bible.
I was raised in a staunch Southern Baptist home and am very familiar with Carroll and his "Trail of Blood" theory. Too bad there is no REAL historical fact to prove the existence of these folks.
Now a convert to Catholicism, I am so glad to be free of the personal interpretations of Protestantism, of the idiocy of Sola fide and Sola Scriptura.
I will say a rosary for your soul, John!
The Roman Catholic Church claims that it gave us the Bible. However, this claim does not stand up to the test of history.
The Old Testament was written by God's inspired prophets, patriarchs, psalmists, judges and kings. It was faithfully copied and preserved by Jewish scribes. The Old Testament of modern Protestant Bibles contains the same books as the Hebrew Bible.
The New Testament was written by Christian apostles. None of them were Catholics, because there was no Roman Catholic Church at the time. This was over two centuries before Constantine's "conversion" and the formation of the Roman Catholic Church in 314 A.D.
The early Church did not have the New Testament as we know it. Rather, individuals and local congregations had portions of it. They would have one or more of the Gospels, some of the letters that Apostles had written, and perhaps the Book of Acts or the Book of Revelation.
Why weren't all of these books collected in one place? Look at what the books themselves say. Individual apostles wrote them for specific audiences. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written for Theophilus. (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Most of the Epistles were written to specific churches or to specific individuals. (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:1-2; 3 John 1:1)
The early Christians expected that Jesus would return for His Church at any moment. As a result, they didn't see the need for long-term planning for future generations. Furthermore, Christians were persecuted by the Romans. When your life is in constant danger, it is difficult to collect writings that are scattered all over the Roman Empire. So it took time to collect all of these writings, decide which ones were authoritative Scripture, and make complete sets of them.
By the time of Origen (185-254 A.D.), there was general agreement about most of the New Testament. However, there was disagreement as to whether the following six epistles should be part of the New Testament: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. This was 60 years before the "conversion" of Emperor Constantine and the formation of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Council of Carthage was held in 397 A.D. By then, there was general agreement as to which books belonged in the New Testament. The Council made a list of these books. It described the books that had already been accepted as being authoritative Scripture. In other words, the Council of Carthage did not create the canon of the New Testament. Rather, it just described the canon that already existed.
The Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. However, Catholic monks helped preserve the Bible by copying it.
The Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin. This prevented people from reading the Bible in their own language. Most people didn't know Latin. Therefore, they had to depend on priests to read the Bible for them and explain it to them. They were not able to check what the priests taught against Scripture.
The Catholic Church changed the Bible. In 1548, at the Council of Trent, it added the Apocrypha to the Bible. The apocryphal books contain passages that are used to justify some Catholic doctrines, such as praying for the dead.
Keeping the Bible in Latin
Under Roman rule, Latin became a universal language. So when the Bible was originally translated from Greek and Hebrew into Latin, that made it more available to people. However, with the collapse of the Roman empire, Latin was spoken less and less. In time, only scholars understood it. The vast majority of people no longer spoke it.
Starting about 1080, there were many incidents where the Pope, Church councils, or individual bishops prohibited the translation of the Bible into the language of the common people (the vernacular). Laymen and Laywomen were forbidden to read the Bible in their native language, unless a bishop or an inquisitor gave them permission in writing. (You can read about this online.)
Men such as William Tyndale were burned as heretics for translating the Bible into English. Men and women who were caught reading the translations were also burned.
Laymen were not even allowed to read the Bible in Latin. Reading the Bible was considered to be proof that someone was a heretic. Men and women were burned at the stake for reading the Bible in Latin.
People were so hungry to know what the Bible said that, when an English translation of the Bible was finally made available, crowds of people filled the church where it was kept. Men took turns reading the Bible out loud. As long as there was daylight, men kept reading the Bible out loud, while the crowds listened.
Translating the Bible
The first English translation of the Bible was made in 1382 by the followers of John Wycliffe, with his help and inspiration. An improved version was completed in 1388. Wycliffe's followers were known as Lollards. They were severely persecuted. Wycliffe's translation of the Bible had to be copied by hand, which is a slow process. Most of the copies of Wycliffe's English Bible were destroyed.
A century and a half later, the Tyndale-Coverdale Bible was published in 1535. William Tyndale and Bishop Miles Coverdale translated the original Greek and Hebrew texts into English. Their Bible was published in Germany, where Tyndale had taken refuge. The printing press had been invented. This enabled Tyndale and his followers to produce copies of their English Bible faster than they could be found and destroyed. Tyndale was burned at the stake.
Forty-seven years later (1582), the first Catholic translation of the New Testament into English was published. The Catholic translation of the Old Testament was published in 1609. These translations were not from the original Greek and Hebrew. Rather, they were from a Latin translation of the Bible.
Condemning Bible Societies
In 1846, and again in 1849, Pope Pius IX officially declared that Bible societies are "crafty enemies" of the Catholic Church and of humanity in general. Why? Because they translate the Bible into the language of the common people, and they give Bibles to anybody who wants them. (These encyclicals are online.) On September 3, 2000, Pope Pius IX was beatified. This is the last step before becoming a canonized saint.
In 1864, Pope Pius IX officially declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is "insanity," "evil," "depraved," and "reprobate." He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII declared that freedom of thought and freedom of religion are wrong.
According to the Catholic doctrine of infallibility, these are infallible statements. Therefore, they cannot be reversed.
This is not ancient history. My great-great-grandparents were alive in 1864.
Adding Tradition to Scripture
The Roman Catholic Church officially states that Catholic tradition is equal in authority to the Bible.
Catholic tradition is difficult to define. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that it is the various expressions of worship and belief of the Catholic people. But what does that mean? The religious beliefs and practices of modern Catholics are quite different from those of Catholics in the Middle Ages. (Do you know any modern Catholics who wear relics in order to ward off demons, or who pay money for indulgences to get their loved ones out of Purgatory?) Yet the Catholic definition of tradition encompasses all of these beliefs and practices.
Let's narrow it down to modern Catholics in the United States, which is where I live. I know Catholics who devoutly believe that wearing a Brown Scapular at all times (even in the shower) will get them into Heaven. I know other Catholics who consider that to be superstitious nonsense. Using the pious practices of the Catholic people for a standard is like measuring things with a rubber band.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for putting tradition on a level with Scripture. He said that they nullified the Word of God for the sake of their traditions. Jesus said:
"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the traditions of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:7-9, emphasis added)
"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7:13, emphasis added)
"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:8-9, emphasis added)
The Apostle Paul didn't think much of the traditions of men, either. He warned the Christians of his day:
"Beware lest any man spoil [ruin] you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8)
Forbidding People to Interpret
the Bible for Themselves
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholics are required to find out how the Catholic bishops interpret Scripture passages, and they are to accept what the bishops teach "with docility," as if it came from Jesus Christ Himself. In other words, they are not allowed to believe what they read in the Bible without first checking it out with the Catholic Church. They are not allowed to use their own judgment, or to follow their own conscience. They are required to believe whatever the bishops teach, without questioning it.
This attitude is exemplified by a statement that was made by Cardinal Hosius, who presided over the Council of Trent (1545-1564). Hosius wrote that, apart from the authority of the Catholic Church, the Bible would have no more importance than Aesop's Fables.
The Apocrypha
The Apocrypha are books that occur in Catholic Bibles, but not in Protestant ones. They were never part of the Hebrew Bible. The Jews never considered them to be canonical. In 1548, the Council of Trent declared that the Apocrypha are canonical (part of inspired Scripture) and it anathematized anybody who believes otherwise.7
Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but they never treated any of the apocryphal books as being authoritative. The apocryphal books themselves never claim to be the Word of God. The books of Tobit and Judith contain serious historical inaccuracies.
Following is a summary of the main events in the Book of Tobit.
My references to chapters and verses are those of the Revised Standard translation of Tobit. There is a wide variation in translations of Tobit, including differences in essential matters. There are also historical and geographical inaccuracies in the Book of Tobit. For example, Sennecherib was not the son of Shalmaneser. (Tobit 1:15) He was the son of Sargon the Usurper.21
Summary of the Book of Tobit
One night, Tobit slept outdoors, with his face uncovered. He slept by the courtyard wall. There were sparrows on the wall and bird droppings fell into Tobit's eyes. As a result, a white film formed over his eyes and he became blind. The physicians were unable to help him. (Tobit 2:9-10)
A maiden named Sarah was reproached by her maids, who accused her of strangling seven husbands before they consummated their marriage with her. This was attributed to a demon named Asmodeus. (Tobit 3:8)
The angel Raphael was sent to heal Tobit's eyes, to bind the demon Asmodeus, and to give Sarah in marriage to Tobias, the son of Tobit. (Tobit 3:17)
Tobias (Tobit's son) was traveling with the angel Raphael (who appeared in the form of a Jewish man named Azarias). A fish leaped up from the river and tried to swallow Tobias. Then the angel told Tobias to catch this fish. He caught it and threw it on the land. Then the angel told Tobias to cut the fish open, and to keep the heart and liver and gallbladder. He said that smoke from the heart and liver would drive demons and evil spirits away. He also said that, if a man's eyes are covered with white films, then having them be anointed with the fish gall would heal him. (Tobit 6:1-9)
Tobias was afraid to marry Sarah, because seven husbands had died in her bridal chamber. The angel told him to take burning incense, and to put the heart and liver of the fish on it, in order to make a smoke. He said that when the demon smelled the smoke, he would flee and never return. (Tobit 6:11-17)
Tobias married Sarah. He put the heart and liver of the fish upon burning incense. When the demon smelled the odor, he fled, and the angel bound him. Tobias and Sarah went to sleep. Sarah's family was greatly relieved the next morning when both of them were still alive. (Tobit, chapters 7 and 8)
Tobias and his new wife went to Tobit's home. The angel Raphael told Tobias to take the fish gall with him and to rub it on his father's eyes. Tobias followed the angel's instructions and Tobit's eyes were healed. (Tobit 11:2-16)
Comments on Tobit
Does this sound like inspired Scripture to you? Does it reveal God's nature and character, and His ways of dealing with His people? Does it inspire you to want to know God better? Does it give you strength and courage to be a faithful Christian?
If the Book of Tobit was added to the Bible, would that increase your confidence in the rest of the Bible? Would it help you trust the reliability and authority of Scripture? Would it increase your motivation for reading the Bible?
The Catholic Church and the Bible
God gave us the Bible—not the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has been double-minded about the Bible. On the one hand, Catholic monks helped preserve it by copying it during the Middle Ages. On the other hand, the Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin, and it killed scholars who translated the Bible into the language of the common people. In addition, it changed the Bible by adding the Apocrypha to it.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholics are not supposed to interpret the Bible for themselves. Rather, they are supposed to accept "with docility" whatever their bishops tell them about it. This is treating the Bible as if it is too dangerous for ordinary men and women to read, unless their understanding of it is constantly filtered through the lens of Catholic doctrine and official explanations.
The Bible is a Priceless Treasure
I live in America, where Bibles are plentiful and inexpensive. It is easy to take them for granted. However, right now, while you are reading this, there are Christians who are risking their lives to give Bibles to people. The ministry Open Doors has couriers who daily risk their lives to smuggle Bibles into countries where Christians are persecuted. I recently read about a man who was sentenced to death, because he gave a Bible to a Muslim.
Courageous men and women paid for the Bible with their blood. William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. Men were burned at the stake for teaching their children to say the Lord's Prayer in English. Men and women were burned at the stake for possessing an English translation of the Bible. We cannot comprehend the price that was paid to give us the Bible in our own language, or the great privilege of being able to read it without fear.
Here is what the Psalms say about the Bible. When you read the terms, "the law of the Lord," "the testimony of the Lord," "the statutes of the Lord," and "the judgments of the Lord," remember that these are Old Testament terms for the written Word of God.
May God give us this kind of passion for the Bible! Look at the love and loyalty and gratitude in these Scripture passages:
"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward." (Psalm 19:7-11)
"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper." (Psalm 1:1-3)
"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes. With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth. I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches. I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word." (Psalm 119:9-16)
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth. They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants. Unless thy law had been my delights, I should then have perished in mine affliction. I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me." (Psalm 119:89-93)
"Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them." (Psalm 119:165)
According to Strong's Concordance, the word "offend" in Psalm 119:165 means an enticement, or a stumbling-block. It is something that ruins people, or causes them to fall. So according to this Scripture verse, if we love the Word of God, then it will bring us peace, and it will protect us from temptation and destruction.
The Bible is indeed a priceless treasure!
Now John, I know you are incapable of writing something this long...you must have gotten parts of it from other places. Despite being full of inconsistencies, and being a meandering, lengthy tirade, I will respond to you briefly. As much as I wish I were an expert on Catholic dogma, I am not, but I will say this: It's not that simple John. Are you really 32 years old? With respect, I find that hard to believe. Furthermore, your whole style of argument is laughable: You put the Bible on a pedestal, but in other posts say that the Bible should not be taken literally, etc. Just look at your posts on the Passion. Moreover, anyone who believes that the Bible is the ACTUAL WORD FOR WORD, WORD OF GOD is a naive. First of all, if you think translations are anywhere near perfect, you're sadly mistaken. Secondly, these translations occured over two thousands years, and to expect that the exact words stayed the same is just ludicrous. And actually, William Tyndale was burned by King Henry VIII and the Anglican Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. See, John, get your facts right. I really wish I could go into a lot of detail, but I frankly just don't feel like it. Suffice to say, you are a misguided young man, who needs to spend more time reading scholarly works rather than preaching about things you know very little about. Leave it to the big dogs.
TheMarkofCain
A simple copy and paste of his text reveals his source of information:
"http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Pope+Pius+IX+officially+declared+that+Bible+societies+are%22&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8";
Places like:
(these appear to be the exact same page, different book name, but by the same author Mary Ann Collins):
http://www.unmaskingcatholicism.com/Chapter-12.shtml
http://www.catholicundertow.com/Chapter-06.shtml
http://www.anothersideofcatholicism.com/Chapter-06.shtml
http://www.cultureshocksolution.org/public_html/The%20Spirit%20of%20Roman%20Catholicism.htm
And finally the mother of all Anti-Catholic pages:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/spiritof.htm
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/
Which speaks of the Catholic church being the Anti-Christ:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/anti1.htm
Sad...
People like you piss me off.
A traditional Roman Catholic answer. You can't contradict what I said, so youget angry. Understandable.
Unabashedly anti-Catholic, claiming to have some grasp of Church history, parading about the internet with your own version of the "truth."
It's funny how Roman Catholics attack anyone who presents a side of the RCC that doesn't gel with the fairytales and lies the "church" has told them. In fact, you sound not unlike what I would imagine the first TRUE Christians, AKA those show knew Jesus, were branded.
What, did you cut-and-paste your little tirade on Constantine from the myriad of "history" sites on the web? Congratulations, you have a mouse.
Sorry, if it was too well put together for you. Would you like a bibliograpghy of the sources? Here ya go...
Audisio, Gabriel (translated by Claire Davison), "The Waldensian Dissent: Persecution and Survival," Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Bloesch, Donald G., "Essentials of Evangelical Theology," Volume 1, San Francisco, California: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1982.
"Catechism of the Catholic Church," Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 2000.
"Code of Canon Law," Latin-English edition, New English Translation, (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1999.
Collins, Mary Ann, "Unmasking Catholicism: What Hides Behind the Modern Public Image?" Lincoln, Nebraska, iUniverse, 2003. You can buy this at Amazon.com or read it online.
www.UnmaskingCatholicism.com.
De Rosa, Peter, "Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy," Dublin, Ireland: Poolbeg Press, 1988, 2000. The author used to be a priest. He is still a practicing Catholic. While he was a priest, he did research in the Vatican archives.
Edwards, Brian H., "God's Outlaw: The Story of William Tyndale and the English Bible," Darlington, England, Evangelical Press, 1976, 1999.
Elwell, Walter A. (editor), "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984.
England, Randy, "The Unicorn in the Sanctuary: The Impact of the New Age on the Catholic Church," Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, 1990. The author is Catholic.
Flannery, Austin (editor), "Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents," New Revised Edition, Volume 1, Northport, New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1975, 1996.
Hardon, John A., "Pocket Catholic Dictionary," New York: Doubleday, Image Books, 1980, 1985. The author is a Catholic priest with a doctorate in theology.
Hunt, Dave, "A Woman Rides the Beast," (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1994.
Jackson, Bill, The Noble Army of "Heretics." The author personally visited the Martyrs Monuments in England, and the valleys where the Waldensians lived. He studied original documents in addition to doing research in books. You can read the entire book online at the following website.
www.NobleArmy.com
Johnson, Paul, "A History of Christianity," New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, 1995. The author is a Catholic and a prominent historian.
Küng, Hans, "The Catholic Church: A Short History" (translated by John Bowden), New York: Modern Library, 2001, 2003. The author is a Catholic theologian.
Martin, Malachi, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church," New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1981. The author recently died. He was a Catholic priest, a theologian, a professor at the Vatican's Pontifical University, and a Vatican insider. He was also the personal confessor of Pope John XXIII. His books are a plea for reform.
Martin, Malachi, "The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church," New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987.
McBirnie, William Steuart, "The Search for the Twelve Apostles," Wheaton, Illinois: Living Books, Tyndale House Publishers, 1973, 1982.
McCarthy, James G., "The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and the Word of God," Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1995. The author is a former Catholic.
Rose, Michael S., "Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church," Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2002. The author is Catholic.
Shelley, Bruce, "Church History in Plain Language," Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, 1995.
Smith, Wesley J., "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America," San Francisco, California: Encounter Books, 2000.
Steichen, Donna, "Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism," San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991, 1992. The author is Catholic.
Svendsen, Eric, "On This Slippery Rock," Calvary Press, 2002.
Tetlow, Jim, "Messages from Heaven" (self published). You can order it from D&K Press (800-777-8839).
Webster, William, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History," Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995. The author is a former Catholic.
Yallop, David, "In God's Name: An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I," London, England: Transworld Publishers, 1994.
Yungen, Ray, "A Time of Departing: How a Universal Spirituality Is Changing the Face of Christianity," Silverton, Oregon: Lighthouse Trails Publishing Company, 2002.
James G., "Catholicism: Crisis of Faith." You can buy this video from D&K Press (800-777-8839).
Tetlow, Jim, "Messages from Heaven." You can buy this video from D&K Press (800-777-8839).
Not that I would ever doubt your credibility, but what are your sources?
See above...
Surely as a good lawyer (now there's an oxy-moron) you must know all about sources.
I never said I was a lawyer. Typical jumping to conclusions. Just because I work in a lawfirm doesn't make me a lawyer. This is a perfect example of not knowing the facts before you make pass judgement.
It doesn't even matter, your claims on Constantine hardly disprove any existence of a Roman church before the 300's.
Think about what you are saying....while there were Christians living in Rome, Christianity was NOT the religion of Rome. So, how can Chrisitanity have been "Roman"? Simple logic you seem not to understand. Once again, another typical trait of a Roman Catholic.
You really are a fool.
Again, can't defend your argument, so you insult me. Bless you!
A direct line of succession can be traced back to St. Peter (considered the first Holy Father by the Faithful). But let me guess, the Church fabricated all of these records?
Well, this is the "Church" that claimed Mary Magdalene was a whore and that Mother Mary was born without sin, and was assumed into Heaven...none of which have any Biblical text to support them. The RCC has a history of making things up as they go along.
I'm sure you and Dan Brown get along well- conspiracy theorists and wannabe-historians, with the writing skills of a ten year old boy (Dan Brown I mean). Look, just read a scholarly book on the subject, not some cheap web site, or Protestant manifesto.
Ahhh, the good old attack "The DaVinci Code" defense. When will you paranoid Catholics realize that Dan Brown wrote a work of FICTION, and has never once claimed it to be fact or theory. Just because your church leaders constantly make up fiction and call it dogma, doesn't mean that others do it as well.
No doubt you belong to one of the myriad of Protestant sects claiming to have it all figured out. You're entitled to your own little piece of this *beep* called Earth.
I also never said I was a Protestant. They have their own issues as well as you Catholics. As do all denominations of Chrisianity. I am simply a Christian.
Why are you Protestants so hateful and afraid of the Church?
I can not speak for them.
But that's OK, the Protestants are a lost flock, without any real leader or direction on earth...
As opposed to your dress wearing, ring wearing, crown wearing, living in his "holy" palace pope? Yeah, some leader. He's just the "golden calf" of the modern world.
(although I guess you would say Christ is your leader- great answer).
Yes I would and yes it is.
Yours,
The Mark of Cain
And you are so confident in your beliefs that you hide behind a screen name.
I will do my Chrisitan duty and pray for you.
John
[deleted]
It sounds like you have a personal problem with the catholic church. It's good that you remind us of how our churches were burned down by you "real" Christians when we first got to the US.
I have a personal problem with and organization that claims to be the "true church of Christ", yet is about as UNChristian as one can get.
There is no doubt that Constantine adopted catholicism as the roman religion. So what? If they didn't know the actual date of Jesus's birth and used 12/25, so what? Rome was the center of civilization at the time, and a lot of things roman became catholic and vice versa.
You just backed up my point. Constantine turned Christianity into a ROMAN religion, IE idol worship, pagan ceremonies, power hungry leaders. You tell me what part of our current, or ANY pope's living conditions is that of Christ and I will concede this debate. You show me in the Bible where is says we should kiss the feet of a statue and I will also concede. Pagan = Roman = the Roman Catholic Church.
If St. Peter didn't start the catholic church - what church did he start? You know Jesus told Peter he was the "rocK" of the church. Did Peter just blow him off and go back to fishing?
Peter and the other apostles continued the teaching of Christ, INCLUDING THE WOMEN. But the church they started bears so resemblence to the current "catholic" organisation.
Your allegation that your lawfirm represnted a catholic church in a criminal trial is an outright lie. So I doubt you've read any depostions by anyone.
Once again, you can't debate me so you attack me. And in typical Roman Catholic form. Believe what you want. It's the truth.
Here's a deposition from me - I was an altar boy and my friends and I were around priests all the time, and we never even heard of anything sexual going on.
And I am happy to hear that. I never said that ALL priests were child molesters.
Cardinal Law the enabler and any guilty molester priest belong in jail for life, but they represet far less than 1% of Peter's church.
Finally, something I can agree with you on. But only because the Roman Catholic Church ISN'T the church of Peter or any other apostle.
Pray for yourself. You're a pathetic hater.
I pray for myself everyday. As should all Christians.
Bless you.
John
Wow John...
You seem to be hating on those who oppress, yet you keep going on and all about "TYPICAL CATHOLIC RESPONSE"
I agree that Mark of Cain and you are both out of line about a lot of things. Plus you guys keep defending Churches and not Christ. And John, how come you like to throw in a lot of irrelevant trivial stuff to sway? You both are giving 'history' lessons on faith...FAITH. While also being illogical. Mark Of Cain, it's good to see you be proud of what you believe in, but why don't you take what you believe in, and put that into practice, hell we all could use that. I'm not sure if you cut and pasted those sources or what, and am not accusing, but settle down...
Both of you knew this movie would spark a lot of controversy and debate, but what the hell doesn't anymore. Now we have Christians fighting over which Church is better. I got news for both of you, BOTH PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC ARE UNBIBLICAL! How's that? The Bible is obviously not all someone believes in, I mean why would we choose it over Koran or Torah? Obviously oral tradition has had some effect on our families, and micro evolution sociological ways have swayed our families and our lives and how we believe.
I mean how is Protestant Churches biblical? Some of their rituals are anything but as well...
All of you need to get over yourselves and just believe on your own, questioning is good but do not conform or take a conformity of any sort and put them into words on how it's a fact.
John, I think you're using a good effort trying to convince these men, what they cannot see, in vain. But keep trying.
As to you RC. Insteed of filling the board with a lot of angry and meaningless junk, start do a research on your own. It doesn't take to make before you'll discover that your socalled 'holy church' isn't that holy. Open your eyes and face that the RCC is not the salvation, that Mary is not other than mere human and that the only ruler of this earth isn't the Pope or Jesus, but Satan. Why would the Lord need someone on the earth if his kingdom is of another world? Why should the priest go in calibat if Peter had a wife? And why should God put his trust in a church made by human hands, catholic or protestantic, when the true chuch of Jesus Christ is the gathering in the name of Jesus, not in the halls of men. When the church is in a person not around.
Peace be with you who believe in Christ, caltholic or not!
[deleted]
Ahhh, the good old attack "The DaVinci Code" defense. When will you paranoid Catholics realize that Dan Brown wrote a work of FICTION, and has never once claimed it to be fact or theory.
Oh yeah??? No offense, but which planet are you living on?
Have you ever actually *READ* Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code"?
If you have, then did you miss the opening page titled "FACT" which states: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rotuals in this novel are accurate"? The "FACT" page that portrays Opus Dei and by extension, Catholic organizations, in a very unfavourable light to say the least?
Did you miss the chapter in which one of the characters lists a number of real-life "sources" - much the same way you did - in order to validate and substantiate the unabashedly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian claims made in the novel?
You say that Dan Brown "never once claimed" his novel to be "fact or theory". Have you read, heard or watched any of his interviews to make such a statement? If you have, then you would know that Dan Brown has made it a point to refer whenever and wherever possible to the "research" he made to ensure the FACTUAL basis of all that actually MATTERS in the novel - which is NOT the plot/story or the characters but the various THEORIES that are presented therein. Brown has stated so many times that these "theories" (which he believes to be more fact than theory or simple conjecture) are nothing new and not of his own invention, but that they have existed for the past goodness knows how many years - but that this is the first time that the said theories (which he more or less believes to be FACTS) have been presented in the form of a "thriller" in a "novel"!
I suggest you actually READ/WATCH/LISTEN TO some of Dan Brown's interviews, or at the very least log onto his personal website, before you make any assertions that he "NEVER ONCE CLAIMED his novel to be fact or theory". Just a piece of friendly advice!
Well, this is the "Church" that claimed Mary Magdalene was a whore and that Mother Mary was born without sin, and was assumed into Heaven...none of which have any Biblical text to support them.
You demonstrate your ignorance of Catholic dogma and of how the teachings and precepts of the Catholic Church actually work!
The CHURCH herself never actually claimed that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute/harlot. That was simply an assumption that kind of caught on, which appears to have sprung the time when one Pope Gregory thought that Mary of Magdala and the Adulteress and the woman who wiped Our Lord's feet with her hair were one and the same person. Even though this was believed by one of the Popes themselves, it was NEVER EVER *DOGMATIZED*!!! True, there are still many who seem to hold that belief, but it is merely one theory or assumption - NOT something that *ALL* Catholics are *BOUND* to believe in on pain of being excommunicated!!!!
On the other hand, the Immaculate Conception of The Blessed Virgin Mary and the Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven are INDEED dogmas, and accepted by all Catholics as absolute, universal truths. It is a pity that you don't believe them simply because there isn't any *EXPLICIT* evidence in the Bible - which, by the way, was NEVER intended by Our Lord Jesus to be a person's *SOLE* guide to the Faith....He Himself never even appears to have asked that a "Bible" be composed for His faithful to read!! But I'm sure that He would be very happy if you believe how He didn't allow sin to take effect in the soul of His Holy Mother from the very first instance of her existence as a special and solitary grace in recognition of the fact that she was supposed to bear Him in her blessed womb and be His Mother.....and that in recognition of her fulfilling her role as His Mother and His First Disciple to the fullest and in the worthiest manner, he granted that she be assumed into Heaven in both BODY AND SOUL - both of which defined the word IMMACULATE!
If the prophet Elijah was so privileged as to go to Heaven, his body and soul both intact and together, why would you ever doubt the Assumption into Heaven of the Mother of God, who is now the Queen of Heaven and of Earth? (Not that her queenship is equal to or higher than the Kingship of Her Son, but still, she is second *ONLY* to Him - well above all the angels and archangels and never to be compared to any man or woman in the world!!!)
Peace! :)
Listen people...I'm not going to begin to protect the priests/monsters that abused children during the scandal. I will say however that God has brought the scandal to light and the Church is now addressing it head on. In this case, it's safe to say better late than NEVER. I find it quite disturbing that the Catholic Church covered the situation up as much as it did.
I think what many people are afraid of is the fact that hollywood as well as the country in general doesn't really support (probably a huge understatement) Catholicism nor Christianity in general. So there is definite potential for the TV movie to take it's liberties with exagerrations. But hey, I pride myself on being rational, and in this case we might deserve it. I'm just glad it's out in the open and I think what all of us Catholics want to do it move ahead and leave that sordid past behind. However, as forgiving as the good Lord is, Hollywood is not, and they will indeed attempt to throw the ghastly actions of a minority of Catholics back in the face of those good people that follow the religion time and again. Watch out before you dismiss what I'm saying, because it will be a recurring theme in Hollywood, everybody loves to bust on Christians especially Catholics so unfortunately those inncocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever...which is the STRONG MAJORITY of practicing Catholics, will have to see this again and again.
On another note, S WHITE , it's obvious you are not a Catholic, because you call Catholicism hardly Christianity. Don't be that person. Don't be that Christian that sits on his/her high horse and say that their denomination is truer than another. I take offense to that and so do many others. I'm marrying a beautiful woman of another denomination and the first thing the Catholic Priest asked us was whether or not she was baptized in Christ. She is of course and he said that despite the differences, the similarities are stronger. Baptism and belief in Jesus is what really binds all Christians together. I label you as angry, or jealous, or both. I just hope you open your eyes and retract your hateful words, you are not seen as any more or less of a Christian than I in the eyes of Christ. Unlike you, I don't thank God everyday that I'm not in your denomination, but I will thank God everyday that I'm not like you.
1) I ain't defending the Catholic church, but I must say that some of the allegations were made up though some of them were true. People can get so greedy that they'd make up *beep* like that.
2) You have a good point there. We can't just let something like this go, but we can't keep bringing it up all the time.
3) Maybe the poster is anti-semitic, maybe he/she isn't. We don't fully undersand the mindset of the person.
4) It's highly disgusting, isn't it? But what bothers me is that, yet again, some of these kids were doing it because parents wanted money while some of them truly were molested. Another thing is that other religous groups have these problems but that isn't brought up.
sj_sulli09
Are you repliers Catholic?
I used to be but I left that cult 25 years ago. I ended any membership I may have had, real or implied, a few years after that.
True, this did happen, and true it is definitely a bit dramatized.
It's tv. All movies and tv programs that claim to be 'true life' tend to be overly dramatized, sanitized, reduced to black/white for easy hero worship/villian booing, etc.
But to regular catholics such as myself, this is an insult as well as a slap in the face.
Do tell.
We all just want to let it go and try to forget that we had such dark times as these.
Yes, because the best way to make certain that something never happens again is to ignore it. George Santayana had some pithy advise similar to that, something about 'those who forget the past' or something like that.
I understand that captured Nazis after WWII pled similarly. When I worked in Russia in the early 1990s former KGB and NKVD personnel, especialling the former republics that were now independent countries, felt the same way. Unfortunately for them the new independent governments didn't agree and many of these agents ended up fleeing to Russia.
As a related side note, the former KGB headquarters in Vilnius, Lithuania has become a museum with guided tours from former inmates. It's fascinating and one I highly recommend.
The poster could possibly be anti semetic but he still does have a bit of a point: the passion of the christ is blamed for being anti semetic yet this crap is seemingly fine.
The poster is a protofascist dingbat with serious issues.
Hey-did my Jewish uncle have anything to do with nailing up Jesus? No?
Did the current Catholic Church have anything to do with covering up the crimes and transfering assraping priests to other parrishes? Yes, it did. It abetted a crime. And you think that's okay?
If this damn country wants equality for everyone, than goddamnit why don't they toss fault at everyone and call it even?
Back to above: Did my Jewish uncle have anything to do with assraping Catholic priests? No? Neither did I. Are you suggesting we all share the blame?
I say equality for everyone, which means equality of guilt in this case, ie these priests are guilty of screwing kids and the Church is guilty of hiding them. And personally I'd like to see some electric chairs charged up for them.
****************
Otto: This is intense!
Miller: The life of a repo man is always intense.
Yea, electric chairs will solve the problem! Fool. I sincerely hope you have no position of any authority in this world. We may all be doomed.
I'll say it one last time:
1. The Church is not a monolithic organization- it is vast, far-reaching, and extremely bureaucratic.
2. Thus, it is entirely possible (in fact probable) that these particular bishops (who are in charge of their own diocese) acted reprehensibly without the Pope or their superiors knowing.
Now, the actions of these individuals should be rejected, and the individual priests punished, but to say that the Church and the Pope are entirely corrupt is not only irresponsible, it's just plain ignorant. Unfortunately, that seems to be the general consensus regarding posters on this board- the combined comprehension skills of a 15 year old.
Oh well,
TheMarkofCain
Even if it is less than 1% of priests who did this, isn't that still a lot? Aren't there a billion catholics? Near one percent of that number is gigantic.
I think it's sad that supposed good catholics would make light of this, and say that it's being overdramatized. To me, if one child was touched inappropriately by a "man of God", that's enough. And clearly it was much more than that.
I hope that we have a more enlightened pope after Ratzinger. One who can look into the actual history of the church and realize that it used to be the norm for priests to marry and have families. Celibacy was a choice, not an obligation. Perhaps if men in the seminary were not given odd ideas about the nature of sex, they wouldn't touch little kids. Granted, some people are pedophiles by nature, but some I think are urged in that direction since sex is so taboo in the catholic church.
Although they are men of God, they are still human. They did not do this because of God, or because of Catholicism. it was individual corruption, and yes, they have been condemned for their actions.
"I think it's sad that supposed good catholics would make light of this, and say that it's being overdramatized"
Corruption will always exist so long as people don't try to be good Catholics. again, those were corrupted priests and there's nothing we can do about that. People need to stop trying to belittle the Catholic faith and Church and then leading their sinful lives with the excuse that "hey, i never said that i am a child of God." It doesn't matter. As long as you're trying, you're better than those who sit back and accuse. And just because you're not Catholic, you are no better than those you seem to be accusing, sitting back and focusing on scandals as a group, and then accusing others for living with a faith that you choose not to agree with. (i am not saying you personally)
And on another note, celibacy may be a choice, but it's definitely proper for a man of God or a nun to become celibates in order to lessen their distraction from God. if they can't hold up their end of the deal then that's their fault, and yes, they deserve to be punished. but as you say "Catholics make light of this:" it's like those who are against the death penalty. They don't act like those criminals who may have taken lives are ok, yet still, the death penalty is immoral. Catholics see it and acknowledge it, but since so many accuse the Vatican of "cover-up", if they think about it, it's human tendancy to leave the church because of earthly circumstances, and it's wrong to do so, as taught in Catholicism and though you are supposed to be able to recognize corruption, you can't let it interfere with your faith. The Vatican may know this and that's why they chose not to cause a scandal, because it would give reason for those antiCatholics to complain even more. Nevertheless, the Pope did condemn it and obviously it wasn't covered up indefinitely, since you are talking about it now like it's your issue to deal with. Liquor store owners, police officers, whatever there has been a person of all professions or fields who have committed immoral acts, why focus and try to condemn the Catholic church? You might say, "well because they've declared themselves men of God" But as stated before, it is an individual fault that has to be resolved in another way rather than forsaking and destroying traditional faith. Sure, they may be in that position ("men of God") but if they are truly good they would not be prideful. We believe in God not men but it is through those men and the respect we hold for them (since they have devoted their whole lives to God) that helps us to personally connect to God. That's why there is a pope, to guide the clergy in the same way we are to be guided. It is with firm faith that we pray for our pope to be one of high moral standards. (oh and to those who believe that Catholics are anti-semitic, didn't the pope, Pope John Paul II to be exact, formally apologize for past offenses from the Catholic Church especially those during WWII when he believed that Catholics didn't do enough to help people of the Jewish faith? furthermore, didn't he proceed to condemn the molestation of children by priests? please don't generalize, such generalizations are errors, and such hate is not taught in Catholicism, and such sin is not taught in Catholicism. it's individual fault.)
Having faith is just that, Faith. to try to rely on detailed logic (obviously only stemming from lacking humans) to judge faith would mean forsaking it [faith] due to human error.
And furthermore, Catholicism is faith not a kind of people, so please if you start off with "you catholics..." then automatically your opinion is invalid because when you already have a bad taste for something, you'll always see the negative side of it and never the good, unless you try and see the bigger picture. We are all responsible for our own actions and a single person's faults and sins should not be let to have such impact that it would tear your faith to shreds. Thus, it is not the church's faults or the pope's fault or Catholicism's fault. it's theirs. it has been recognized and we have to move on with our faith. and besides, what is really truly your own personal conflict with Catholicism? please see to it that you can figure out why you are against it, and then please realize that your arguments against it is using only your logic and no one else's.
There is much more complexity to Catholicism than you and i Regular Joes know obviously. Leave room for what you don't know. God works in mysterious ways, i.e. ways our human minds wouldn't be able to comprehend.
To act like you personally, a HUMAN, can determine all and judge all, either by 'logic' or 'conscience' highlights the fact that without faith, we would be in big trouble, because we would then be reliant on a mass of people with different moral standards and a forever lacking intellect to determine right and wrong.
This was mostly an attempt to explain to anti-Catholic logic-seekers why they should stop being proud and cocky about what they believe for there is much more to Catholicism. Factually, Catholicism is the first Christian faith, brought about by Jesus and through Peter, his disciple. It was established by Christ. If you're not Catholic, that's fine too of course but please just try to act what you believe, so others can see how right and moral you are if you truly believe your faith is more noble, don't live solely through protesting, argumentative words. Just believe what you believe, stop with the "holier than thou" persona (because that's not what God teaches us) and just act what you believe so you can spread the word of God through your actions. God exists the way He is despite our "conflict" so no there is no point in arguing since He is there and only He knows all despite who "wins." The clash of faiths will never agree but all we can do is have faith in our own and only worry about that and don't use your time solely in fiery quest to debunk the other faith. It is obvious already that when you have faith in one religion, you won't in the other. Spend your time loving God and others in general, not selectively, for isn't that what God wants us to do? thank you for reading and God bless all.
I don't think celibacy has anything to do with being attracted to kids. If a priest had to have sex, all he would have to do is put on civilian clothes, pick up an adult woman (or man) or a prostitute and do it.
No, I think that after word got out in the pedophile community (if I may use that term) that you'd be protected by the bishops if caught and just transfered to another parish with more kids, the priesthood attracted it's more than fair share of these monsters.
They could spend their whole lives at the happy hunting ground of Catholic schools full of trusting kids. This scandel is a severe breakdown of management and we should have seen some bishops in handcuffs.
As for this film, I didn't see it so it's not fair for me to comment on any anti-Catholic leanings, but the first poster does have some valid points.
Hollywood has produced some anti-Catholic/anti-Christian films and TV shows in the past. These films are NOT always produced or written by Jews in all fairness, but you never hear most prominant Jews protesting anything that's anti- Christian but they demand that Christians protest anything they deem to be anti-Semitic. Suddenly fairness, love, and tolerance is what is needed.
Michael Medved is the only Jew (that I know) who also echos my sentiment, God bless him.
Many of the Hollywood elite ARE Jews weather people like it or not. It's a fact that they (Jews) even admit though they don't like the idea that they 'control' it. But if influence out of proportion to their population in the US isn't 'control', I don't know what is.
I'm still waiting for a film based on the true story dealing with the rabbis from NYC who were laundering drug money or the rabbi in Philadelphia who had his wife knocked off so he could marry his gentile girlfriend. I doubt you'd ever see any of these potentionally interesting films made and this is what makes Gentiles so angry.
[deleted]
just face it, you got served!
shareIf you beleive in conspiracy crap....
I may agree with some of your claim. This so called "child molestation" issue had been over-hyped and over exaggerated by so called "anti-catholic" media..(could be jews, atheist, protestant, orthodox..etc) much like a smal sound amplified by megaphone. You know majority of people in Hollywood and media (those sex freaks, divore addicts, abortion seekers.. etc)OPPOSED almost every Roman catholic beleif, thefore thecatholic church their "enemy".
Look at crusade, the tuth is gone, the truth had been erored for 1000 of years. Christians are portrayed "evil" while Muslims and Jews are victims. Now obviously every crusade issue comming out of hollywood are single sided and taylored for liberal minds and to brainwash unsuspecting christians.
Admit it, MOST hollywood (not all of them) out there HATE Catholics. They have the money, fame..hey why not give their principle a favour? we slowly destroy their enemy...the catholics using "diverisy" "pluralism" as a lame excuse...much like Bush WMD "lies".
They hate passion of christ because its too pro catholic. perhaps they cant stand some of jews high preist wrong doing....noe its their turn with this "out father" movie...a lot of catholics will vomit. Jews and libs strikes back!
According the US Catholic Church a mere 4% of priests have been assraping boys since 1950.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1490456,00.html
though as many of these priests are now dead apparently we're supposed to just not care anymore.
From the report-
Dioceses nationwide had received 10 667 abuse claims since 1950, according to the John Jay study.
Of those, claims by about 6 700 were substantiated. About 3 300 were not investigated because the accused clergymen were dead.
Another 1 000 or so claims proved to be unsubstantiated, the diocesan news release said.
It does beg the questions as to how the church knew about the activities of these priests who have been dead for decades. It also fails to mention the Church's covering up for these same priests, ie shipping them off to new parrishes and diocese for new young meat to pray over and prey on.
****************
Otto: This is intense!
Miller: The life of a repo man is always intense.
I am a Deist who attended a Catholic high school and hated it. All forms of Christianity seem unrational to me, so I have no bias towards Catholicism; however, I can safely say that this movie is trying to depict Catholics in a bad light. Some of my best friends, who are great people, are Catholic and none of them condone the actions of pedophile Preists.
When The Passion came out, which in no way said "Jews are evil," the media shouted "ANTI-SEMITISM"!
When the latest season of "24" was released, showing a muslim family with terrorist ties, the media shouted "ANTI-ISLAM"!
When Contact was released featuring a "Christian Terrorist Oragnization from Utah" (which is a complete joke in itself), the media said nothing (besides the movie being cheesy)
Yes, child molesting in the Church is a problem. But so is terrorism amungst the Muslim community (not to say that there arent wonderful Muslim people, because I'm friends with some). If there was a movie dedicated to addressing Islamic terrorist, I would have no doubt that there would be outcry. Besides, when was the last time you've seen a Muslim depicted as a terrorist in a movie since 9/11? I can think of "Team America" and episodes of "South Park" and "24."
However, I'm not sure where this person is getting that this movie is made by Jews. It could very well be. But from the Jews I know, they all deeply respect Christianity and other religions (I personally have found that Catholicism is actually closer to Conservative or Reform Jewdaism than is it to Protestantism). Baptists are much more critical of Catholicism than Jews are.
wow, you're SUCH a good Catholic.
Hypocrisy rules the roost in the Catholic Church.
Please, stop being so melodramatic. I'm not here to defend the actions of rogue priests who abused children, nor the bishops who protected them. They ABSOLUTELY should be punished. However, what I will attack is the notion that this is some sort of problem that permeates every aspect of Catholic hierarchy. Frankly, if you look at the number of priest abuse cases and the number of priests in America you will see that they make only about 1-2%, no more than 5%, of the population(depending on what survey you look at); now granted, just one case is a cause for concern, but to imply that the entire Church is infested with molestors is just absurd (kind of like the poster John).
John, don't speak to me of logic, you have no concept of the term (I would suggest going back to school and taking a philosophy class). And as far as your "sources," please, I laugh at them. It seems that you just went and found as many sources dealing the with the Church as possible to support your claims. You're right, obviously you're not a lawyer...Anyone with any amount of collegial education would realize that you can't just write stuff, and then cite a bunch of sources at the end. But that's OK, it's only the IMDB message board, so I'll forgive you. But as for your hysterical characterization of Catholics- it's frankly quite hilarious. I mean your understanding of Church dogma is juvenile at best, and your equivocation of the Church as pagan organization is just entertaining. But I'm curious, if the Catholic Church is not the True Church (although a Catholic, I happen to believe it's much more complicated than that), what is? Obviously you are a Christian, but you still have not indentified yourself. Not that it will change my opinion of you, obviously you are a religious bigot. I would write more, but unfortunately I have to get ready for class...there will be plenty of time for this later.
Hiding behind my name, eh? Idiot. I just don't want my name on the internet, there are a lot of weirdos out there...like you.
TheMarkofCain
But I'm curious, if the Catholic Church is not the True Church (although a Catholic, I happen to believe it's much more complicated than that), what is?
Nothing is the true church. God doesn't exist. Never did, never will...
shareHurray. Someone sane at last!
When will people realise that the church is ruled by men, with an agenda set by men for the benefit of those same men. Honestly, it's not rocket science.
www.makepovertyhistory.org
I am Catholic, I am actually agnostic, but raised Catholic. I do not believe in any organized religion. Although, to say that you thank god for not being Catholic is a horrible thing to say. Catholics and Protestants both are homophobes, and I believe both religions have flaws. That being said, to say all Catholics and Catholic priests are 'child molesters' is really stupid. I know many people who are devout Catholics, and they are the nicest people in the world. I do not agree with all their beliefs, but they are not bad people, and they are ashamed and outraged over the Priests who have done this. My uncle, who is one of the most liberal people I know, is friends with a Catholic priest, and he too, is very very liberal. He does not like the new Pope, he accepts homosexuality, and does not preach against gay marriage, or abortion. He is an open minded, great guy. There are Catholic priests around the world who are doing amazing things, and are outraged over the filth in the church. These priests who have done these horrible things do not represent everyone else, you all must realize that. I disagree with the Church in many ways, I disagree with the Protestant faith as well. I am agnostic, but I have friends and family who have faith, and I love and respect them.
[deleted]
ha!
shareSo you are saying the catholic church sex scandal did not happen?
shareAre you saying that I said it did not happen? I do not deny it at all. This did happen, and there are a lot of scum in the Church that we must get rid of. I know someone who was involved in a situation with a Priest years ago, I understand this has gone on. It is sick and evil, and as I said, I am agnostic, but I know Catholic Priests and devout Catholics who are terrific people, so I want there to be understanding that yes, this did happen, and it's *beep* horrible, but there are others who are not like this, and are mortified by what happened.
shareDear IMDB User who was using rational arguements above- This is not the place for it. Go back to somethingawful or some other reputable forum.
shareWhile I doubt anybody's going to read this I'm going to post here it anyway.
It will also be in the Passion Pit (The Passion of the Christ thread).
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHURCH_ABUSE?SITE=FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Jun 9, 4:14 PM EDT
Abuse cost for Catholic dioceses tops $1B
By RACHEL ZOLL
AP Religion Writer
The cost to the U.S. Roman Catholic Church of sexual predators in the priesthood has climbed past $1 billion, according to tallies by American bishops and an Associated Press review of known settlements.
And the figure is guaranteed to rise, probably by tens of millions of dollars, because hundreds more claims are pending.
Dioceses around the country have spent at least $1.06 billion on settlements with victims, verdicts, legal fees, counseling and other expenses since 1950, the AP found. A $120 million compensation fund announced last week by the Diocese of Covington, Ky., pushed the figure past the billion-dollar mark.
A large share of the costs - at least $378 million - have been incurred in just the past three years, when the crisis erupted in the Boston Archdiocese and spread nationwide.
The Rev. Thomas Doyle, who left a promising career with the church to help represent victims, had warned the bishops in 1985 that abuse costs could eventually exceed $1 billion.
"Nobody believed us," said Doyle, a canon lawyer. "I remember one archbishop telling me, `My feeling about this, Tom, is no one's ever going to sue the Catholic Church."
Asked about the figure, a spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, said church leaders believe the payouts "should be just to all sides." He said victims deserve compensation, but the church must also have enough money to continue serving parishioners.
The bishops are set to meet in Chicago next week to review their plan for protecting youngsters.
The exact financial effect on the church is hard to determine, since each diocese owns property separately and settles cases on its own. Insurance policies cover some costs, but policies differ across the country. And in many places, the coverage has run out.
Also, many dioceses already had money problems before the scandal hit, because of rising labor costs, maintenance for old churches and other expenses, said Charles Zech, an economics professor at Villanova University who studies church finances.
However, the church avoided one financial hit: A feared widespread boycott by donors never happened, Zech said. The number of donors has fallen in the past few years, but the amount contributed overall has held steady, he said.
Still, some of the damage is plain.
The Boston Archdiocese and several others have agreed to sell property to cover their multimillion-dollar settlements. Three dioceses - Portland, Ore., Tucson, Ariz., and Spokane, Wash. - have filed for bankruptcy, and more are expected to follow.
The billion-dollar cost to the church does not come close to other major legal settlements in recent years. The tobacco industry, for example, has agreed to hundreds of billions of dollars in payouts.
The AP calculated the price from settlement announcements by dioceses and from reports commissioned by the nation's bishops, including a study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of claims from 1950 to 2002. Victims' groups believe the church reports have underestimated the total cost.
Among religious groups confronting abuse, the Catholic Church is the only one to release settlement figures covering decades. But experts believe that Catholics have paid more to victims than any other denomination. Researchers commissioned by the bishops found more than 11,500 abuse claims against priests since 1950.
Catholics disagree over whether the church is being forced to pay too much for its failures.
Barbara Blaine, founder of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, noted that most recent agreements have been reached before trial - a sign, she said, that bishops know the true scope of the wrongdoing and are trying to minimize the cost.
"That the settlements could go that high shows us the seriousness of the harm and the cover-up," Blaine said.
But defense attorneys say public opinion has moved so far against the church that the bishops have little choice. Several states extended the statutes of limitation for suing over the abuse; California abolished the time restriction for one year, leading to hundreds of new claims that have yet to be resolved.
Patrick Schiltz, an attorney who has defended many dioceses in abuse cases, agreed that bishops have a moral obligation to pay victims but said the size of the settlements is "getting out of hand."
The Covington fund is the biggest settlement so far. Last December, the Diocese of Orange, Calif., agreed to pay $100 million to 87 victims. In 2003, the Boston Archdiocese settled with 552 victims for $85 million.
"It's because of the media coverage," said Schiltz, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. "The thumb is heavily on the scale against the church."
Schiltz said he disagreed with Catholics who contend that many of the newer claims are fake. But he said weaker cases that once would have been thrown out of court are probably succeeding.
Despite the rising cost to the church, advocates say the majority of victims never sue.
"Victims want to feel as though their experience is valued, helping the church understand the problem so that it will never happen again," said Sue Archibald, head of the victim advocacy group The Linkup. "With lawsuits it's, `Here's your money, now go away.'"
****************
Otto: This is intense!
Miller: The life of a repo man is always intense.
[deleted]
I wonder if it were your children abused by the priests if you would be babbling all this racist garbage. I only hope you never find yourself in the position these men and their families had to endure. I swa God bless the Jews or whomever brought this to the screen. It is a story that needed to be told.
share