New graphic torture photos from Iraq

January 7, 2007 @ Michael Hampton → 69 Comments

On Saturday, a source in the Army in Baghdad was able to find a computer with functioning e-mail and sent out eight shocking images of U.S. troops doing unspeakable things to Iraqi citizens. After carefully reviewing the images, I am convinced there is a compelling public interest in publishing the images.

Parents are cautioned that these images, as the source who obtained the photos said, “are graphic and may cause a physical reaction.”

Documented in these eight images are the activities of various civil affairs forces. Ostensibly in Iraq to help Iraqis rebuild their civilization, these images make clear that that isn’t all they’ve been doing.

This sort of thing is not what I usually cover here, but I felt the images were important enough to bring to the world’s attention.

Soldier Attempts to Eat Iraqi Child

Clear Evidence of Forced Labor by Troops

Iraqis Grateful That American Forces Did Not Open Fire During Soccer Game

GI Forces Iraqi Child To Hang By Fingertips

Armed American Troops Force Iraqis To See-Saw Until They Talk!

Iraqi Child Bites GI In Self Defense After Obvious Torture

GI Falls Asleep On Duty While Using Iraqi Child As Body Armor

GI Overheard To Say "Talk or I'll tickle you until you pee!" . . . More Evidence Of Failed U.S. Intelligence Policy
GI Overheard To Say “Talk or I’ll tickle you until you pee!” . . .
More Evidence Of Failed U.S. Intelligence Policy

I’ll say again that it’s no secret that I was opposed to the Iraq war from the start. It may have been the right thing to do, but it was entered into for reasons we now know to be wrong. And as these images show, the situation in Iraq is growing ever more desperate every day. Something needs to be done about this, and soon.

Share this story:

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Loading ...

69 Comments → “New graphic torture photos from Iraq”

Michael Hampton
Jan 07, 2007
It seems some people are reading this article and finding themselves confused. If you’re one of them, I would suggest further reading to help clarify the matter.
See also my previous commentary on Iraq.
Reply
Rick
Jan 07, 2007
Absolutely brilliant dude! LOVE IT!
Reply
Digitier
Jan 07, 2007
Funny :)
Reply
Me
Jan 07, 2007
The caption on #4 should be:
GI forces child to pull his finger, initiating chemical gas attack.
Reply
Joe American
Jan 07, 2007
If the liberal media slanted things a bit differently overall and printed things like this on a regular basis in addition to body counts, we would look at the war much more differently…
Reply
Angry Nation
Jan 07, 2007
wow, I guess this clears everything up. Is the “Surge” that we are hearing actually a plan to send more troops so we can tickle torture the “evil doers.” Also, I’d like to ask the ones that have been tortured unnecessarily if they agree with your “Satire”
Freedom isn’t free!
Reply
tdawnaz
Jan 07, 2007
this just made my day…thanks so much…really warmed my heart…thx shugarbabie…luv ya
Reply
funkfunk
Jan 07, 2007
It’s so fucking disrepsectful to the real victims of torture that this kind of posts are posted.
But of course you don’t mind because you live in your McDreamland and you are not the one being tortured.
Reply
Brian Boyko
Jan 07, 2007
The problem is that 10,000 troops & kids photos don’t make up for a single torture photos – just as 10,000 troops who don’t torture don’t make up for a single U.S. soldier/CIA agent who does.
The effect of the joke here is that it really downplays the real torture that goes on. No one objects to soldiers being photographed with kids (unless of course the photograph was a manipulation of reality intended to alter public opinion of the war… but that’s another discussion) but the problem is that equating this good as a counterbalance to the real torture that goes on is a matter of skewed priorities.
Reply
Charles Stricklin
Jan 07, 2007
And to think I was actually worried for a moment as I clicked the link! :)
Reply
Mike N.
Jan 07, 2007
I have lost all respect for this blog.
Reply
Thomas Frechette
Jan 07, 2007
perhaps scenes like these should be seen more often, as joe American says…but hey, joe American, let’s drop the pretense that the media is ‘liberal’. the american mainstream media is wholly owned by corporations, whose motivations are far from ‘liberal’. i think that meme has been discredited some time ago…
Reply
Mike N.
Jan 07, 2007
It appears this blog is owned by corporations as well. War is very profitable.
Reply
Scott
Jan 07, 2007
Apparently some people here don’t understand what satire is and are getting worked up over these horrible images.
I guess it just goes to show that some people are not interested in seeing some of the good things that happen in the world and would much rather coutinue to be force fed the B.S. the mainstream media is giving them.
Very nicely “executed” Michael (I’m probably going to get sh*t for that pun)
Reply
shorty114
Jan 07, 2007
S-A-T-I-R-E
Everyone hear that? If not I’ll be glad to type it again…
Reply
contrarian
Jan 07, 2007
How old are these photographs? I bet they’re all from 2003 or maybe 2004, if not from the 1990’s gulf war.
Reply
forstand
Jan 07, 2007
Great. I like these pictures. Thanks.
Reply
Oliver Crangle
Jan 07, 2007
“White Man’s Burden”
Reply
Us n Them
Jan 08, 2007
These pictures are truly heart warming, and show our troops as we all want to believe they represent us abroad.
But to make light of a heinous crime is to excuse it. Was that your objective?
There were real victims there, who suffered horribly at the hands of troops dressed just like the ones in your cutsie-pie shots. They’re not laughing.
This matter deserves solemn dignified redress, not tongue-in-cheek satire.
I hope no American finds this funny.
Reply
Rob
Jan 08, 2007
I have to agree with “Us n Them”, Michael. I don’t often find myself disagreeing with you, but as I looked at the “cute” photos I couldn’t help thinking that your presentation trivializes the many truly horrible things that “our” troops have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
T’ain’t funny, McGee.
Reply
BelchSpeak
Jan 08, 2007
What? Halliburton is building playgrounds? No fun for oil!
Reply
Jan 08, 2007
Is government evil? - Homeland Stupidity
Reply
Jan 08, 2007
doOb-blog
Reply
Anonymous
Jan 09, 2007
” Outstanding”
Reply
Dave
Jan 10, 2007
Excellent! (I love response #4!)
Reply
Q
Jan 10, 2007
I’ve seen some interesting personal photo’s on a computer i repaired, it belonged to a marine who just came home. it had a lot of photos with him like that, and some pretty nasty thing’s written over the photos in a paint program mostly ignorant racial crap.
Reply
James Babb
Jan 10, 2007
Having troops give out candy puts children at risk.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/13/iraq.main/
Those soldiers should go home and play with their own kids.
Reply
Nixer6
Jan 12, 2007
Thanks Michael, enjoyed that.
However… we seem to have some really sad people here, who no doubt spend their lives finding the dark cloud in every silver lining.
Brightened my day. :)
Reply
chris
Jan 15, 2007
#25 james:
i would suggest that the terrorist driving the car full of explosives is the one that put the children in danger…
and all of the people above that go on and on about the “torture” the only documented events I’ve seen of torture happened 4-5 years ago… In fact the latest reports im hearing from gitmo is saying that not only do the detainees get to be interrogated while sitting in la-z-boys… but in return for their cooperation, they get to watch movies… im hearing that harry potter is one of their favorites
bringing up acts that were committed by a small few groups of people in the very early days of this war is like blaming the drug problems of a poor black neighborhood on lynchings that happened in the 1960’s
Reply
Jake
Jan 18, 2007
Haha, I’m in the army, and I just got back. Imagine how it feels to be called baby killer and the like while when I was in Iraq I did just this. It’s actually very painful, when you see these kids with nothing left. You feel like you need to do whatever you can for these poor kids. So you do. Then you come back and are cursed at, at times assaulted, being called a baby killer? By your “own people”?
Anyways, this was funny. I can tell you that I appreciated the humor in it. But then again, maybe eating all those kids has done something to my sense of humor.
Reply
Jake
Jan 18, 2007
(when I said just this, I meant I played with them, gave them food, that sort of thing. Not killed them.)
Reply
peter1589
Jan 23, 2007
Mr. Hampton:
THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!
I haven’t had such tears of joy on my face since my kids were born. To see how exquisite the love is in the hearts of our troops to cherish and protect these children makes me proud to be an American.
To read the comments and see how foul the belief system is in the hearts of merciless liberals who support abortion, homosexuality and all the other labyrinthial credos of Liberalism, who seek still to find error in and contempt for our American troops all the while holding Islam and its historically, invariably fascist belief systm up upon an ivory tower of inviolable sanctuary makes me absolutely want to puke.
Is it any wonder the Feminist, Homosexual, Abortion/Birth Control modern Nazis find contempt with the love a US solder shows toward a chlid? After all, it isn’t Eros, the only “love” a liberal can conceive of, and if it’s Philos or Agape it’s to be held in absolute contempt. O liberals, Thy Will Be Done, eh?
God love our troops for understanding love which the Islamic fascists cannot embrace, only sending children to their graves by incessant car bombings and murders.
THANK GOD FOR OUR TROOPS!!! THANK GOD FOR GEORGE W. BUSH!!
Reply
James Babb
Jan 23, 2007
Thanks for helping us forget how many children were blown to bits via shock-and-awe. Passing out candy makes the occupation seem like Sesame Street.
Reply
peter1589
Jan 23, 2007
Ah, James Babb, will we never see the end of the blame against our soldiers from liberals, all the while you myopic baby killers via abortion decry American soldier snd, as usual and as always, fail to mention the car bombing Islamic fascists tearing Iraq completely apart. You even want one with an Islamic name (who never knew his father!) to be the nest president. Won’t you be happy when the edge of the Islamic sword is at your neck? I was on Wall Street when the first bomb went off at the World Trade Center. I’ve seen it up close and personal. When are you leftwingers EVER going to learn from history? Can we expect even that from folks like you who believe abortion has nothing to do with murdering a completely human life? Blind, blind, blind, and then they all fall into the pit!
Reply
Don
Jan 23, 2007
just read Peter’s comments and talk about someone blind and with issues. dude WAKE UP, you just said it yourself when the first BOMB went off…hmmmmmmm as a desert storm vet thinking i ( we ) was in the right only to find out ….we wasnt….you along with this adminastration need alot of
HELP
Reply
peter1589
Jan 24, 2007
Dear Don:
What you don’t realize is how deeply into the media driven stew of sinfullness you and virtually all of Seattle is. Me, wake up? Please! See if you can comprehend this:
“The subjection of faith to the sciences: technological, economic and social progress is self evident now. This conflict is now in the open. The morals of the Catholic Church based on Divine Law are intrinsically hostile to this subjection of faith to the principle: â€˜whatever can be done will be done â€“ whether it should be done or not.â€™ Across the lines of this conflict, the substitution of man for God becomes clearer every day.”
See http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/ for the full article, which is spellbinding.
The Blessed Virgin has stated in Fatima that war is punishment for sins. Why, then, *NOT* 9/11 and Iraq, with the wholesale slaughter of innocents going on within our midst? We are being punished for our sins, “Dude,” as you say. Pray the Rosary.
Reply
Don
Jan 25, 2007
For 1 thing, I am NOT catholic and there is only 1 divine presence I pray to, That would be my lord GOD thru Jesus. You are talking about moprals of the catholic church? Do you not see the sickening abuse of your priests and little boys?
You seriously need help, I will pray for you.
Reply
Peter1589
Jan 26, 2007
Dear Don:
YOU, CATHOLIC? PUHLEEEEEEEEEZE!!! Should we expect such in liberal Seattle? You’re just another cog in the gigantic wheels in the rusting machinery of PROTEST-antism. No wonder you despise the only Church which Christ and the Holy Ghost instituted at Pentecost. And wasn’t it our beloved Christ who also stated that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? Well, what on earth should we expect from Christ’s church on earth? NOT to be embroiled from age to age in every sort of infamous test of Her integrity?
What is one to PREVAIL AGAINST if it doesn’t constitute spiritual WARFARE?
Which “church” do you belong to? Luther’s Lutheran church? Wesley’s Methodist church? Knox’s Presbyterian church? Smith’s Mormon church? Calvin and Zwingli’s reformation and counter-reformation mess of the Swiss church? Go here http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb4.htm and see if you can find the origins of whichever christian “faith” you belong to. Then maybe you can conceive of the sickening abuse of salvation sola scripturaists have made through their “what’s in it for MEEEEEEE???” theological methodology.
Sickening abuse of children, is it? And this isn’t happening all over the place? Read any stories lately about that satanically possessed piece of garbage Joseph E. Duncan III or the black Seattle choir director just found guilty of pedophilia yesterday? Why no protest on your part against secularism, where such deviance is far more prevalent than in the Catholic Church? Oh, sorry, I forgot, itâ€™s ALL the Catholic Churchâ€™s fault, never the protestor. And if not the Church, then surely George W. Bush is to blame. This *is* Seattle, after all, right?
In case you weren’t aware of it, the Catholic Church understands that sin pervades all of society, even within Its own communities. That’s WHY there exists the Sacrament of Penance. That’s WHY Christ said to forgive 70 times 7 times per day. That’s WHY Christ told Peter he would deny Him three times during His passion. That’s WHY Peter was ashamed.
You think a Church which Christ instituted under those explicit conditions should be PERFECT?
No, “Dude,” itâ€™s warfare. Did you behave perfectly throughout your warfare experiences in Iraq? Win every battle? Never find an enemy which could infiltrate and snipe and bomb and ambush our American soldiers?
Of course there’s scandal in the Church. Christ even said so. To Peter himself, Christ stated, “16:23. Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.” Christ calling Peter “satan,” and then later in His Mercy telling Peter, “21:14. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead.
21:15. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
21:16. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
21:17. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him:
Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
Feed my sheep… Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.
You’re scandalized by some faggots who got into the ranks of the Church to discredit Her? So has Satan worked for 2000 years, “Dude,” this ain’t nuthin’ new! We still have a TON of holy priests who spend their lives saving souls, giving us the Life-giving Bread from Heaven, Christ Jesus Himself, hearing our confessions and giving us absolution, praying morning, noon and night, and providing all the 7 Sacraments which Christ Himself instituted and which NONE of the disparate, confused, self-justifying PROTEST-and churches have.
In short, the entire world is in the grip of Satan Himself, but the Catholics are the SPECIAL target, because WE HAVE ALL THE SACRAMENTAL WEAPONS needed for salvation, and so Satan targets priests for this purpose and this purpose only: TO DENY ALL LIVING CREATURES FROM THE LIFE-GIVING BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF CHRIST JESUS SOLELY FOUND IN HOLY COMMUNION. Once that is achieved, satan will believe his work has been consummated.
But we’ve read the book. We win in the end.
Pray to Mary. Her pleas were the catalytic event which spurred Christ’s heart to engender His first miracle at Cana, remember? Don’t diss God’s Mother (Luke 1:41-43). Unless you can take eternal fire and the worm which doesn’t die. Trust me, “Dude,” it exists. God took away the veil for me and showed me. It is beyond the ability of human comprehension and senseless to try to convey to the worldly.
The Catholic Church has the answer. Come home, before it’s too late.
Reply
Geoffrey Sneddon
Jan 26, 2007
The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Gospel according to Luke, 10:25-37) tells the story of a Samaritan â€“ hated by those from Judea and Galilee â€“ helping a man who has been robbed. This is after he is asked “who is my neighbour?”, in the context of “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).
Why must we hate one another? Why can we not coexist in peace? Why need we argue about Catholicism and Protestantism? The Bible teaches tolerance, and peace, why must you act aggressively?
Reply
Don
Jan 26, 2007
I was’nt argueing about anyone, church organisation, or thing! I have my belief and unless otherwise provoked i have no intention of retaliation, I just informed the man that i wasnt catholic and i dont pray a rosary or whatever, he got bent out of shape. I will still pray for him or anyone else for that matter.
Reply
peter1589
Jan 28, 2007
Why must we hate one another? Who “hates?” Did your dad hate you when he whipped your butt for being bad? Did your teachers hate you when they gave you less of a grade than you thought you deserved?
Perhaps the traffic cop hated you when you broke the law? Perhaps the drill sergeant hated you when he drove you to within a micrometer of your sanity with his screaming and belittling of you? Or did it serve a higher purpose? Perhaps the survival of both you and your platoon??
If liberalism and the uncritical embrace of all the secular deviations which have unleashed a maelstrom of sociological disasters over the last 40 years (widespread destruction of the family, children completely unattended in the home, STD profligation galore, homosexuals dying by the tens of thousands in the AIDS pandemic, etc. ad nauseum) are merely the “cost of doing business” in the spiritual life which you, Geoffry, apparently embrace as “Christianity,” then please explain why Christ stated the following two explicit expressions:
A) 7:13. Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.
7:14. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!
and
B) 7:21. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
7:22. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?
7:23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
We are to “deny ourselves, take up our Cross daily, and follow the Christ,” are we not?
And if Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God Incarnate, explicitly states a commandment which mere humans take dispute, then can it not be said that such a person is the one He cited in the above quotation as yowling, “Lord! Lord!” and has consequently failed to comprehend Holy Scripture’s explicit dictates?
Why do I say the Catholic Church has the answer? Very simple; the Bible tells me so:
The Gospel According to John
6:22. The next day, the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other ship there but one: and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone.
6:23. But other ships came in from Tiberias, nigh unto the place where they had eaten the bread, the Lord giving thanks.
6:24. When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping and came to Capharnaum, seeking for Jesus.
6:25. And when they had found him on that other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
6:26. Jesus answered them and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled.
6:27. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.
6:28. They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?
6:29. Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.
6:30. They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew that we may see and may believe thee? What dost thou work?
6:31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
6:32. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
6:33. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world.
6:34. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.
6:35. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
6:36. But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not.
6:37. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
6:38. Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me.
6:39. Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.
6:40. And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son and believeth in him may have life everlasting. And I will raise him up in the last day.
6:41. The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
6:42. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he: I came down from heaven?
6:43. Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves.
6:44. No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And I will raise him up in the last day.
Draw him… Not by compulsion, nor by laying the free will under any necessity, but by the strong and sweet motions of his heavenly grace.
6:45. It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father and hath learned cometh forth me.
6:46. Not that any man hath seen the Father: but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father.
6:47. Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life.
6:48. I am the bread of life.
6:49. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead.
6:50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
6:51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
6:52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
6:53. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
6:54. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Except you eat – and drink, etc… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall liver for ever.
6:55. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
6:56. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
6:57. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
6:58. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
6:59. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
6:60. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
6:61. Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
6:62. But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
6:63. If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
If then you shall see, etc… Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.
6:64. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
The flesh profiteth nothing… Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth manâ€™s flesh, that is to say, manâ€™s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christâ€™s flesh had profitedus nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. Are spirit and life… By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.
6:65. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him.
6:66. And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
6:67. After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
6:68. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
6:69. And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
6:70. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
6:71. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil.
6:72. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.
The Gospel of Matthew
26:26. And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body.
This is my body… He does not say, This is the figure of my body – but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body; but absolutely, This is my body: which plainly implies transubstantiation.
26:27. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Drink ye all of this… This was spoken to the twelve apostles; who were the all then present; and they all drank of it, says St. Mark 14. 23. But it no ways follows from these words spoken to the apostles, that all the faithful are here commanded to drink of the chalice; any more than that all the faithful are commanded to consecrate, offer and administer this sacrament; because Christ upon this same occasion, and at the same time, bid the apostles do so; in these words, St. Luke 22. 19, Do this for a commemoration of me.
26:28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Blood of the new testament… As the old testament was dedicated with the blood of victims, by Moses, in these words: This is the blood of the testament, etc., Heb. 9. 20; so here is the dedication and institution of the new testament, in the blood of Christ, here mystically shed by these words: This is the blood of the new testament, etc.
26:29. And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.
Fruit of the vine… These words, by the account of St. Luke 26:22. 18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.
First Corinthians
10:16. The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
Which we bless… Here the apostle puts them in mind of their partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacred mysteries, and becoming thereby one mystical body with Christ. From whence he infers, ver. 21, that they who are made partakers with Christ, by the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament, must not be made partakers with devils by eating of the meats sacrificed to them.
10:17. For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.
Geoffry, I find it most interesting you cite the Parable of the Good Samaritan. For the Jewish lawyer who poses the difficulty to Christ was, after all, seeking to justify himself, wasn’t he? Just like every PROTEST-ant who refuses to listen to the very Church which defined and gave them the Bible in the first place.
And just like every PROTEST-ant who willfully denies himself and herself of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, exactly as it was practiced in the early Church, exactly as St. Paul unexceptionally explains it, and exactly as Holy Mother Church still practices it today, 2000 years later, no matter the widespread infiltration of Hunthausen’s minions throughout the diocese responsible for innumerable sexual assaults against minor the past 40 years and still to be found in St. James today, will be among those who cry out, â€œLord, Lordâ€ at Judgment. Drop by sometime, see what I mean. At least our good Bishop is trying to do something about finally. Thank God for him!
Oh, by the way, ever notice how Rock ‘n Roll pertains to the Catholic Church? Peter the Rock; roll being a bread substance? Doesn’t Satan have a great sense of humor? Charles Manson (Son of Man backwards?).
Yeah, let’s drop our guards in the spiritual warfare of life and be “inclusive” to allow any deviation of theology its day in the Catholic pulpit, why don’t we? I know of at least a couple of “Catholic” parishes in Seattle where Radical Feminist Lesbians give the homilies. Some Holy Tradition, that, eh? Yeah, let’s get along with one another, since, after all, the road is narrow and few there are that find it, right?
Let’s not listen to Jesus in the least but, just like that Jewish lawyer in your parable, seek to justify ourselves, suspend all sense of what constitutes sin, never confess our faults and, like most Catholics in Seattle, go to Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin, not having anywhere near sufficient priests to hear confession these days.
And, shucks, just like some divorced Catholics I know who never got their marriages annulled, they just go to parishes where they aren’t known and receive there, as if Christ wasn’t knowledgeable of the state of their souls. What’s God know, after all, eh?
Isn’t if just the height of Seattle liberalism for guys like Don to say “I have my belief” as if Christianity is a smorgasbord of personal tastes? Gee, I wonder why St. Paul was so insistent about self chastisement?
4:8. In all things we suffer tribulation: but are not distressed. We are straitened: but are not destitute.
4:9. We suffer persecution: but are not forsaken. We are cast down: but we perish not.
4:10. Always bearing about in our body the mortification of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodies.
4:11. For we who live are always delivered unto death for Jesusâ€™ sake: that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh.
4:12. So then death worketh in us: but life in you.
9:27. But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.
I chastise, etc… Here St. Paul shews the necessity of self-denial and mortification, to subdue the flesh, and its inordinate desires.
\\\\
Well, God forbid filthy rich Seattle should chastise itself or do penance, when the Seattle Stranger has double duty personal columns, the “Love Lab” and the “Lust Lab.” What kind of Paulian penance can we do when gratification of the flesh is the order of the day in Liberal Seattle where lesbians rule the pulpit and fornication rules the newspapers and drugstore condom racks? Great education for all those 13 and 14 year old girls dancing with 50-something guys at the local raves, all juiced up with Ecstasy and all, right? Cause the Bible teaches tolerance, right?? Sure it does!
Because after the no-nonsense chastisement Christ blessed me with (an inexpressibly horrifying, furiously murderous, dripping with supernatural rage voice swearing to kill my family) while praying the Rosary in NYC one night, hey, I should just keep my mouth shut, right?
Darn, except for that one little thing Christ also commanded of me in the Bible, “10:27. That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops.”
There *IS* A HELL, FOLKS. And Jesus, if anything, grossly understated the matter in Holy Writ. Exactly as all the saints have stated, “Words cannot convey,” “I cannot do verbal justice to the experience,” “I write only out of obedience, for nothing can adequately express the horrors of Hell, and those for all eternity.” Just read St. Don Bosco’s dreams, St. Faustina Kowalska, St. Josefa Menendez, St Theresa of Avila, or any of scores of other saints to whom God has gifted the reality of hell as He did to me.
And unless we confess our sins, convert to Catholicism, do penance, forswear our sins, and eat the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in Holy Mass WORTHILY (as if that is possible in Liberal Seattle!!), then this city will have a great deal more to worry about very shortly than just “3 days, 3 ways” as the coming chastisement encroaches on our parties!!
You think a power outage of the brevity we experienced during the last wind storm was difficult?? Ooooo, just wait, kids, just wait. Our fornications are bringing down fire from heaven upon us, and whether itâ€™s an asteroid or fireballs from Rainier, this town is going to be toast. Thanks, fornicators, thanks liberalism, thanks homosexuals. Think the tsunami that woke up Scandinavian fornicators down in Thailand was a wake-up? Think Katrina wiping much of Louisiana and Mississippi off the map was for no reason, given the exponential increase of murders in New Orleans this year? Don’t think the devil exists???
Oh, man, is he laughing at Seattle tonight!!
Reply
Don
Jan 28, 2007
I am not from Seattle! never been there in my LIFE, you dont know what i do to worship my god, to ask forgiveness, to bless me, to bless others. Judge NOT lest YEE be judged, is that not also in the holy bible? What year did your * church * start? When was we suppose to stop doing god’s commandments? all 10 of them? Remember the sabbath and keep it holy, do we forget that? It was a catholic that started the 1st day of the week worshiping, Jesus and the apostiles all worshiped on the sabbath and kept it holy.
Lets just use the part of the bible that suits us right? wrong
Reply
peter1589
Jan 29, 2007
Don:
Do I understand correctly from your comments concerning the “sabbath” that you are a Jehovah’s Witness?
Reply
peter1589
Jan 29, 2007
Sorry, I meant Seventh Day Adventist? If so, read this:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902fea1.asp
Reply
Don
Jan 29, 2007
No I am a CHRISTIAN, I do not believe in organised religon, the head of my church is jesus, now let it BE
Reply
Peter1589
Jan 29, 2007
If you do not believe in “organised [sic] religion,” then how can you believe in a “church”?
Don’t forget that Christ established a visible Church and the Biblical text is quite explicit in that regard, as is history.
Please forgive me for not letting it be, but I have some kind of perverse curiosity in the PROTEST-ant mind as to how it continuously stands in abject defiance against Christ’s teachings and justifies itself. And why not? At its root is the term “PROTEST”. What else shall we expect?
Sort of exactly how the Jewish lawyer, testing Jesus in the above-mentioned Parable of the Good Samaritan from Geoffrey, sought to justify himself.
Remember, many are those who cry “Lord, Lord” will be turned away at Judgment due to the fact they would not submit to all of His teachings.
And, most prominent among them is the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, exactly as I pointed out above. No Eucharist, no life. Christ’s words, not mine. Can you comprehend this?
Reply
Peter1589
Jan 29, 2007
Oh, yeah, and before I forget, you said something about don’t judge lest ye be judged, correct? I am just wondering how you manage to insist on that when Christ Himself also stated:
18:15. But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
18:16. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
18:17. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18:18. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
18:19. Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.
Here, Christ gives to the disciples exactly the same power He gave to Peter as head of the Church. See the earlier Matthew:16:16. Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
16:17. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
16:18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Thou art Peter, etc… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Upon this rock, etc… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25. The gates of hell, etc… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.
The above paragraph is Catholic commentary found in the Douay Rhimes version, the definitive Bible Itself. Note the invincibility of the Church Christ established. A visible sign for all to see, invincible and, no matter the rebellion against Her by all the sordid variations of the PROTEST-ant theologies (and rapidly disappearing churches/sects thereof as they all, like you, forswear theology for personal interpretation of the Bible, Popes unto themselves), never to be defeated. Think your protestations against Christ’s Only Church will end in success? History clearly teaches otherwise.
Best deny yourself, take up your Cross and follow the Christ, whose teachings come direct from the apostles, since the Bible itself wasn’t even defined until the year 360 or so, and only then by the Magisterium in the Council of Laodicea and the exercise of an act of infallibility by Pope Damasus a little later.
By only accepting the snapshot of theology you embrace, Don, you are totally missing the 2,000 year DVD of the Catholic Church, the one Christ and the Holy Spirit instituted on Pentacost and the one which, given the exercise of chastisement by the Roman Emperors, never should have survived, but yet, against all odds, has survived and still teaches today what She taught in the beginning.
Get on board, dude, you’re missing the entire drama!
Reply
Don
Jan 29, 2007
Who do you believe has more power, Jesus or the catholic church?
Reply
peter1589
Jan 30, 2007
Apparently you chose to ignore the data, so let me reiterate it partially for you:
Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same.
Get it yet? No, I thought not. Trying to upgrade the standard PROTEST-ant into the fullness of the only Church which Christ instituted is like trying to release satan’s grasp on your throat without Holy Water and the Rosary.
So, which Jesus are we discussing here? The One who EXPLICITLY founded the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the self-same wherein St. Peter’s remains were discovered directly under the altar thereof? Or are we discussing Luther’s Christ, Wesley’s Christ, Knox’s Christ, Mary Baker Eddy’s Christ, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Christ, the OH-SO VERY REV. Al Sharpton’s Christ, Zwingling’s Christ . . . WHOSE CHRIST ARE WE DISCUSSING? Your’s, perhaps, to the rejection of any other human being’s Christ throughout 2,000 years. Are you the prime, infallible Director of all things in Christ, or did Christ give that power solely to the Holy Roman Catholic Church when he clearly stated, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Do you have that kind of infallability, oh-unique one in all human history? Or did Christ give that to a CHURCH??
In short, can you read? Or does egoism blind you? Trying to justify yourself? So did the Jewish lawyer, and BOY! Did he get a comeuppance, eh?? Tread softly, Pope Don, tread softly. Eternity is a veeeeeeeeeerrrrrry loooooooooong time.
Reply
Don
Jan 30, 2007
Ego, not me. Faith in my lord God almighty? yes and the only way GOD hears me is thru Jesus’s blood which was shed on Calvary. Faith is the * Rock * and Peter is Peter, an apostle of christ. No where in the holy bible does it say a single WORD about the as you put it. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Thru the ages the * catholic church * has changed so many of the commandments of christ it is amazing. Read this, it is from one of your own.
I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me * PROTESTant…I am a christian, Jesus is the head of my church, not a mortal man.
http://www.biblesabbath.org/confessions.html
I do and will continue praying for you and yours.
blessed are the meek
Reply
peter1589
Jan 30, 2007
Nowhere in the Bible? Are you kidding me???
I just posted a TON of Scripture which totally vindicates the Catholic Church. Christ established a CHURCH with Peter as the ROCK upon which It was founded. NOT A BIBLE TO BE INTERPRETED AS EACH INDIVIDUAL FEELS JUSTIFIED IN DOING THROUGH MERE LIMITED HUMAN “CONSCIENCE.”
Explain, if you will, how the Church has become so totally divided into Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Congregationalism, Unitarianism, Episcopaleianism and all the other innumerable sects EACH OF WHICH WAS STARTED BY A MERE HUMAN BEING EXACTLY AS YOU AND I ARE. Is that NOT “traditions of men?”
Pray, indeed. Pray for Truth, not personal justification. That way lies total condemnation. And unless we eat the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus, we are among those whom Christ will say, “Depart from me, you who work iniquity. I never knew you.”
Reply
peter1589
Jan 30, 2007
Blessed are the meek, indeed. Submit to the Church Christ established and which He is found every hour of the day in each Blessed Sacrament upon each and every Catholic altar. Go to one, sit there and pray for one holy hour. I assure you, He will answer. And it won’t be anything you like, either, but we must submit or die eternally.
While I was lying in subjection before the Blessed Sacrament a couple of months ago, He gave me extreme pressure on my left shoulder, reminding me of how satan does his work on me and his ever present ability to accuse us. He also let my Guardian Angel poke my right shoulder, reminding me of His ever present ability to save through the power of Christ.
Life is warfare. And if you are truly meek, then why can’t you comprehend John 6, instead of disparaging Christ’s words and, like the Jews there, “walk[ed] with him no more?”
Reply
peter1589
Jan 31, 2007
Here, man, you need help. You go to all sorts of PROTEST-ant, defaming sources of theology and no wonder you canâ€™t stand the Church which gave you the Bible! Thatâ€™s how the devil works, and donâ€™t forget it. Divide and conquer. Works every time. Worked with Luther, worked with Wesley, worked with Henry VIII, worked with every single PROTEST-ant who has come down the pike. Did you ever think to read the Roman Catholic Catechism? Hmmmmm?
You read the Bible, which is a book defined by and compiled by Catholic authors working under the Holy Ghost. You have no problem using that, even if you canâ€™t seem to comprehend whatâ€™s on the page, no matter how much I cite to convince you of its unerring Catholocity. Go here to see what the Church says about the Sabbath and the Lordâ€™s Day. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7O.HTM#-29P
Justin Martyr also had the following to say when explaining the Faith to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:
On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.
He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM
Guess what? Itâ€™s EXACTLY what we in the True Church still do today, 2,000 years later. COME HOME!
Reply
scribe
Jan 31, 2007
There are a few things I wish to add to this discussion as peter1589 has placed a formidable argument for the Roman Catholic Church. As one who has studied and gone beyond the English, and Latin for information to support/correct a few items that have been stated here.
First I must ask peter1589 knows if Jesus, speaking to Peter in the passage in Matthew when
it was stated “upon this Rock I will build my church”, did Jesus mean to use the feminine to describe Peter, or was it used to speak about what Peter had said “Thou art the Christ.” (which would indicate a feminine use of the word Rock in the Greek)? When Jesus gives Simon the name Petros, which is meaning more of a piece of a rock (larger than a stone) is different than the next statement of petra which means rock either literally or figuratively. Either way (lit. or fig.) the meaning in Greek points back to the statement that Peter gave about Jesus.
This goes into my next bit about Mary, which was not church Doctrine until the Second Vatican council meeting in its third session in 1964, where it was established as common practice from the beginning of the church. My question is this, while it was discussed before Vatican 2 and treated as something that only certain newer regions (mostly Spnish held areas of the Americas) held as a hold over from their previous beliefs, that it was then decreed as having been common practice? Is the common practice creating the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church? Where tradition, if strong enough becomes doctrine?
This asked I move on to the next area of information. There is much discussion regarding the sabbath and yes the Sabboth relating to Jewish tradition is the last day of the week looked upon as Saturday. This is an entirely different discussion.
peter1589, you often speak of Martin Luther as though he was never apart of the Roman Catholic Church. Although you may know this, he was. He was a monk and had received a Doctorate in Theology through the Roman Catholic Church. Please read through the 95 Theses and see what he was trying to do. He believed that there was much wrong with the church and it needed to be reformed. This meant the obliteration of indulgences, doing away with the veneration of relics. He saw that these did little to draw a person to God, but gave them false hope and line the purses of the Church. The money did go into the Church to pay off the Pope’s debts. The debts were great as they paid off kings and princes and politians. They helped cover the crisis within the Roman Catholic Church. Luther did not want to leave the Roman Catholic Church but to reform it. Perhaps that wasn’t taught in your Catechism classes.
Speaking of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, do you actually eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ? According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church “the Eucharist gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he ‘poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’.” It goes on to talk about how the Eucharist re-presents us the sacrifice of the cross. Thus making present, again, the sacrifice of the cross. Although, you may think this is a bit of symantics, it is important because this indicates that it is a re-crucifiction of Christ. My understanding through everything scriptural (not of tradition) states that Christ died once for all not over and over. I will state that there are many areas of the Eucharist that I do agree with, but this is not one of them as I cannot find any scriptural backing. This part of the Eucharist was a tradition that was established by the Council of Trent in 1562. If this understanding was so wide spread, why did it take so long to establish it as doctrine? Certainly it would have been written about much earlier and would have blotted anything Paul said right out, placed all his writing up for scrutiny and possibly thrown out of the Cannon before this time.
I go by Sola scriptura, and not Solo Verbo Dei, but I think that point should be clear by now. Although, I do know the translation of both of the Latin phrases, their meaning is much more telling.
Sola Scriptura: Srcipture Alone – meaning that doctrine comes from scripture alone, church correction comes from scripture alone, and holds the Bible as the Only authority. This is looking at a very real reading of the words “for I testify together with everyone hearing the words of prophecy of this Book: if anyone adds to these things, God will add upon him the plagues having been written in this Book. And if anyone takes away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and of the things having been written in this Book.” (The Revelation of John 22.17-19.
Solo Verbo Dei: Word of God Alone – meaning that doctrine comes from scripture, additional books, additional material, additional teachings. These additions become tradition and then those traditions become doctrine. This is the background of the Roman Catholic Church.
God can talk to whomever He chooses, how ever he chooses. An example would be Balaam.
Since you do not know me, I do believe in a real Hell and eternal suffering. I also believe in a God that is Biblical, not from Tradition. I do respect the Roman Catholic Church as it kept a firm stance when many of the other churches of the time were beginning to follow a form of heresy. When the Roman Catholic Church fell into a heretical time it refused to reform. It has come a long way since that time period. The Roman Catholic Church was also a strong keeper of the Faith in the Western world. Since the Bishop of Western Church declared separation from the Bishop of Eastern Church, church history as most Americans and western Europeans know it is based on the teachings and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
There is much more that I can say on this subject, but for sake of time, both mine and yours (Don and peter1589), please do your homework before attacking people. Let us respect what eachother has to say (we all come from the same root). Before responding I ask each of you to pray and study what I have said. Don, go out and find a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is an interesting read and the why different churches do what they do can be found. Search it to find out what you truly believe. It is not the Bible. But it will challenge you to think about truth. To get even a better understanding as to where peter1589 is coming from I would also encourage going through the Code of Cannon Law. Yes, peter1589, I have read both and have both on my shelves in my office. peter1589, do your homework before spouting Roman Catholic Church Rhetoric. Learn about where and why of incidences that caused the differences in beliefs. Search for truth as you have stated. Do not be satisfied with only experience. The evil one can and will deceive with experiences. I do not doubt your experiences were real. I only state that you test the spirit that you write in and the spirit that speaks to you. This is also advice to Don. Read over what you write before submitting in haste.
peter1589, please read carefully what you write. When you support with scripture in once instance and then state that scripture should not be interepreted by mere humans in another, it appears like a contradiction. If you are stating Roman Catholic Doctrine then please preface it by saying so. If it is what you believe then it can be seen as your interpretation, I’m not saying that it is at this time. So I ask, for your sake, to please be careful about this as it could get confusing and I wouldn’t want you to overstep your bounds as a Catholic.
I do not claim to be all knowing, but I have studied and continue to do so as any Bible believer should. I can only encourage you both to do the same. Let us pray for each other that God teaches us what we need to learn at this time.
One last thing. I am not from Seattle, nor am I in Seattle. Although, I am rather fond of the weather in Seattle. I am far from Seattle. You all have a great day.
May God grant you both patience and wisdom when speaking, may you have strength to be humble and the wisdom to do what is right in the eyes of God. May God grant you peace in your spirit, mind and body. May God reveal Himself to you through His Word by the power of His Spirit. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Reply
peter1589
Jan 31, 2007
What day of the week do you say Christ rose on?
Reply
scribe
Feb 01, 2007
The book that I was quoting from which is the same name as the website that you pointed to. As per your saying, either the Vatican’s website is incorrect and it should relabel its site immediately to correct the error to read “Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.” or the two documents are the same. Also it appears that website has the same words on it, you just needed to read a little further to the next article. Here is a link to your same site, different page. I give my apologies to you as I did not direct to an online page as I thought you, like me have a copy with you. What I have in print is what you are pointing to online. My copy of Catechism of the Catholic Church has the Libreria Editrice Vaticana as its copyright holder.
I said nothing of what Justin Martyr said, and I did say that I had primarily the one point in the Roman Catholic Eucharist that could not be held up to scripture. The word that is most commonly used is transubstantiation, but I’m sure you are aware of that.
I said nothing about the problem with the keeping of the Sabbath in Christian tradition on Sunday. Even before the it was practiced in the church in Rome it was practiced in the Greek church. The reason for this is that they originally celebrated on through the day on Saturday as was the Jewish custom, then had what Justin Martyr called the eucharist, which was a lengthy meal that began at the beginning of the next Jewish day evening of the Saturday and morning of Sunday. There were also many other reasons to move the day over to Sunday for one it is the day he rose from the grave and as the eating of the bread and . As he was removed from the Cross before the sun went down on Friday (first day) before the Sabbath, then the Sabbath Saturday (second day), then Sunday (third day) It was on the third day that he raised. This is only the most widely used reason for moving liturgical services to Sunday, there are many more.
May God grant you patience and wisdom when speaking, may you have strength to be humble and the wisdom to do what is right in the eyes of God. May God grant you peace in your spirit, mind and body. May God reveal Himself to you through His Word by the power of His Spirit. May God’s grace and mercy overflow onto you and in your life. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Reply
peter1589
Feb 01, 2007
What does the word “eat” mean? Anything about the sense it has in English of “ingestion?”
Reply
peter1589
Feb 01, 2007
Luther wanted a woman, and the princes around him wanted freedom from paying tithes to Rome. What surprise is there in that? Don’t the rich want to avoid taxes? Did you know what the most important reason Bill Gates claimed to be for his being the richest man in the world? His answer was, “a working knowledge of the tax code.” Pure and simple, it’s about how much you keep, not what you make.
Exactly so as it is with grace. First you have to know where it comes from, and next you have to know the rules for maintaing your supply.
Moving on, I’m glad to finally find a protestant who comprehends sufficient information about Christ to realize that the entire reason the Sabbath was moved to Sunday is that we were finally all redeemed at Christ’s resurrection, which occured on Sunday. Maybe Don will grasp it, but I think not. However, hope springs eternally.
I’m very glad you pointed to the next page of the catechism. It also clearly states the “once for all” caveat as being Christ’s plan to be with the Church till the end of time. We Catholics know that at Communion we are literally brought back to Calvary, that the priest’s prayers and hands are supernaturally powerful by the grace of God to break through time and space and take Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity into our mouths and bellies, even if most of us don’t realize that’s what’s happening, in these days of apostasy and liberalism which infects the Church but never kills Her.
The Church has been the battleground for 2 millenia. The protestant churches continue to decay, dilute, “reform,” shrink and disappear until, like Don, one cannot even concede to be a church at all, but only have my own, personal, Savior who fits my idea of what consitutes “religion.”
And, by the way, I don’t put my own interpretation on anything on these pages. I sell the Church’s theology and know it well enough in these matters to represent it perfectly. It came at the VERY high price of God literally yanking me out by the neck of the performing arts and a reprehensibly profligate, concupiscent lifestyle by showing me EXACTLY what I was to become if I didn’t stay clean.
Works cannot convey the terror, the horror, the supernatural murderous fury which the damned exist within, but, God willing, that will be the last time I ever have to suffer. It was a miracle of God I didn’t die of a heart attack at the very sound of something which is so many light years beyond any human comprehension.
So if I seem testy, aggressive or vicious in my rhetoric, please forgive me. I’ve experienced damnation, and I am frantic to see a single soul ever go to that place. Thus, I am impelled. Don’t take it personally.
But if anyone is going to disparage the Holy Roman Catholic Church when throughout its history it has been the victim of one heretical force after another, be it the despots of the Roman Empire, Aryanism, the Goths, the Huns, the Albigensians, the Islamic threat, the PROTEST-ant revolt, the various defects in every human being ever associated with the Church and trying to become holy against the relentless tide of secularism, the invasion of communist agents into the priesthood as clearly evidenced in “AA-1025, the Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle” or the invasion of homosexuals into the priesthood . . . still the Church stands where every protestant sect is busy redefining itself and congregations are disappearing like evaporating water. http://firstchurchseattle.com/
Off topic, slightly, my backsliding wife just rented a little DVD called “Best of Show,” I suppose according to modern taste it would be called “whacky” comedy, but homosexuality is literally dripping from scene after scene, while the straight “relationships” (one can hardly call them anything approaching marriage, classically speaking) are a mockery of human effort.
In the dog show scene, one of the commentators states that one of the judges on the floor had studied to be a priest, but had left the seminary. Laughing, he states, “I bet there’s quite a story there, but that would take an entirely new program!” Ho-ho-ho! Har-dee-har-har!
Slander the Church for its homosexuality since it’s a favorite target anyway, but say nothing about the rampant homosexuality in secular society, since that would be “politically incorrect.” Double standard, anyone? Hypocrisy, anyone? Which is it, bad or good?
Oh, it’s only bad when priests practice it, since there are so many victims created. No victims in secular society by sexual deviates, are there? Take a look at Toronto’s Gay Pride parade pictures sometime if you want to see the truth. Google it. Quite a lesson in where exactly our society is going and why the Muslims really don’t have to fire a shot (not that they can restrain themselves, however). Where’s the problem in subduing a population which has gone theologically belly up, each after his own pet theories? Get the picture? England sure was in the news today, eh?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/31/uk.terror.arrests/index.html
Reply
peter1589
Feb 01, 2007
Oh, and one other thing.
Don’t forget what Satan used in tempting Christ: Holy Writ. OT, of course.
So if you’re depending upon sola scriptura, pay close attention to the divisive power it has when no authority stands to define the interpretation thereof. 38,000 PROTEST-ant sects and counting should be telling enough. But then again, when has Truth ever been strong enough to overcome personal ego and addiction to vice?
Reply
peter1589
Feb 01, 2007
“I also believe in a God that is Biblical, not from Tradition.”
Okay, the Bible wasn’t compiled until 360 or so. What happened to all those Christians who came before? They were fed by the Word, not the Book. Christ commanded the apostles and disciples to TEACH ALL NATIONS, not set up Amazon.com and sell all sorts of individual interpretations!! It was a teaching Church, not a book club.
And what did Christ say about it? Here, read:
14:23. Jesus answered and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word. And my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him.
14:24. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard is not mine; but the Fatherâ€™s who sent me.
14:25. These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you.
14:26. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
Teach you all things… Here the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles and their successors, particularly, in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error.
Exactly so. The Holy Ghost with TEACH YOU ALL THINGS AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR MIND, WHATSOEVER I SHALL HAVE SAID TO YOU. Meaning, in fine, that there is much in the life of Christ and the teachings of the Christ which are not to be found in the Bible. Find the word, “Trinity” therein, for example. It’s not. Yet this is a dogma even found in the name of numerous PROTEST-ant churches.
It’s such an important concept, our Blessed Lord repeats it again in Matthew a second time:
16:12. I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now.
16:13. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you.
Will teach you all truth… See the annotation on chap. 14. ver. 26.
Does He leave it at that? Heck, no! Christ knew that MEN would be TEACHING MEN and that without supernatural guidance heresy would emerge and destroy His work. Do you think He was about to let THAT happen? Hardly! The gates of Hell will never prevail. Which is why Jesus gave infallibility to Peter (whatsoever you bind . . . whatsoever you loose) and his successors so that throughout human history the Truth would never dissipate or evaporate.
Not to say liberalism hasn’t tried, but nope! Just like Justin Martyr’s explanation above, the Catholic Church still behaves in exactly the same manner at Holy Mass, and still teaches EXACTLY what the Apostles taught as they went out at the command of Jesus WITHOUT A BIBLE:
The final statements in Matthew firmly avow this:
28:18. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
All power, etc… See here the warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christâ€™s church. He received from his Father all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power, he sends them (even as his Father sent him, St. John 20. 21) to teach and disciple, not one, but all nations; and instruct them in all truths: and that he may assist them effectually in the execution of this commission, he promises to be with them, not for three or four hundred years only, but all days, even to the consummation of the world. How then could the Catholic Church ever go astray; having always with her pastors, as is here promised, Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. St. John 14.
28:19. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
28:20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
With us in the Eucharist and the Holy Ghost continues to teach the Truth EXACTLY as it was taught 2,000 years ago at Pentacost. NO OTHER CHURCH CAN MAKE THAT CLAIM AND NO HUMAN BEING CAN BE HELD SO IMMUTABLE AND SO INFALLIBLE.
Live with it. Come home!
Reply
scribe
Feb 01, 2007
As for the Biblical question. There was an uncompiled group of letters before that, the bringing about of the cannon, many of the churches had copies (usually only one copy). Considering the churches did have communication with each other to debate the cannon later, they did have the scriptures or else we would not. God taught them through what they had. And so they were fed by the Word of God, once the NT cannon was compiled it should have been added to the cannon of the Jews. Instead it was added to the translation of the Septuagint, which had some added books of historical and traditional teachings. Do I think that those books of historical and traditional teachings that were from Jewish teachings had little or no value? No. Do I think those who were eager to get a translation that was in a common tongue, Latin, decided to go from Greek to Latin, instead of Hebrew to Latin? Yes. From a translators point of view was anything lost? Yes. Were there better resources to the church at that time? This point is debatable. Once in a Roman tongue it was easy to keep control of the scriptures from Rome.
I have a few questions regarding the selling of indulgences and relics. For what reason is an indulgence sold and to whom is it sold? Why were indulgences sold inside churches and in the courtyard of churches? Why did many churches have the same relics? And why were people charged to see them?
Why did some popes become debt laden? Were they unwise, have bad council, or just human?
Peter, too, was human. He and Paul did not agree about the gentiles. Then the Lord showed Peter where he had erred. Peter was not perfect, yet he built on what Jesus had said and the churches that Paul had started in Greece and Rome. I’m not saying Paul was without any faults.
We all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. This includes all the teachers that came before us. This includes you and me.
As for as my issues with the Roman Catholic Eucharist, it would come down to transubstansiation. Extrapolate on that please.
Luther had resigned himself to never marry. After he had been removed from the Roman Catholic Church he did marry, and his wife actually proposed to him. Luther never asked to be separate from the Roman Catholic Church. He wanted to get rid of the corruption. Is that bad? Is that why people are excommunicated in anathama? I haven’t read such things coming out of Vatican 2, but there has been some change between Luther’s time and now. I have not been to Rome, but I don’t think that there are places for Cardinals and Archbishops and Priests to go for the things that Luther was writing against. There cannot be any denying that priests, Cardinals, bishops and even popes had mistresses and families (mind you this was not everyone, and this was not all at the same time, but during Luther’s time is was very wide spread especially in Rome). Luther was writing against this. Was he wrong to do so? Because these were practices that were political and pervasive in the Roman Catholic Church at that time, the church was against him. Yes, he stated what Paul stated, when talking about people who could not keep from wanting a woman, he said let them marry so that they do not fall into sin. Is this wrong? A celebate clergy is not ever called for in the Bible. I can only recommend reading books that are out there. Yes there are the books that raise Luther to more than a man. There are people who raise Luther to be more than a man. I am not one of these people. I have read what he wrote and look at his views from the context that he wrote them. I can only suggest you do the same. Intellectual respect is all I’m asking for.
I don’t think that any church can make that claim period. If the Truth would be taught exactly as it was taught 2000 years ago there would be some major differences. And I don’t just mean the fashion of the age.
Considering many churches make the same claim about the lineage of pastors, this is rather weak. There are many reasons for others to make the claim. I do not have time at this moment to go into them all, and I ask that you forgive me.
One last question set. Can a Christian exist outside of the Roman Catholic Church? Can a True church exist outside the Roman Catholic Church? Should the Roman Catholic Church translate Catholic to the more easily understood Universal? The last one can be answered no and I would not find fault as the current debate is going. Lastly, do you pray to the pope? ( I ask this because of my experience with Roman Catholics in different areas of the world )
May God grant you patience and wisdom when speaking, may you have strength to be humble and the wisdom to do what is right in the eyes of God. May God grant you peace in your spirit, mind and body. May God reveal Himself to you through His Word by the power of His Spirit. May Godâ€™s grace and mercy overflow onto you and in your life. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Reply
fivefoot
Feb 02, 2007
I have 2 tours in I raq and 1 in Afghanistan. I remeber helping people more than anything they wanted our help I was no fobbitt I spent everyday on the roads chasing bad guys but I remember always bringing supplies in my gun truck for kids and medical supplies for families people should be worried about the USA i felt safer in those streets than some of the ones we have here The war protesters make me laugh. When the battle was taken to the home of the insurgency they were made safe. When we stop the war will be here in our back yards they wont be in such a hurry to protest when the terrorist might attack them. Anti war protesters really dont see the big picture, So when all the liberal war protesters get into trouble here dont worry I’ll be here to protect your stupid asses once again
Reply
peter1589
Feb 04, 2007
Scribe:
Your first paragraph deals with the persistent sentiments you have towards Sola Scriptura. I’ve dealt with that extensively in the post just previous to yours, so apparently your bias toward it is invulnerable to intellectual appeal. I’ll let God hold you responsible for that at Judgment. However, if you go to http://www.stjosephradio.org/liveradio.html and there is a small link at the top which reads, ”
Listen to archived “St. Joseph Radio Presents” programs on EWTN” If you go there, and scroll down to No. 25, you can read the BRILLIANT analysis of the fallacy of “sola scripture” as clearly analyzed by one of the greatest gifts of God to the Catholic Church, Dr. Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister turned Catholic apologist. Do NOT miss this man’s explanation! You will do yourself a grave disfavor if you ignore it.
In your second paragraph, you pose several questions concerning the different topics of “indulgences” and “relics.” Let’s deal with relics, first. You may recall that Christ healed the woman with the hemorrhage simply because she touched his garment. You may also recall in Acts that:
5:15. Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that, when Peter came, his shadow at the least might overshadow any of them and they might be delivered from their infirmities.
5:16. And there came also together to Jerusalem a multitude out of the neighbouring cities, bringing sick persons and such as were troubled with unclean spirits: who were all healed.
So clearly the very shadow of Peter was sufficient for healing. Not to rest with this sole example of intangible matter being capable of delivering grace to those with Faith, allow me to point you toward the following like which deals with relics in far more detail than I have time to muster right now: http://www.catholic.com/library/relics.asp
For indulgences, try this: http://www.catholic.com/library/myths_about_indulgences.asp
In your third, fourth and fifth paragraphs you present economic dangers and temptations. You are quite very correct that we are all sinners. Please allow me to point out that that concept is the very foundation of why PROTEST-ants should never expect perfection from the Church, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED. Peter himself was called the devil by Christ, yet Peter is featured more prominently in Acts and the rest of the Bible than any other apostle. Clearly, there is redemption and salvation available to the penitent sinner. Even Peter. Even you. Even me. Do penance, says the Baptist and says our Blessed Lord at the beginning of their mutual ministries. It is the most important concept of gaining supernatural power, exemplified by Christ’s own clarion statement:
17:16. Then Jesus answered and said: O unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him hither to me.
17:17. And Jesus rebuked him, and the devil went out of him, and the child was cured from that hour.
17:18. Then came the disciples to Jesus secretly, and said: Why could not we cast him out?
17:19. Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain: Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove: and nothing shall be impossible to you.
As a grain of mustard seed… That is, a perfect faith; which in its properties, and its fruits, resembles the grain of mustard seed, in the parable, chap. 13. 31.
17:20. But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.
If you don’t think fasting is penitential, trying living on bread and water every Wednesday and Friday and giving up game playing or TV or the internet or any waste of time which should be applied to our labors. In this consumer society, who then should be saved? Is it any wonder our Blessed Lord stated in Luke 18:
18:1. And he spoke also a parable to them, that we ought always to pray and not to faint,
18:2. Saying: There was a judge in a certain city, who feared not God nor regarded man.
18:3. And there was a certain widow in that city; and she came to him, saying: Avenge me of my adversary.
Avenge… That is, do me justice. It is a Hebraism.
18:4. And he would not for a long time. But afterwards he said within himself: Although I fear not God nor regard man,
18:5. Yet because this widow is troublesome to me, I will avenge her, lest continually coming she weary me.
18:6. And the Lord said: Hear what the unjust judge saith.
18:7. And will not God revenge his elect who cry to him day and night? And will he have patience in their regard?
18:8. I say to you that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?
Our Blessed Lord sounds rather . . . errrmmm . . . disappointed, don’t you think?
Your sixth paragraph requests extrapolation on the topic of transubstantiation. Errrrmmmm . . . I believe that’s all I’ve been doing in previous posts, in particular the combination of citations from John, Matthew and First Corinthians. If that is insufficient, again try Catholic Answers, the Catechism, St. Joseph Radio, EWTN, or, if you really want to hear powerful preaching, Google “Fr. Corapi” and order his products/homilies in either DVD or CD. You can also find him broadcast on EWTN on-line TV, but check the program guide there for times of his broadcasts.
Other good resources would be the writings of Bishop Fulton Sheen or his TV shows from the 1950’s (when he was soundly beating “Uncle Miltie” in the national ratings). In short, stop relying upon the disparate, contradictory, confusing, rebellious and divisive individual writings of avowed PROTEST-ants and read the stuff from the Church Christ and the Holy Ghost established and which gave you the Bible, which you trust implicitly. To ignore everything else the Church offers is flagrantly illogical, if you rely solely upon their canon, even partially.
Your seventh paragraph deals with Luther and the “Reformation,” which “reformation” never seems to settle down to one, unified Truth, now, does it? Don’t the utter confusion, disarray and contradictions inherent in the heresies of PROTESTANT-ism give you any pause?
Anyway, Luther was a total nut case and a really interesting insight on his nature can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm, which is an exhaustive essay on the life and nature of Luther, and which also makes absolutely exhilarating reading.
And, if Luther wanted to “get rid of ‘corruption’,” then why did he add to it by the corruptible practices of the massive disunity and contradictions inherent in sola scriptura? This behavior of rebellion can hardly be said to contribute to unification and Truth. What, after all, *is* the pillar of Truth? The Bible, as you hold? Why then does First Timothy clearly stated:
3:15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The pillar and ground of the truth…. Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry.
THE CHURCH. THE BIBLE SAYS SO. GET IT?
In paragraph 9, you disparage lineage as being an unreliable evidentiary element. Why? Which PROTEST-ant church can directly plot its course directly back to Peter, upon whom Christ imposed the task to “Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep.”? Not to mention the inerrancy Christ bestowed to His Church (singular) by the power of the Holy Ghost to him and the apostles and the disciples of the Church, fully ratified in First Timothy.
Your tenth paragraph pleads for validation as a “Christian.” Can one exist outside of the Catholic Church? Of course not. Christ Himself states it resolutely by solemnly avering, “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, THERE IS NO LIFE WITHIN YOU.” [My stress, of course.] Where can there be transubstantiation save through the power handed down by the bishops of the Church which Christ established at Pentacost to all the priests sent to the “four corners of the earth” to PREACH the Word, baptist the believer, heal them from their sins in the confessional and bestow upon them the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus Truly Present in the Eucharist? The Eucharist, which is the Source, Center and Summit of the Church’s (First Timothy) life. Get Fr. Corapi’s discourse on the subject at http://www.fathercorapi.com/Media/Video/Small/EUCHARISTSmall.wmv
Further, the Catholic Church DOES translate Catholic to mean universal. What other “Christian church” can make the extraordinarly claim of having a world-wide government? I’ll include a web site I’m developing which will deal with this issue at a near-future date. I’ll try to create it tonight and get it posted. When the URL is valid, I’ll leave it here, and I’ll try to get a blog going there as well to further develope the argument for anyone who is interested. Personally, I really enjoy the debate. 2,000 years of success of the Catholic Church during which all other false claims to the throne were summarily dashed to peaces or diluted to the extent of being unrecognizable from their heretical origins is proof enough to know firmly I am on the winning side.
It’s all been established the past 2,000 years. And, if you think the failings of popes and others associated with the Church is sufficient to dismiss It from the field of examination, what then shall we think of PROTEST-ants who have diluted and scandalized their own flocks, such as today’s vast panorama of televangelists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_televangelist_scandals, for starters, eh?
A question for you. How do you confess your sins? And how do you KNOW you are forgiven?
FIVEFOOT: Thank you profoundly for the obvious tender care you provide the citizens of the countries our President has seen fit to send you to. God bless you for your love and care and know there is a massive number of Americans who are deeply proud of you for your selfless contribution, but apologize that we are usually too busy to make any noise about it. After all, somebody’s GOT to work to pay all the taxes the libbies are going to bring down on our heads in order to bring back a welfare state for the indigent, ineducablel and culturally depraved minions who are their voting block . . . at least those who aren’t convicted felons and can only dream of supporting the backsliding morality of liberalism. See http://liberalismisasin.com/ and read at least the first chapter. I’ve read no greater exacting condemnation for the heresy of liberalism than from that hallowed author, Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany. What a genius!
In Christ and praying for your entry into the Kingdom, I remain
Yours truly,
Peter1589
5:8. Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.
5:9. Whom resist ye, strong in faith: knowing that the same affliction befalls, your brethren who are in the world.
Reply
scribe
Feb 04, 2007
As for indulgences I have read what you sent me to. I find it interesting that you continue to send me to sites that are decidedly Catholic, while I continue to work to find sites that are not Catholic or anti-Catholic as here with an image of an indulgence.
I have been working at keeping things intellectually respectable. I have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I also have read a bit about the Orhodox Church. Which interestingly enough orthodox means right thinking. I find this interesting. But that is another tangent in this discussion. The Catechism also talks about the Eastern Church that are recognized as Christians. Again, based on your argument so far I find this difficult to understand how your view stands against the Catechism and Vatican 2. This is really odd.
Further to speak about transubstatiation, you have not done anything other than point me to people who have spoken about it, and have not explained in detail anything except pointing to the Roman Catholic Church web sites, which, intellectually speaking, is a circular argument.
Obviously you don’t seem to agree with Vatican 2 with your statements about christians outside of the Roman Catholic church.
Who do I confess to? I confess to God as was asked to me throughout the Bible. If I have something to confess that requires confession to another I do so.
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1John 1.9.
You ask about Sola Scriptura.
Why does the Roman Catholic Church add so many traditions of man? And then why did they ever allow their own followers to have the Bible in their own languages? Or perhaps that was a mistake, according to your own argument, but then you wouldn’t be able to quote from it unless it was from the Latin.
And as you seem to imply that Peter only preached in Rome and founded the Church there, and that Paul was not there before him and that Peter was only in Israel with Jesus then left for Rome and never did any other work. I find this very strange.
It appears that I am not going to get any intellectual resepct here and so this is aply named homeland stupidity.
To continue this is pointless. You follow blindly, making apparant accusations to things that you assume about me. I had stated earlier that I respect the Roman Catholic Church. All that I was saying in pointing out the problems of different Church officials of the Roman Catholic Church was that they were the ones who have written the documents since the compilation of the original Vulgate (meaning the common tongue) by Jerome, who made mention that the best thing to do would to go back and translate from the Jewish canon, but the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church had already been taken up and refused, essentially said they already had the correct scriptures and were not going to declare they were ever wrong. But we see that 1700 years later, it is still saying the same thing. I find that they had built on the traditions of Hippo and not Rome for the final canon. Perhaps that means the Bishop and church in Rome had not advanced in their claims or they began to lay the foundation to absorb traditions as their own and therefore anyone who did not think exactly like them were absolute and complete heretics, also anyone who thought like them in all but that the Roman Bishop was above all other bishops and the Roman church was above all other churches because of an easily warped idea by twisting a few words (explained earlier, but never refuted) could then be called heretics.
It has been an interesting discussion, but it really is not going anywhere. So this will be my last post. If you think this is a victory, that is up to you. But I will not continue and be disrespected intellectually. It is a discourtesy to me and an embarassment to you (although you may not see it that way).
I can only hope that we have both learned something here.
May God grant you patience and wisdom when speaking, may you have strength to be humble and the wisdom to do what is right in the eyes of God. May God grant you peace in your spirit, mind and body. May God reveal Himself to you through His Word by the power of His Spirit. May Godâ€™s grace and mercy overflow onto you and in your life. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Reply
peter1589
Feb 04, 2007
I follow blindly? Well, didn’t our Blessed Lord say that unless we have the faith of a child we wouldn’t enter heaven? See Matthew:
18:1. At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who, thinkest thou, is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?
18:2. And Jesus, calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them.
18:3. And said: amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Now, I have, by the grace of God and via the diligent prayer of the Holy Rosary, been given the unimaginable lesson of hearing a voice from hell itself in my left ear. The Blessed Mother gives 15 promises to those devoted to the Rosary, one of them is “signal graces.” The wholesale turnaround of my fortunes was miraculous in the extreme and all our old friends back in NY to this day say amazingly supernatural things were commonplace with us. But first and foremost was that voice from hell, saying “I WILL KILL YOU ALL!” in the most hideous, unearthly, exponentially furiously murderous, hissing sound like nothing even capable of being heard by mortal ears.
So, being the beneficiary of this unimaginable terror and the grace it gave me to turn from my sins, I found no other route to salvation than to submit to Holy Mother Church.
It is the evidentiary practice of PROTEST-ants to muse and study and ponder and intellectually gratify themselves to justify their own positions on theology. I no longer have this luxury. It is for me to take up my cross daily, deny myself to the best of my ability and follow Christ in His devotion to His family, the Church, and devote myself to my family and fail daily in attempting to divert those who despise the Church Christ created from the deceptions of the devil.
You state that I have a problem with Vatican II. For good reason. One of the most devious and diabolical attacks on the Church in Its history has been that borne by Communist agents since the early 20th century. I read a book entitled “AA-1025″ which told the story of a communist agent and his plots to enter the Church and destroy it from within. Vatican II started practices which are the fruits of Communist treachery and western gullability. You can read about it here: http://www.tldm.org/news2/infiltrators.htm
but I fear that the wholesale secularism of the PROTEST-ant revolution (which, again, never seems to resolve now, does it?) has bitten its constituents hard on their souls wherein theology has become a devious plaything rather than a securing Rule.
In short, you and all PROTEST-ants are so addicted to ego gratification that no amount of Truth will divert you from the need to be self-justified. Therein lies the difficulty of our conversation.
So, in short, you are correct that Vatican II leaves me deeply suspicious, in that so may changes in the Mass were established, so many prayers extracted and a whole host of other alterations devised as to be lethal to any hope of the True Faith being left on earth, assisted by all the left-leaning media . . . to the point that modern man can only echo Pontius Pilate in stating, “Truth? What is that?” and going his or her merry way down the broad path to Hell.
I rely a great deal more on the Council of Trent’s catechism, thank you very much. It preceded the well established and well-documented infiltration of communists into the Vatican hierarchy and the destruction of the priesthood (leaving no access to Confession nor the Eucharist, the only way to gain eternal life exactly as our Blessed Lord states and you ignore) and so it is with little wonder that I assume our Blessed Lord’s words, “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” are hysteria-inciting to me, the beneficiary of the Truth of Hell (and, conversely Heaven since you can’t have one without the other) and more Scriptural evidence of the chaos we have today and which our Blessed Lord clearly states we should expect in the end times.
The Catholic Church, due to the lack of priests and the massive closing of Churches (63 last month in Boston alone), is now the breeding ground, in my opinion, for massive summary judgments of damnation as hoardes of Catholics in mortal sin and non-Catholics who never have even stepped into a confession nonetheless get in line and recieve our Blessed Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in a state of mortal sin, bringing down upon them exactly what St. Paul stated is the case for such, viz.:
11:23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
11:24. And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
11:25. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
11:26. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
11:27. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
Or drink… Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original) instead of or drink.
Guilty of the body, etc., not discerning the body, etc… This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lordâ€™s body.
11:28. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
Drink of the chalice… This is not said by way of command, but by way of allowance, viz., where and when it is agreeable to the practice and discipline of the church.
11:29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
11:30. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.
11:31. But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
11:32. But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.
Do you follow this? I fear not, since as 1 Peter 5:8-9 clearly state, the devil roams about seeking whom he can devour. And he is having a field day in this modern, technological, consumerism, class warfare, evenly divided liberal-conservative political climate, wholesale atheistic, homosexual justifying, abortion rationalizing, pornographic, insatiably hyper sexualized society in which we live, all the while Islam is successfully infiltrating Europe and the U.S. on a MASSIVE scale. This, of course, is just punishing by our Lord, since, most obviously, the path of liberalism/PROTEST-antism is invariably and inevitably wholesale atheism. For with such vastly contradictory and diametrically opposed theologies of Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Mormonism, Congregationalism, 7th Day Adventism, and all the other inevitably reducable creeds which go around posing as “theology,” indeed is Our Blessed Lord’s prophecy fulfilled:
But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?
He, being God, certainly would have grounds for knowing what to expect, eh? Best pray the Rosary. After all, the Blessed Virgin *did* say all generations will call me blessed, didn’t she? Where else do you find that but in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
And throughout the history of the Catholic Church one finds that tenet to be the Rule, save for the advent of the Vatican II council. Should that, in combination with the communist infiltration well documented as well as the infiltration of homosexual predators into the ever shrinking ranks of the priesthood, not be sufficient grounds to doubt the validity of Vatican II? I think not, but there again remains much which is yet in harmony with the previous Church teachings.
But, again, the Church has had such problems in the past with heretical infiltrations and survived. Why should I ultimately worry?
Reply
peter1589
Feb 04, 2007
Also, the Bible says to confess your sins “to one another.” James 5:19 — 5:16. Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.
Confess your sins one to another… That is, to the priests of the church, whom (ver.14) he had ordered to be called for, and brought in to the sick; moreover, to confess to persons who had no power to forgive sins, would be useless. Hence the precept here means, that we must confess to men whom God hath appointed, and who, by their ordination and jurisdiction, have received the power of remitting sins in his name.
Is that where you say the Bible says to confess your sins to God? Or shall I confess my sins to you and expect absolution?
No, the Bible clearly gives priests (disciples) that power when Christ gave the keys to heaven to Peter and said, “Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” That’s our Blessed Lord speaking and our Bible speaking, in direct contradiction to your notion that the Bible teaches us to confess to God. Which, of course, we Catholics do, since Christ is also in the confessional with us acting through His priest to whom He gave the power to absolve us from our sins.
Nifty, indeed! Too bad you guys are stuck with shrinks. Ever try to get a shrink to give you absolution? Well, when I get it from a priest, I can literally feel the immense weight of sin lifted off of my shoulders. It gives full credence to Christ’s promise to save us from our slaverly to sin. You should give it a try sometime. Emancipation from slavery to sin is a remarkable, phenominal experience. The shackles fall and Christ is there, exactly as He is in the Blessed Sacrament of every Catholic Church throughout the entire world. No PROTEST-ant church can make any claim close to that!
Reply
peter1589
Feb 04, 2007
Oh, and you complain I send you to sites which are “decidedly Catholic?” And why not? Isn’t the Bible a “decidedly Catholic” book? It was, beyond doubt, defined by the Church and compiled by the Church and said Church was cited in First Timothy, you’ll recall. And the first written commentary on it being the Catholic Church came from St. Iraneus called it the Catholic Church in a letter on his way to martyrdom in 110.
Further, the Early Church Fathers can illuminate your understanding of the 2,000 year old teaching of the Eucharist here: http://www.theworkofgod.org/Devotns/Euchrist/Topics/Fathers.htm
Reply
peter1589
Feb 04, 2007
Sorry, St. Ignatius. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
Reply
Michael Hampton
Feb 05, 2007
Okay, that’s quite enough. This argument is centuries old and neither of you will convince the other. Not to mention it’s entirely off-topic. If you want to continue it, please get your own Web site.
Reply

Latest News

Supporting the War Instead of the Troops

March 15, 2010

Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.

Liberty Conspiracy – 3-14-10 Fundamentals: The Myth of the Market Failure, the Myth of Beneficial Government Intervention

March 15, 2010

Gardner Goldsmith explains why claims by politicians that consumers can become "irrational" and why claims by the same politicians that government can help "fix" markets are both false and misleading. He also explains what the terms Praxeology and Epistemology mean, which is key in understanding how to place free markets in their proper place among human history.

› Liberty Conspiracy – 3-10-10 Liberty Hotline + Gard on Protests at Military Funerals Challenged in Supreme Court

› Liberty Conspiracy 3-9-10 Liberty is Not Antisemitic, Conspirators Look at Blowback and US Foreign Policy

› Liberty Conspiracy – 3-8-10 Myths and Deceptions in Fed Medical Fascism Rhetoric

› Census: A Little Too Personal