Faithful Catholics: Settle for Nothing Less Than the Truth

By Jennifer Hartline Published on August 30, 2018

It’s not melodrama to say these are truly historic times for the Catholic Church, particularly in America.

The present scandal, including the allegations that the Holy Father himself helped give cover to predator McCarrick, is an earthquake.

Count me among those who are praying that the rot and decay and wretched filth will come crashing down in ruins. We should not wish to quiet the shaking. We should welcome it.

Nothing Less than the Truth

For me, it’s simple. Nothing less than the truth will suffice. Whatever it is and wherever it leads, let’s have the whole truth.

We can do that without malice and without being driven by agendas. It is astonishing to me that some in Catholic media are screaming that pursuit of the truth is itself an “agenda.” (Equally telling is the crickets coming from the mainstream media in general.) 

We have nothing to fear from the truth. Only the truth will set us free, even if it must first cause us pain. Wounds must be opened and cleaned out if there’s to be healing. Every doctor knows that.

The faithful must not settle for anything less than the truth, from the lowliest parish priest to the Holy Father and every man in between. The truth is not our enemy. The real enemy is the father of lies, and his tools are shadows and secrets and opaqueness.

Lives have been shattered, and souls quite possibly lost. Anyone at this point who is not willing to pursue the whole truth is part of the problem.

Prelates like Cardinal Cupich, who had the brazen audacity to say “the Pope has a bigger agenda” than going down this “rabbit hole” are part of the problem. He topped off his self-serving, smarmy rant by saying the Pope is being targeted by racist Catholics because he’s Latino. Cupich cannot resign fast enough. He needs to go.

If the bearers of the Light would rather cling to shadows and haziness, then it is more than just the smoke of Satan in the House of God.

On the other hand, it is heartening to read the statements released by several courageous bishops who are calling for a thorough investigation.

The statement from the USCCB was a good start. Cardinal DiNardo has officially asked the Holy Father to support the bishops’ desire for a lay commission to investigate both McCarrick and the other claims made by Archbishop Vigano in his bombshell “testimony.”

The recent letter of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò brings particular focus and urgency to this examination. The questions raised deserve answers that are conclusive and based on evidence. Without those answers, innocent men may be tainted by false accusation and the guilty may be left to repeat sins of the past.

DiNardo is correct. We need conclusive answers backed up by evidence.

Bishop Strickland of Tyler, TX; Bishop Morlino of Madison, WI; Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix, AZ; Bishop Paprocki of Springfield, IL; Archbishop Vigneron of Detroit, MI; Archbishop Coakley of Oklahoma City; and others have all publicly agreed that Vigano’s claims merit serious investigation. It is good to hear many of our shepherds affirming the primacy of the truth above all else.

 If we do not get the answers we require, then we will be a disabled and feeble Church going forward. If the bearers of the Light would rather cling to shadows and murk, then it is more than just the smoke of Satan alone in the House of God.

Clean the House

Along with a vigorous investigation, intense House-cleaning must begin. There must not be a Third Act to this diabolical scandal.

We can no longer abide by a shadowy, nepotistic homosexual mafia pulling the strings of the Church behind a protective wall. We cannot take for granted that corrupt prelates will suddenly decide to be morally upright.

Any priest complicit in sexual abuse, homosexual activity, or concealing abuse or homosexual activity must resign his office immediately.

Any priest who is not fully committed to chastity according to his vocation should be laicized without delay. 

Any priest who somehow doesn’t understand that sexually violating a child or even an adult is not a “boundary violation” but a vile and shattering crime should be required to turn in his collar right now. 

Any priest or prelate who is unconvinced of the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexual purity has no business being a priest. 

Any priest who secretly (or publicly!) longs for the day when the Church will regard homosexual “sex” as morally licit must be removed from the priesthood, period. 

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

We, the faithful, have suffered the grave consequences of the clergy’s near-total rejection of Humane Vitae for the last 50 years, and enough is way past enough. We demand faithful priests who actually believe what the Church teaches. Any priest who doesn’t can go now. Just go away.

Prelates who are unwilling to stop the promotion of “LGBTQ” ideology in their dioceses are failing in their duties and should resign. Again, we demand faithful bishops who actually believe what the Church has always taught about the human person and human sexuality.

Hand-wringing, sadness, and paper crocodile tears won’t cut it anymore. Clean the House! Put the House back under the watchful guard of St. Michael at the end of every single Mass. Consecrate the American Church to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and make public, ongoing reparations for the offenses against the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Do it today. Start right now. Less talk. More action.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Ray

    Well, ya know, ya do church wrong, it’s what you get. ..like at the time of Eli.

    • When government worshipping pagans were attacking God’s Church? Similarly how prots do to the New & Eternal Covenant?

  • Kevin Vail

    “settle for nothing less than the truth”
    Really? And what do you propose to do about it? Complain loudly while your unholy father in Rome waves his hand and refuses to talk about it? It’s not like you can vote him out…

    • Paul

      Exactly

    • The Pope is referred to as the Holy Father. Don’t incur a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance on yourself when you have no ways to heal sin at all.

      • Kevin Vail

        Call him whatever you want. I choose unholy, third-world Marxist dictator.

        • you choose communism? Well protestantism is proto-communism.

          If that’s just an insult to the Pope, know that calumny and blasphemy do nothing good for your soul.

  • Art Martin

    I want to ask this question to as many as I can as often as I can. To date no one has dared to answer.

    Pope Francis publically lamented that there are lobbies of homosexuals and LOBBIES of MASONS in the Vatican.

    So, where is the outcry to defrock the Masons in the Church? They are the ENEMY, sworn to destroy the Church through politics. These clerics were excommunicated ipso facto when they swore on their Bible becoming a member of the Masonic Lodge. This issue is worse than abortion being licensed. It is against God and His Church. They are spies and assassins. I do not doubt that they are behind the sexual scandals in the Church.

    If any bishop, cardinal or pope were to allow for any reason a Mason to be ordained or any clergy to be a Mason then he or they are Masons.

    My father had the good sense to leave the Church when he became a Mason and a Shriner. Thank God he had the grace to return to the Church before he died. Here is the shocker: when he became a Shriner he was required to set aside his Bible and swear to Allah on the Koran. The Shriners are about worshipping at the Egypt Temple Shrine of false gods. They are linked to the Muslims. See their symbols of the crescent moon and the beheading sword, the same as the Muslims.

    • Patmos

      There’s been infiltration of the Masons just like there has been infiltration of the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations in America. It’s tougher to determine the who, what, and why of the infiltration of the Masons, as they don’t have a doctrine to publicly follow like churches do with the Bible, but you can clearly see the infiltration of churches when their actions don’t line up to what they profess to follow.

      The real church though is not aligned with a denomination, it’s aligned with faith in Jesus, and believing he was who he said he was. It was Peter’s faith, not Peter himself, that Jesus began to build.

      To your question, things have gotten entangled and intertwined to the point of it being hard to unravel. All this infiltration and deceit though is in the end child’s play. God’s word will outlast it all.

      • Patmos

        That should be, ON Peter’s faith that Jesus began to build.

        Interesting too, considering Peter would later deny that faith 3 times, but Christ ever liveth to make intercession for us. Hallelujah.

        • And you have denied it permanently save a direct conversion to the Church.

          • Patmos

            Troll harder. Wait, that’s not possible.

          • Are you capable of arguing against me?

      • The real Church is the Catholic Church.

        • Patmos

          For real? Molesters and all?

          • The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ.

            The Offices justified by Apostolic Succession and created by the Sacrament of Holy Orders cannot be affected by the personal Holiness or lack thereof in the men inside these offices.

            Nothing about the Church supports sodomy or accepts it. The scandal was sodomites grooming young men as sodomites do for recruiting.

            Do you think the Church is invalid because of some sodomites or that these men’s Offices are invalid because of some sodomites? If so you have blasphemed yourself into the donatist heresy, and you will be answered for that.

          • Jim

            This is about pedophile priests not homosexuals

          • sodomites groom young men as they do not occur naturally.

            No such things as a “pedophile priest”

          • Jim

            Pedophile priests are the ones abusing kids in your religious institution.

          • What about sodomites grooming young men is intrinsic to the Priesthood? Nothing

            grooming young men is intrinsic to sodomy though.

          • Jim

            It’s pedophile priests.

          • No, again: what does sodomy and pedophilia have to do with the Priesthood?

            Moreso, what does sodomy have to do with pedophilia?

          • Jim

            The priests who raped these kids are pedophiles.

          • So nothing. Also no kids were involved.

            Now what is the connection between sodomites and pedophilia

          • Jim

            Were they under 18? Yes. Children raped by pedophile priests

          • pedophile is for kids under 10. Different term for sodomites grooming teens.

            Nothing about sodomy is promoted by the priesthood.

          • Vincent J.

            Good response.

            Titus 1:16 New International Version (NIV)
            They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

        • Jim

          That’s what they all claim. My church is the real church. Infighting is funny

          • Infighting? The Church is the One True Faith? heresies are not valid

    • tz1

      Where is ANY mention of USURY?
      I have heard within the last few decades the Masons, occasionally.
      Even Contraception.
      ZERO on Usury.

      The word USURY doesn’t occur in the Catechism.

      Blow hot air all you want about Francis’ alteration of the death penalty.

      Then explain to all the student load debt slaves about what the Church teaches, or not, or used to, on USURY.

      (Zippy Catholic notes the subtleties with the doctrine, but at least he has gone through it in detail – right now you can mortgage your soul to Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or American Experess).

  • GLT

    Make Christ the head of your life and do away with any and all so-called intercessors such as the Pope, Mary and priests in general. Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ and him alone. You do not need a Pope and you do not need an institutional hierarchy constructed of sinful and fallible people. The church is meant to be a place for believers to come together in worship, it is not meant to be your connection to God.

    • Patmos

      Enter in with boldness, it says in Hebrews.

      • Patmos

        Says it… Not in those exact words, verses 10:19-22. Jesus is the door (John 10:9).

    • Cody

      Very well said.

    • kristinechristliebcanavan

      Confess your sins one to another . . .
      The brothers in Jerusalem . . . when there was a question, it went to them for decision. Isn’t that hierarchy? Read your Bible!

      • GLT

        And they did not want Paul preaching to the Greeks. They also demanded that all gentiles must become Jews and be circumcised before they could become Christians. Paul obeyed God instead of man. Read yours.

    • James Blazsik

      When you get Christ you get everything. Christ made the Papacy in Matt. 16. He gave you His mother at the cross. He made us all a priesthood with a promised priesthood in Jer. 31. The Church is His Body and the pillar and foundation of the truth. 2Tim 3:15. Where Christ is there is the Church, and where the Church is, there is Christ.
      Christ gives you everything.

      • GLT

        “Christ made the Papacy in Matt. 16.”

        15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

        16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

        17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.’ Matthew 16: 15-18

        Christ is speaking directly to Peter in this passage, referring to him by name but yet he refers to the rock upon which the church would be built as ‘this rock’, in other words, something besides Peter. That something is the response which Peter made when Christ asked him who Peter thought he was. It is the testimony of Peter upon which the church would be built, not Peter. Peter was not the first Pope and Francis is not his descendant.

        “He gave you His mother at the cross.”

        No, he did not. He entrusted John with the duty of caring for his mother, nothing more than that. Mary had more children, Mary died and was not assumed bodily into heaven. Mary does not intercede for man as there is only one intercessor between God and man, Jesus Christ

        “Christ gives you everything.”

        Yes, he does. And as such, I do not need the Pope, I do not need a priest, I do not need the Roman Catholic church or any other Earthly institution, I do not need anything but my faith in Christ and I am saved by grace through that faith, not by any works I may do lest I should boast.

        • Peter is the rock the Church is built upon. you call God a liar because actual God goes against the false-god of your ego. If St Peter was not the first Pope, then why do we have an unbroken lineage of every Bishop to the apostles?

          Mary is an Eternal Virgin, the Queen of Heaven & Earth, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Mother of God. What do you think God (actual God, not your ego) thinks of you denying His Mother?

          Moreso, what do you think God (actual God, not your ego) thinks of you rejecting His Church and your blasphemous belief that your ego has made God subservient to you?

          • Patmos

            So you’re saying Jesus never told John to write a letter to the seven churches at Asia?

          • What does St John have to do with what I said other than him being a Bishop of the Church?

          • GLT

            “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

            That is the rock upon which the church is built. It is not built on any mortal man.

            “If St Peter was not the first Pope, then why do we have an unbroken lineage of every Bishop to the apostles?”

            How does that prove Peter was the first Pope? To demonstrate Peter was the first Pope you must first demonstrate God even intended there be a Pope.

            “Mary is an Eternal Virgin,…”

            “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” Mark 6:3

            “Queen of Heaven & Earth,…”

            Christ rules over all.

            “What do you think God (actual God, not your ego) thinks of you denying His Mother?”

            God the Father does not have a mother. Jesus Christ had a mother.

            “what do you think God (actual God, not your ego) thinks of you rejecting His Church,…”

            I have not rejected his church, I simply don’t adhere to Roman Catholic doctrine, not at all the same thing.

          • God created the Church at Pentecost. St Peter is the first Pope, and like with all apostles we have an unbroken line of succession to him.

            The term cousin did not exist back then, that is a classification made by the Church much later. The Apostles are the adopted brothers of Christ.

            Christ is God. The Virgin Mary is the Queen. God decreed all will bow to the Queen who is the human Mother of God, this is what caused the devil to rebel as the devil shares your hatred of her.

            Once more, what do you think God thinks of your blasphemy? Not only that you seem to have found yourself into the arian heresy.

            I suppose this happens when you are a gnostic and believe your ego can change reality or you make things up just to fit to your ego.

          • GLT

            “and like with all apostles we have an unbroken line of succession to him.”

            And your point is,…?

            “The Apostles are the adopted brothers of Christ.”

            Matthew 13:55 begs to differ with that conclusion.

            “The Virgin Mary is the Queen.”

            Show me your exegesis.

            “God decreed all will bow to the Queen who is the human Mother of God,…”

            Again, show me our exegesis.

            “found yourself into the arian heresy.”

            How did you come to that erroneous conclusion?

            “you make things up just to fit to your ego.”

            Really? I’m not the one claiming the need for extra-Biblical authority.

          • fisking is the cowardly tactic where one cherry picks half-sentences out of context and respinds to them as individual strawmen. you out yourself as scared,

            The point is Apostolic Succession. The Apostles are the first Bishops of the Church and there is an unbroken line of Succession to them. This allows the Church to perform sacraments.

            Apostles can perform Sacraments because they were adopted by Christ and then Christ gave His mission on earth over to them to continue right before the Crucifixion. After the Ressureection, Christ was with the Apostles to prepare them. The Church was then officially created at Pentecost where the Holy Apirit consecrated the Apostles as Bishops of the Church.

            Mary is crowned the Queen of Heaven and Earth, I know both you and the devil wanted that position so you are unnaturally full of hatred for her. As God said when he announced mankind, He said that He would make Himself man to live among us as King and that His human mother would be named Queen and all would bow before her. This is what got the devil to rebel (and apparently you).

            you fell into the arian heresy through your gnosticism (in this case assuming scripture means whatever you want it to mean because of ego) and by claiming that the Church is founded by a mortal man. you hate the Church because the Church can correct your “personal interpretation” and Christ founded the Church and is at the head of the Church.

          • GLT

            “you out yourself as scared,…”

            Scared of what?

            “Mary is crowned the Queen of Heaven and Earth,…”

            Reference?

            “in this case assuming scripture means whatever you want it to mean because of ego,…”

            Demonstrate how I am assuming scripture to mean what I want it to mean.

            “by claiming that the Church is founded by a mortal man.”

            Where did I make that claim or even imply such a thing?

            “you hate the Church,…”

            I do, in what way?

          • sacred of the Truth. Of God’s Church. Of being held accountable.

            I have pointed out where however many days ago. Using alinsky tactics is not a good look for you.

          • GLT

            “sacred (sic) of the Truth. Of God’s Church. Of being held accountable.”

            And you know this to be the case how? In what way am I scared of the truth? Is it because I do not agree with you and what you perceive to be true? In what way am I scared of God’s Church? As a member, why would I be afraid? In what way am I not being held accountable? You make a number of serious accusations yet you have absolutely no basis for any of them, none whatsoever. All you have are your presumptions. I have to ask, is this the way you would want to be treated? Do you suppose God appreciates your attacks on fellow believers?

            “Using alinsky tactics is not a good look for you.”

            In what way am I using Saul Alinsky tactics?

          • Because you attack the truth. you ask for specific examples of things I have already mentioned and established. It is a very common alinsky tactic. If I reiterate my point you just deny it, if I don’t answer then you make it out like I have no answer.

            There is nothing your blasphemous sneering and denial will do the Truth. I was only correcting you for your own good. Wasting my patience means you lose possible the only person willing to tell you the truth that you will ever meet. It is not you who is in control here. Once I leave you to scream until the void, you will be stuck with your projection of your ego onto God until it is too late for you.

            There is nothing fellow about you. you are a gnostic, a heretic, and a blapshemer. If you had any idea what any of those do to you, you would be begging for forgiveness.

            you are not a part of the Church. you explicitly reject the Church because the Church will correct you where your “personal interpretation” cannot.

            you are not a believer and you are my enemy in every sense of the world. The only reason I am helping you and not laughing and encouraging your downfall by continuing on your path is because I am not evil like you.

            Mary is the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven and Earth (whose announcement caused your dark master to rebel), the Ark of the Covenant, and the Bearer of Light. you hate her because she is what you pretend to be.

            you ignore God totally, claim your ego is God, and use your ego to “personally interpret” scripture to mean whatever you want it to mean.

            My patience for you and your evil is nonexistent. you are removed from my notifications.

          • GLT

            “Because you attack the truth.”

            How am I attacking the truth? Have you got any examples where I have attacked the truth?

            “you ask for specific examples of things I have already mentioned and established.”

            You have provided nothing in the way of specifics, only baseless accusations, sorry.

            “you make it out like I have no answer.”

            It would appear you don’t.

            “the only person willing to tell you the truth that you will ever meet.”

            Well, you certainly have a high opinion of yourself, that much I will give you.

            “Once I leave you to scream until the void, you will be stuck with your projection of your ego onto God until it is too late for you.”

            I must say you are a fine example of Christian love, Nigel.

            “There is nothing fellow about you. you are a gnostic, a heretic, and a blapshemer.”

            So you keep saying but never backing up with any facts. Why is that, Nigel?

            “you are not a part of the Church.”

            Well Nigel, that is not your judgment to make.

            “you explicitly reject the Church,…”

            Really, how?

            “you are not a believer and you are my enemy in every sense of the world. The only reason I am helping you and not laughing and encouraging your downfall by continuing on your path is because I am not evil like you.”

            You’re not evil like me? If that is true why are the one spewing hatred, judgment and accusations of blasphemy against someone you would not know if you bumped into him on the street tomorrow? I think you need to take a long, serious look at yourself, Nigel. Christ asks us to treat others with respect and love. All I get from you is judgment and verbal abuse. Consider what Christ might think of your attitude even if I was to be all the things you accuse me of being. Do you really think he would be in agreement with your actions?

            “you hate her because she is what you pretend to be.”

            Where did I even remotely imply any hatred toward Mary? What reason would I have to hate her, she is a mortal being and a sinner in need of redemption just as I?

            “you ignore God totally, claim your ego is God, and use your ego to “personally interpret” scripture to mean whatever you want it to mean.”

            I don’t think so. If I was to interpret scripture to mean what I wanted it to mean I wouldn’t come out as the wretched sinner I am. Scripture makes me all too aware of my shortcomings. Maybe you need to read scripture a little more in order to work on your attitude towards others.

          • Vincent J.

            Here’s another verse to add to the brothers and sisters verses: Psalm 69:8.

            The new testament tells us that Psalm 69:9 is about Jesus, so it stands to reason that 69:8 also is about Jesus.

            Psalm 69:8-9 New International Version (NIV)
            I am a foreigner to my own family,
            a stranger to my own mother’s children;
            for zeal for your house consumes me,
            and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.

            The key part is ” my own mother’s children.” Clearly, Jesus had natural brothers and sisters, children of Mary.

            Whenever you reply to Nigel, it’s good to challenge his spirit by asking him to say, “Jesus is the Son of God,” per the instructions given for challenging spirits in 1 John chapter 4. Nigel blocked me for, in his words, trying to “trap” him.

          • GLT

            “Clearly, Jesus had natural brothers and sisters, children of Mary.”

            There is no doubt about that at all, it is clearly demonstrated in scripture and all who would deny that fact must practice hermeneutical gymnastics. Sadly, many are more than willing to do so.

        • Kathy

          Sad thing is that there is no real assurance of salvation through faith and trust in Christ alone.

          There is a disconnect…the cross was not quite enough, there’s this and that and the other they must do to earn it. How much of all that is enough? No one can know. The other world religions are similarly merit-based… Christianity is obviously different and should be set apart from the others.

          “When the Son sets you free, you are free indeed”. Our love, obedience and good works are in grateful response to that realization, as you know. Church requirements get in the way of that freedom.

        • James Blazsik

          You don’t get it. Christ named Peter “rock”. Duh. Also, you fail to realize that the papacy happened! The evidence for the teaching throne of St. Peter is early, in the 1st century.
          The Bible does not say that Mary had more children. There is no word in New Testament greek for blood brother. The word for brother can also mean cousin or member of a nation. Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40 attributes the “brothers” of Jesus to another Mary. Read the Bible. Wouldn’t you exclusively serve the Son of God?
          The assumption of Mary is seen in early Christian history. There are no remains of the Mother of God. Catholics are into relics; there are none of the Virgin Mary.
          Just as Eve is the mother of the sons of Adam, Mary is the Mother of the sons of Christ.
          We see in John 2 that Mary does intercede. 1 Tim. 2 commands us to intercede. The Bible does not say there is only one intercessor. Read the Bible.
          Rom 15:16 Paul says he has a priestly service.
          What church are you from?

          • GLT

            “you fail to realize that the papacy happened!”

            So did the holocaust and many other events of history, so what is your point?

            “The Bible does not say that Mary had more children.”

            Matthew 13:55.

            “There is no word in New Testament greek for blood brother.”

            “Adelphos: Greek; male children of the same mother. Sorry.

            “The assumption of Mary is seen in early Christian history.”

            But found nowhere in Scripture. Why is that?

            “Catholics are into relics; there are none of the Virgin Mary.”

            How would you know? Besides, we are not to worship objects, we are to worship God.

            “Eve is the mother of the sons of Adam,…”

            Exactly.

            “The Bible does not say there is only one intercessor.”

            1 Timothy 2:1-7. Sorry.

            “Read the Bible.”

            Good Idea, I suggest you take your own advice.

          • James Blazsik

            I’ve read the Bible 11 times. Some of your responses are lazy. (I’m being nice)
            Jesus promises the papacy in Matthew 16. It actually happened. There is evidence of Rome’s authority in the first century.
            Matthew 13:55 doesn’t say they are Mary’s children. That’s the point.
            Look up adelphos in New Testament Greek. Not todays Greek.
            In the Assumption of Mary, the Bible doesn’t contain all things that have happened in Church history. Duh.
            The Bible says there is only one mediator not one intercessor. Read what you quote.

          • GLT

            “Some of your responses are lazy.”

            It would seem you think highly of your intellect, why not demonstrate to me exactly how my responses are lazy?

            “Jesus promises the papacy in Matthew 16.”

            Show me your exegesis.

            “Matthew 13:55 doesn’t say they are Mary’s children.”

            Then whose children are they and how are they the brothers of Christ?

            “Look up adelphos in New Testament Greek.”

            Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words;
            Adelphos: male children of the same mother; Matthew 13:55.

            “the Bible doesn’t contain all things that have happened in Church history. Duh.”

            That’s really mature. Tell me again about my lazy responses.

            Of course the Bible does not contain all the things which have happened in church history as much of the history has occurred after the establishment of the Canon. But what is not included is not countered by what is not included. In other words, church history does not justify eisegesis.

            “The Bible says there is only one mediator not one intercessor.”

            Okay, let’s try this from a different angle. Demonstrate Biblically that Mary acts as an intercessor between Christ and man.

          • James Blazsik

            I already answered whose children are the “brothers” of the Lord. Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 attributes them to another Mary, possibly the holy Mother’s cousin,
            Adelphos also means cousin, any family member or member of a nation. Be honest.
            Thank the Catholic Church for the Bible, and the canon of Scripture.
            When something happens like the papacy, it’s important to recognize reality. The teaching Chair of St. Peter was recognized early in Church history.
            John 2 shows Mary as intercessor for the bride and groom and Jesus responded to take care of the need. The Church is commanded to be intercessors in 1 Timothy 2. The Church in Heaven serves as intercessors for the Church on earth. Heb. 12:18-2
            You need to be honest. You were careless (or lazy) with Mediator vs intercessor and the full definition of adelphos.

          • GLT

            “attributes them to another Mary,…”

            James and Joseph were hardly uncommon names in Israel so you will have to come up with a better exegesis than to simply say the two passages are talking about the same people. In Matthew 13 it clearly identifies James, Joseph, Simon and Judas as children of Mary who is the mother of Jesus. There is no escaping that fact.

            “Adelphos also means cousin,…”

            It can but as is always the case context is an extremely relevant factor in determining the intention of the writer. It is clear from the context the writer was referring to actual children of Mary who would then logically be the siblings of Jesus. I am not the one being dishonest, that would be those teaching Mary did not have other children when the Bible clearly states she did. Mary was also not forever virgin which is clearly recorded in Matthew when it he states that Joseph took Mary to be his wife as instructed by the Holy Spirit but waited until after the birth of Christ before consummating the marriage. I do hope you understand the meaning of that statement. You have told me to read the Bible, may I suggest you are the one who needs to do so despite your claim of having read it 11 times.

            “John 2 shows Mary as intercessor for the bride and groom,…”

            Seriously, this your argument to support the claim Mary sits in eternity as an intercessor between Christ and man, the fact she told servants to obey what her son said at a wedding? That is hardy a logical stretch but I guess that is what passes as sound exegesis in your circles. Perhaps you should take note of the fact John 2 also describes Christ travelling to Capernaum with his mother, brothers and disciples. Who are these people referred to as Christ’s brothers if they were not actually his brothers? They cannot be disciples as his disciples are referenced separately. If they were his cousins why would John not simply call them his cousins instead of his brothers?

            “You were careless (or lazy) with Mediator vs intercessor and the full definition of adelphos.”

            You like to accuse people of laziness and dishonesty but never back up your claims. Demonstrate how I was lazy and dishonest. You cannot demonstrate Biblically that Mary acts as an intercessor between Christ and man and I clearly demonstrated adelphos in the context of Matthew 13:55 is referring to brothers from the same mother. Obviously, James, it is not I who is being lazy and dishonest. I back up my claims with cogent arguments, you simply make unsupported assertions.

          • GLT

            “attributes them to another Mary, possibly the holy Mother’s cousin,…”

            As Joseph, James and Mary were hardly uncommon names in Israel you will have to come up with a much better argument than that. Matthew 13:55 clearly states these were Christ’s brothers, the sons of his mother, Mary.

            “Adelphos also means cousin, any family member or member of a nation.”

            It can but as always, context is the key. If you were to interpret adelphos to always mean cousin, family member or member of a nation, it would ultimately mean nothing, thus the need for context. In the context of Matthew 13:55 it clearly means brothers of the same mother. You can practice all the interpretive gymnastics you wish but it won’t change the facts.

            “When something happens like the papacy,…”

            Like I said, the holocaust happened, the fact the papacy happened does not legitimize its occurrence. The heart and beauty of Christianity is that man is able to approach God personally through Jesus Christ without the need for a pope or any institutional structure.

            “John 2 shows Mary as intercessor for the bride and groom and Jesus responded to take care of the need.”

            Seriously, that is your argument to support your claim that Mary acts as an intercessor between Christ and man, the wedding feast at Cana? I’ll retire to bedlam. Wow!

            “You need to be honest.”

            I am not the one being dishonest, that label would belong to those who twist the clear meaning of scripture to justify their invented dogma. Mary was not forever virgin as is clearly apparent from a plain reading of Matthew 1:24-25 and had numerous other children as is apparent from a plain reading of Matthew 13:55.

          • James Blazsik

            Are you a baptist? What church do you attended?
            1) The Catholic Church isn’t alone when it comes to the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Orthodox and Coptic Churches believe in her perpetual virginity and that she is the Mother of God. Along with the Catholic Church, these groups come from the beginning of Christianity.
            2) Calvin, Luther and Wesley believed it.
            3) The Protoevangelium of James (145AD) says that Mary’s birth was promised to Anna (she was barren) and Anna dedicated her as a virgin and dedicated to the Temple.
            4) She is fully graced. Lk. 1:28
            5) Mary’s vow of virginity makes sense of her response. “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” Mary was betrothed to Joseph, she knew how babies came into the world. But she was a dedicated virgin, hence the question.
            6) The Bible never says she was pregnant again or mention she had other children. The Bible never says “the brothers” of the Lord were “her” children.
            7) The New Testament word “adelphos” is not limited to blood brother. It also means family member (like cousin) or member of a nation.
            8) The Bible says they are children of another Mary. Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15;40.
            9) At the Cross, Jesus gave Mary to be Mother to the Apostle John to care for her (therefore to all of us). If Mary had all kinds of sons, why would he do this?
            10) Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph did not have marital relations until the birth of Christ. The Greek word for “until” doesn’t mean he did after Jesus. That according to John Calvin.
            11) Wouldn’t Mary want to dedicate her life to her Lord? To serve Him without distraction?
            12) Why are you so adamant against it? This isn’t going to jeopardize anything in the faith in any way – what’s the problem? The Trinity, deity of Christ, Christ’s passion and death for our sins, His resurrection, coming again, and Scripture are all Catholic. The reformers took the Catholic faith and just kept, changed, or removed what they wanted. Your faith is Catholic, plus whatever the reformers did.

          • GLT

            “The Orthodox and Coptic Churches believe in her perpetual virginity and that she is the Mother of God.”

            Well it is obviously true then. Sorry, but that is totally irrelevant.

            “Calvin, Luther and Wesley believed it.”

            Again, completely irrelevant. You can appeal to anyone you want, it does not change what the Bible clearly states.

            “The Bible never says “the brothers” of the Lord were “her” children.”

            “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Matthew 13:55

            If James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are his brothers and Mary is his mother, how are James, Joseph. Simon and Judas Jesus’ brothers but not Mary’s sons? The context of the passage will not allow you to deny these men are called his brothers so you must explain how they are his brothers while at the same time they are not Mary’s children but the children of someone else. John 7 also talks about the brothers of Jesus are they also just cousins or countrymen?

            You’re simply repeating the same arguments. If you hope to prove your point you need to provide a cogent exegesis, not simply assert doctrine by rote. To this point, you have not even come close to doing so.

            “Why are you so adamant against it?”

            Because it is untrue, it is as simple as that. It is not a salvation issue, it is simply a matter of truth.

            “Your faith is Catholic,…”

            My faith is in Jesus Christ and him alone, not an institution, not in works, not in the teachings of men, Christ and Christ alone.

          • James Blazsik

            I notice you never answer the question: are you a baptist? What church group do you belong to?

          • GLT

            “I notice you never answer the question:”

            it’s irrelevant. You seem to want to judge someone based on their church affiliation. I am first and foremost a Christian and that is all that matters.

          • James Blazsik

            It’s not irrelevant. I am first and foremost a Christian. In protestantism, because of sola Scriptura, your church affiliation is very important to derermine why you believe what you believe. What are you afraid of? What are you hiding?

          • GLT

            “What are you afraid of? What are you hiding?”

            I am not afraid of anything nor am I hiding anything. Why are you so obsessed with my church affiliation? Why is my church affiliation necessary for you to determine what I believe? I think I have made it very clear what I believe. What do you not understand?

            “I am first and foremost a Christian.”

            Good. Then why do you obsess over what church people attend? Do you judge people by their content or by their affiliations?

          • James Blazsik

            You know I am a Catholic Christian. I already said that it is important to see where you come from – your theological viewpoint. Calvin is much different from Wesley. Baptists are different from Pentecostals. Of course it’s important. You are too touchy to be online debating.

          • GLT

            “Baptists are different from Pentecostals.”

            How? In what significant, salvation related way are Baptists different from Pentecostals?

            “You are too touchy to be online debating.”

            Hardly, I am the furthest thing from touchy. You are simply making assumptions without any foundation to support them. If you actually knew me you would laugh at the accusation.

          • James Blazsik

            That’s the problem, I don’t know you. What is your church affiliation?

          • GLT

            “That’s the problem, I don’t know you. What is your church affiliation?”

            How is my church affiliation going to help you know me? It will only serve to put preconceived notions in your mind. What is wrong with what I have made obvious to you about my beliefs? Why not determine my make up from what I have said? Answer that question for me and I will tell you my affiliation.

          • James Blazsik

            You hide with 3 letters as you ID instead of giving your name. You don’t know Church history, and you have non appreciation for other church groups. You don’t value the development of theology, and you determine anything that disagrees with you as irrelevant. You don’t have theological depth.
            Your church affiliation will tell me a lot. You don’t handle confrontation very well.
            In my opinion, I think you are a baptist.

          • GLT

            “You don’t know Church history,…”

            Another baseless assumption, you have no idea whatsoever what I know and don’t know.

            “you have non appreciation for other church groups.”

            Really, and how would you know that? Let me guess, you’re making another baseless assumption. Tell me, what do you know about my knowledge of other church groups? You’ve made a claim I have no appreciation for other churches, tell me on what you base that accusation?

            “You don’t have theological depth.”

            It would appear I have more than you as you seem to be under the impression you belong to the only true church. That is a pretty shallow theological pool.

            “You don’t handle confrontation very well.”

            I’m a master at it, I’ve had many, many years of practice. If you think you have me upset or confused you are sadly mistaken. Again, you are making baseless assumptions in an effort to make yourself feel superior.

            As for hiding behind three letters, that is palpable nonsense. Knowing your name, if it is your name, does nothing to help me understand you. I get what I need to know from your comments, not your name.

            “In my opinion, I think you are a baptist.”

            Ah, but what kind of Baptist do you think I am? 🙂 Remember I said if you answered my question I would tell you my church affiliation. Are you going to answer it or not?

          • James Blazsik

            I thought I answered your question.

          • GLT

            Nope. I asked you to tell me how the things I have said have not told you what I believe but that simply knowing my church affiliation would? You have been trying from the beginning to stick a label on me and I want to know why you are obsessed with doing so. Is the fact I am a Christian not good enough? Consider Paul’s admonition of those in Corinth who obsessed over whether one was a follower of Paul or of Apollos.

          • James Blazsik

            I’ve already answered that. Because of sola Scriptura, there is quite a diversity of belief in the Christian community. Your church affiliation will tell me what teaching tradition is the foundation of your thinking.
            You are kinda sensitive, or afraid of letting people know where you are coming from.

          • GLT

            “Your church affiliation will tell me what teaching tradition is the foundation of your thinking.”

            The foundation of my thinking is the Bible. Why do you have a problem with that?

            “You are kinda sensitive, or afraid of letting people know where you are coming from.”

            Neither is true. I have been debating people on line for years over a wide range of topics, sensitive I am not, I can assure you. I told you repeatedly where I am coming from, you simply won’t accept that. You insist you must know my church affiliation which would merely result in you making preconceived assumptions about what I believe based on what you believe you know about what my affiliation teaches. I am trying to make you think about how you go about your interactions with Christians who are not of the Roman Catholic tradition.

            If it will make you happy, I attend a church which is in the Associated Gospel Church in Canada. Now what?

          • James Blazsik

            The reason I asked so many times is because you refused to answer my question Thank you for answering; was it that hard?
            I grew up Catholic, then I left and spent more than 20 years in evangelicalism. I attended various non-denominational churches, went to a pentecostal college, was a united methodist youth pastor, and in my search for the roots of the church: I got into reformed theology, studied Martin Luther, then I ended up as a Anglican priest.
            In my search I ended back where I started: the Catholic Church.
            I have no problem that the foundation of your thinking is the Bible – but it then becomes the Bible according to you, to your line of thinking. You go by the teaching tradition of your church.
            The Bible says in 1Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Catholic Church gives us latitude on how to interpret Scripture, but it must never contradict Catholic dogma.
            You do the same thing: you adhere to the dogma of your teaching tradition.

          • GLT

            “The reason I asked so many times is because you refused to answer my question.”

            And I clearly told you why I was not answering. Is that so hard to understand?

            “but it then becomes the Bible according to you, to your line of thinking.”

            No more than it does for you, whether you accept that or not. The Bible is clear in what it teaches, man is the one who tries to complicate it.

            “You go by the teaching tradition of your church.”

            And you don’t?

            “The Catholic Church gives us latitude on how to interpret Scripture, but it must never contradict Catholic dogma.”

            Which is superior, Catholic dogma or scripture? If there is a contradiction which authority wins?

            “You do the same thing: you adhere to the dogma of your teaching tradition.”

            Just as I said, you base your judgment on my church affiliation and not what I have told you. I agree with the statement of faith found in the Nicene Creed. Does that help you understand?

          • James Blazsik

            The Nicene Creed is Catholic. It came about because of the Council of Nicea in 325. It was in response to the arian heresy.
            Sometimes reading the Bible isn’t as clear as you think. Give the Bible to 100 people. How many opinions will you get? There are 1,000s of denominations. Questions on the Deity of Christ and the Trinity were answered and defined by Church Councils. The same with the canon of Scripture.
            How can you formulate the definition of the Trinity without using theology? The question is whose theology. The formulation of the Trinity is Catholic. The formulation of the nature of Christ is Catholic. The 7 Ecumenical Councils were all Catholic.

          • GLT

            “The Nicene Creed is Catholic.”

            I know where and why the Nicene Creed originated. I also know the the term catholic only means universal.

            “The 7 Ecumenical Councils were all Catholic.”

            Do you think the Roman Catholic church of today is the same church found in the first century?

          • James Blazsik

            Of course. All the Councils were Catholic in terms of the Catholic Church today. The Catholic Church is founded by Christ. Your church is founded by men.

          • GLT

            “The Catholic Church is founded by Christ.”

            But the Catholic Church is not synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church, in case you were unaware of that fact.

            “Your church is founded by men.”

            Are you saying all those outside the Roman Catholic church are not Christians?

          • James Blazsik

            The Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are the same. You are just playing with words, with titles.
            The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are much the same. The Catholic Church recognizes other groups in protestantism – as long as they are baptized, are Christians

          • GLT

            “The Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are the same.”

            No, they are not. The term catholic simply means universal. Its origin is from the Greek words Kata and Holos which, when combined, basically means with respect to the whole. This term eventually formed the Greek word Katholikos which in Latin became Catholicus and in late Middle English, Catholic. Roman Catholic refers specifically to a doctrinal tradition within the Catholic church, nothing more. They are not synonymous. That you believe so is perhaps part of your problem when it comes to protestant traditions.

            “The Catholic Church recognizes other groups in protestantism – as long as they are baptized, are Christians.”

            Why then do so many Roman Catholics insist one must be within that tradition to be seen as belonging to the ‘true church’?

          • James Blazsik

            You don’t know what you are talking about. The Catholic Church refers to itself as the Catholic Church. It always has. Our Catechism is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is very early. St. Ignatius (a disciple of the apostle John) referred to it in Smyrnaeans 8:2 107AD. Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John) refers to it around 155AD. And it’s not the “a”.
            The term Roman Catholic referring to the Catholic Church is by an Anglican definition in the middle ages.
            The Catholic Church contains the fullness of the faith. If you want that, join it. It doesn’t mean you are not a Christian.

          • GLT

            “You don’t know what you are talking about.”

            Ahb, but I do. You are the one working under a false assumption, sorry.

            “The Catholic Church refers to itself as the Catholic Church.”

            That should read the ‘Roman Catholic church refers to itself as the Catholic Church’.

            So what, that means absolutely nothing. If it referred to itself as a red tractor would that make it a red tractor? What palpable nonsense. The term catholic means universal, it does not refer to a single tradition and never has. That is simply a logical and linguistic fact. It’s time you deal with it.

            “St. Ignatius (a disciple of the apostle John) referred to it in Smyrnaeans 8:2 107AD.”

            Ignatius is referring to the Catholic church; ie, the universal church; not the Roman Catholic church which was still centuries in the future. It should also be pointed out Igantius’ manuscript is not part of the Canon of scripture, which you like to point out was determined by the ‘Catholic Church.’

            “The Catholic Church contains the fullness of the faith. If you want that, join it. It doesn’t mean you are not a Christian.”

            The fullness of the faith? What does that mean? Are you implying I do not have a full faith because I am not a member of the Roman Catholic church?

          • James Blazsik

            You don’t get it. The term “Roman Catholic” designation came from an Anglican definition. The Catholic Church didn’t. You want to be that, but it doesn’t make that.
            Ignatius and Polycarp was referring to the Catholic Church, You saying otherwise doesn’t make it true. This is where you are deficient when it comes to church history. You trying to define me doesn’t define me.
            First, there was the Catholic Church founded by Christ. Then the split happened with the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church is still the Catholic Church. Then there was the reformation. The Catholic Church is still the Catholic Church.
            I don’t think your church group belongs to the classical reformation. I think it derives from the anabaptist tradition. Luther advocated persecution against the anabaptists.
            The Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith. Your church group fails in that regard.

          • GLT

            “You don’t get it. The term “Roman Catholic” designation came from an Anglican definition.”

            It is you that doesn’t get it. It matters not where the name Roman Catholic came from, all that matters is the fact the term ‘catholic church’ refers to the universal church of Christ, not just your particular tradition.

            “Ignatius and Polycarp was referring to the Catholic Church,…”

            I never said otherwise, I only said, and correctly, that they were referring to the universal church of Christ, not the Roman Catholic or other orthodox traditions which arose later. I asked you earlier if you believed the RC Church of today is the same as the church in the first century? You did not answer that question other than to say, of course, which, of course, is no answer at all.

            “This is where you are deficient when it comes to church history.”

            On the contrary, this is where you are deficient as you function under the erroneous idea that the church of the first century is found in the RC Church and other so-called orthodox traditions.

            “First, there was the Catholic Church founded by Christ.”

            But what you are failing to realize is the church founded by Christ was not an institution, that part was to come from man later on.

            “Luther advocated persecution against the anabaptists.”

            You keep bringing up Luther as if he is some kind of authority to which I must comply. He is but a man. He was also a anti-semite if that is of any interest to you. In short, I don’t really care what Luther thought.

            “The Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith. Your church group fails in that regard.”

            How very arrogant of you. Perhaps you would be so noble as to explain how churches outside the RC tradition fail in having the fullness of faith. This sounds very much like the modern charismatic movement who also feel they are superior to other Christians, including Roman Catholics.

          • James Blazsik

            The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and as an organized institution. It couldn’t go through persecution and survive if it wasn’t. There are 2 billion Christians in the world and Catholics make up 1.2 billion. Catholics make up over a half of Christendom. It’s numbers alone tell you it was from the beginning. The Orthodox make up 300,000,000. They largely agree, they are the earliest Christian traditions and they dominate the numbers. They are the earliest expression: the way Christianity is meant to be.
            There is so much treasure in the Catholic Church, so I’ll start with it’s greatest. The Eucharist. Jesus commanded us to eat His Body and Blood. It is fulfilled in communion. Your faith tradition doesn’t have that.

          • James Blazsik

            Could you please stop referring to me or my Church as “Roman Catholic”. We have NEVER seen that as our name, so please show respect. There are 2 billion Christians in the world, and Catholics number 1.2 billion. More than half of the Christian Church is Catholic. There are 300 million Orthodox, so there are 1.5 billion Christians from the earliest expression of Christianity that has agreement in most things.
            Your church is in poverty compared to the fullness of the faith. Just one example: the Eucharist. Jesus commanded that we eat His Body and drink His Blood. He said if we didn’t we would have no life in us. Jesus said partaking of the Eucharist results in abiding in Him. Your church doesn’t have this indescribable treasure.

          • GLT

            “Could you please stop referring to me or my Church as “Roman Catholic””

            If you wish. However, you must understand the term catholic church simply means the universal church and not just your tradition.

            “More than half of the Christian Church is Catholic.”

            All of the Christian church is catholic, as I have consistently stated, catholic simply means universal, not just your institution.

            “Jesus commanded that we eat His Body and drink His Blood.”

            If you want to take that literally then you must also accept that Christ is a literal door made of wood and hinges. You really need to work on your hermeneutical and exegetical skills, seriously.

            “Your church doesn’t have this indescribable treasure.”

            We hold communion regularly. Wish to try again to explain how your church is superior to mine because that argument simply won’t fly, sorry.

          • GLT

            “It couldn’t go through persecution and survive if it wasn’t.”

            Palpable nonsense. The church went through tremendous persecution in its early years when people met in secret and knew little if anything about their brothers and sisters in Christ. There was no serious institutional structure until many decades later as it slowly became accepted.

            “Catholics make up over a half of Christendom.”

            Catholics make up all of Christendom.

            “the way Christianity is meant to be.”

            So I am not a Christian then because I am not doing it the way it is meant to be done? Again, how very arrogant of you.

    • No, but gnosticism is about pretending that God is equitable to your ego. That is not Christianity though.

  • tz1

    This has to be oriented (pun half intended) to the Truth, not toward punishment.

    I’d rather SSA or Homosexual, or abusive priests get severance and retirement if it will make it easier for them to come forward – and do defrock them, and they need to pay for any crimes.

    Right now the incentives – hard enough without concupisance – are to keep things covered up. If a priest admits he’s SSA, much less that the Seminary was a Gay Bath-House, he might be out, but the other priests will deny (and probably stay in place), but he will lose everything.

    We need a kind of amnesty where we just want the truth – self-confess, but then after the period is over name names, and reward people for their honesty while removing them from their priestly offices.

  • Cody

    Sorry but he not the holy Father.

    • kristinechristliebcanavan

      Hey, give it a rest, brother. Now’s not the time to go into that.

  • kristinechristliebcanavan

    For all the Protestants who want to use this opportunity to bash the Catholic Church . . . remember, it is the Catholic Church that has stood firmly and officially against homosexuality, contraception, abortion. The Catholic Church has a coherent theology of human sexuality–Protestants do not. The Catholic Church has taken a stand against things Protestants won’t dare to talk about in their pulpits.

    • Patmos

      I thought you said give it a rest.

      If you have 300 of 400 priests abusing kids and a cover up involved, or whatever the numbers were in Pennsylvania, bashing is the least a person can do and is letting them off easy.

      And yes, bash the crap out of churches that accept and even promote perversions.

      Be lukewarm and the Lord will spit you out.

      • Insulting the Church is blasphemy, insulting any Holy man is a mortal sin.

        By advocating for this evil, you are now fully complicit in it. Do you know what that means?

        • Patmos

          If this is sarcasm, it makes sense. Judging from your posts below though, it’s pretty clear you’re either insane, ignorant, or just another troll.

          • Come up with one argument against me.

            you are complicit in all of the blasphemy stated here because you officially approve of it and take part, do you know what that means?

          • Vincent J.

            Nigel blocked my posts, because I tested his spirit per 1John chapter 4. He cannot say, “Jesus is the Son of God.” I suspect that he’s more than just a troll.

        • Diogenes71

          Let’s keep in mind thta the PA Church scandal was over 70 years. Generations of priests and bishops who betrayed both the Body of Christ, the Church, and the faithful.

          • Keep what in mind. Is ultima Holy men is mortally sinful, no matter what rationalization you think self-justifies your partaking in it.

        • GLT

          “Insulting the Church is blasphemy, insulting any Holy man is a mortal sin.”

          How about you back that up with Scripture? I agree it is blasphemous to insult the Lord but I don’t see how it is blasphemous to question the integrity of the Roman Catholic church or its leaders.

          • The Church is indefectible and indivisible. That means it cannot be blemished and it cannot contradict itself or be contradicted.

            This is because God is indirectible and indivisible, but also because God promised us this.

            So you know you have committed blasphemy (and yet deny mortal sin no doubt due to your “gnosis”), do you know what blasphemy is?

          • GLT

            “do you know what blasphemy is?”

            Yep. Do you?

          • Third worst sin of all, third sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance, self-injury due to rejection of truth.

            Three perfect examples:
            1) suicide
            2) Attacking God, His Church, or anything God has established.
            3) Assuming your ego is equitable to God.

            you do 2 and 3 on the regular here.

        • GLT

          “insulting any Holy man is a mortal sin.”

          There are no holy men, not a single one, only sinners who need forgiveness.

          • Those in the Offices represented by the Sacrament of Holy Orders are all Holy men.

            Any Saint is a holy man.

            Really any Catholic is a Holy man due to being a part of God’s Church.

    • #neverdemocrats

      Have you ever taken the time to study your churches past? IT IS DISGRACEFUL!

    • GLT

      “the Catholic Church that has stood firmly and officially against homosexuality, contraception, abortion.”

      A lot of talk but very little in the way of effectiveness however, as recent events attest.

      “The Catholic Church has taken a stand against things Protestants won’t dare to talk about in their pulpits.”

      Just a little bit of a generalization, don’t you think? How many “Protestant’ churches have you been in? I’m guessing not too many and you’re actually doing nothing more than spouting meaningless rhetoric. I am curious why some Roman Catholics see the need to attack others fro no other reason than that they are not Roman Catholics. It is quite sad really.

  • James Blazsik

    This is the time to clean house and bring holiness and life into our Church. We have the treasure of the Eucharist, the Body and Body of our Lord. It’s worth fighting for.

  • Brother to Many

    I hear you Jennifer.

    Fr Dwight Longenecker has posted a very sobering article about how this may all pan out. Here are some excerpts (Google it for the full article):

    1. Pope Francis is not going to resign. You may not like Pope Francis. You may think he is the anti-Christ or the last pope before the return of the Lord. You might think he is the best pope ever–the great reformer and all that. It really doesn’t matter. He’s the pope. He is not accountable to anyone. He likes being pope and he’s not going anywhere. You can bet on that.

    2. The Cardinals are not going to resign. With very few exceptions, one doesn’t get to be a cardinal in the Catholic Church for lowly humility. Many of these men exhibit all the traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and believe me, those folks never admit they are wrong and they never resign.

    3. The bishops aren’t going to resign. See number two above.

    4. In Pope will remain silent about Vigano’s testimony. It will be put in the bottom drawer along with the dubia from the four cardinals. It will be dismissed with an eye roll and an indulgent smile therefore treating the whole matter in the same way you treat the ravings of your crazy uncle who gets all wild eyed about conspiracy theories…

    If the above happens, we fail as a church. We must not fail.

    • Optimus_Maximus

      Withhold funding from the Vatican by our morally upright Bishops is the ONLY way to get the Vatican’s attention.

      Failing that, withhold tithing by the laity (Holy people of the Church).

      Refuse to fund grave sin.

      The Church MUST be cleansed. Thank

  • #neverdemocrats

    Faithful Catholics should leave the church or share in its condemnations.

  • Char B

    Jennifer, I love that only the truth will suffice for you. You are part of the “church of piety” that Rodney Stark contrasts to the “church of power.” May your tribe increase.

  • AvantiBev

    First they tried to destroy the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I lived through that lunacy and thank God found my way eventually to,a parish where I could worship God present in the Body and Blood of the Eucharist. After watching the eagerness with which the Modernist heretics dismantled the Mass, I was not surprised by the degenerates among the priests and bishops and their persecution of any traditional, devout man in their seminary bath houses.

  • Optimus_Maximus

    Amen, Amen, Amen, verily you speak the truth.

    I propose ALL Bishops that are morally upright withhold funding from the Vatican unless and until your recommendations are acted upon.

    Otherwise, we, the Catholic faithful are complicit in funding grave sin.

Inspiration
‘And She Did Eat …’
The Stream
More from The Stream
Connect with Us