27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

And what if they rebelliously refuse to follow Him?

What then?

Jerry... I didn't see one thing that FH said that bashed the RCC here. And how this could have happened in the first place is the same way any crime family is established... secrecy, greed and lies. And it is funny that you mention the mafia... because had the statute of limitations not expired, the RCC leadership would have been charged under Ricoh in Philadelphia. In fact they have been charged under these statutes in other states. If you are not familiar with these statutes, they are the statutes with which organized crime is pursued. In fact, the church has conducted business much the same as the Mafia (and I should know having been a cop in SOuth Philadelphia).

As far as living in end times... it has been felt that we were there hundreds of times in the past. I do not presume to know the will of God and Scripture can be read in many ways... some which would support end times... and others that would refute it.

Jerry, one last thing... as an ex Catholic and now born again Christian, I can say that I do understand how one cannot lose their salvation. I do believe that if a person is truly saved that the Lord will never let one in his flock go. They may stray... but I don't believe (and there is a lot of scriptural support that backs this up) that a saved Christian can lose their salvation.

MEDC

Jerry... that part of Scripture is VERY clear.

Now, I would ask that my thread stay on its original topic. Thanks to all.

MEDC,
I bow out in respect of yor wishes. I do widh we could disuss this furhter, but I wiil repesct your wish, this is your thread, not mine.



all blessings,
Jerry

Jerry, I understand your frustration, even your anger, because there ARE only two "truths" regarding this issue, three if you want to count rejection of God and Christ as the third. Either a truly "born again" believer CAN lose their salvation or they cannot. "My opinion" doesn't count. "Your opinion" doesn't count. "Any human's opinion" doesn't count. What counts is what God has said about it in His Word.

If you'd care to discuss it, we can, understanding that we both come at with differing "opinions" and "beliefs" and letting the Word of God speak for itself. The "problem" with most things related to the Scripture is in the interpretations of "men." That is why it is important to look at exactly what the Scripture does say, and look at the seeming "contradictions" too.




This may be where the "misunderstanding" lies, Jerry. I completely agree with this statement that a person needs to consider that their "salvation is in jeopardy if they willfully choose to be disobedient to God's commands in order to willfully sin against God."

That is PRECISELY the warning that Jesus gave us in the parable of the Sower (Soils). If you wanted to we could discuss that sort of thing, but it would properly need it's own thread, or even an "off MB" discussion, as I am fairly sure that ANY discussion of this subject could lead to "hostile posts" from many. It is very difficult to keep ANY thread on MB exclusively between just two posting members.




Many times, Jerry. Here's something to think about along that line. Who is it that secures your salvation, you or Jesus? What Jesus secures, who can pry it out of His hand?
The writer of Hebrews speaks to the issue you raise:

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." (Hebrews 6:4-6)

At first reading, you may agree, it appears as though the writer is saying that a born again believer CAN "fall away" and lose their salvation. If that is all that was written, it would, in fact, say that. But the writer doesn't end the thought there. He goes on to say IF such a thing were to occur, it would then be IMPOSSIBLE for such a person to be brought back to repentance ("saved again"). There would be nothing that such a person could do or say to "regain that which was lost."

But to go further at this time would be to "open such a discussion" that you brought up, and I am reluctant to do that without it being something that you wanted to do.




In my opinion, these "examples" you cite are not, and never were, "saved." The appropriated the name of "Christian" as a wolf in sheeps clothing would do.

God bless.

Where shoud
we take it FH, without offending MEDC or others?
Jerry

medc

"evil empire"

i couldn't agree more.
raised catholic.
turned to the independent baptist church over 10 years ago.
work for a catholic school (directing their after school program and occasionally subbing)
i watch from the sidelines and shudder.

don't even get me started.
i do not believe in religion, i believe in God.
every church and religion has it's scandals.
but i have to say the church i belong to is the best i have ever seen. a normal every day man for a pastor with a wife and kids and real problems.
real people sitting next to me in the pews.
a small group who just believe what the bible says and nothing else. no pomp and circumstance, no rituals steeped in tradition that have NOTHING to do with the bible.

i love my church.

mlhb

Godd for you MLHB,
Stay on your path,

All blessings,
Jerry

Jerry, You have not offended me... and I would take part in that other discussion... I just don't want this get into a battle of religions. I am and have made points about one topic on the RCC. I have asked questions that frankly really have not been answered as of yet.

I am curious with the truth being out there that the church is corrupt from its top (here on earth) to the parrish level (obviously not all... but only a few parrishs in Philadelphia and none that I know of in Boston were NOT touched by these scandals) how people feel continuing to be led this organization in matters of faith. I would not put my kid in a day care that turned a blind eye to child molestation. I would not take my taxes to a man arrested for tax fraud... yet many turn their religious direction over to a church that has proven itself to be problematic at best. This is the crux of why I cannot return to the church... it is the reason that so many leave the church...and frankly it is the reason that I am on this crusade rather than just doing what would be easier for me... to forget the past! Yet I know.... it is a fact... that there are still children in harms way and they are NOT being adequately protected by this organization that goes out of its way to make sure their finances are secured.
What does it say to a Catholic that the church has told Catholics in this area that it would be a sin to read the GJ report?
What does it say that the man soon to be a saint... called back to the Vatican the biggest conspirator in the country... yes, bigger than any mob leader. Cardinal John Law should be in jail... instead he was given a comfy position in Rome... never to set foot in the USA again... all at John Paul's direction to stop him from having to testify. All fact...not embellishment.
I am just curious as to how people can know this and still support this organization with their dollars and participation.
MEDC

Jerry, if, as it sounds from your post, you would like to explore this topic further I would be willing to do so.

I can only think of 2 potential places to do so that would minimize a possible "offense" to others.

1. Take if off of the Infidelity forum and onto the General Discussion forum under Other Topics.

2. Converse via email, which while not as easy to keep track of a "thread" and view all the posts, is the most private and can be kept to "one on one" conversants.

If you do want to discuss this subject further, I'll let you choose which of the 2 options you think would work best. Personally, I like the forums a little better because its a lot easier to follow all the posts and thoughts, especially if one wants to refer back to something.

Dear MEDC,

I rearrange the order of your post in order to respond in a coherent way. Before replying I consulted the site you provided and read the overview of the cover-up, and also glanced at the SNAP website.


Yes. “By their fruits shall ye know them.” The question is profound. I will attempt to offer you my answers.


It’s difficult. I have not said a word of blame or reproach to you for leaving the RCC. I often feel like a rat climbing onto a sinking ship for joining it. There are four parts to my answer:

-- The pope is not the head of the Church – Jesus is. I have hope that He will save His mystical body from the disastrous situation it is in.
-- I put my faith in the truth of the dogmas and the effectiveness of the Sacraments of the one visible Church, not the moral worth of the clergy and bishops who currently administer it in America.
-- I know Latin-rite Catholics from Vietnam and Kenya, Byzantine Catholics from Hungary and the Ukraine, Maronite Catholics from Lebanon, Chaldean Catholics from Iraq, and Syro-Malabar Catholics from Kerala and Tamil Nadu. They know little or nothing of the problems of the Church in America. I don’t wish to break communion with them because of American bishops.
-- My understanding of recent history of the Church gives me an alternative culprit to blame for all of this, rather than the RCC as a whole. I will explain below.


I only give money to my local parish church, which can barely pay its own electricity bill, and whose priests receive $10 a day as a food allowance. I also don’t see any point in giving money to the RCC in America until some serious reform has taken place.


The universal Church has always been crumbling into ruins in one part of the world and being rebuilt in another. I am a member of the universal Church because of my conviction, based on Scripture, reason, and Christian tradition, that Jesus wanted a single, universal, visible Church. The crimes of the priests and the bishops do not stain me. See the parable of the tares and the wheat….I’m sorry that wolves in sheep's clothing seem to control the American Church right now, but I hope Jesus will not allow that to go on much longer.


I don’t know his role in these scandals. JPII was largely irrelevant to my life as I did not become a Catholic until after his death. I am uncomfortable with the rapidity of his cause as it seems to be motivated by irresponsible crowd-pleasing.


You didn’t follow my request to go find a traditional Mass, did you? A Novus Ordo Mass was "less than positive"? That's putting it mildly! Personally I will never again voluntarily attend a New Mass.

So, here’s my alternative explanation that lets me blame someone besides the whole RCC:

The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and its aftermath introduced incredible, sweeping, profound changes into every aspect of the Church. They radically changed the Mass. They radically changed the education given to the faithful. They radically changed the formation of the priests. They radically changed the goals of all the religious orders. They changed the administrative structures of the Church.

IMO almost all of these changes were disastrous. There were various aspects of this disaster, interacting in ways that I cannot decipher:
-- Desire for ecumenism with, and/or envy of, Protestants
-- Desire to adapt to the modern world
-- Rejection of the theology of the Council of Trent
-- Rejection of the whole of the traditional theology of the RCC
-- A false rationalist anthropology
-- Liturgical Iconoclasm (with the contempt for the laity of all iconoclasm)
-- Acceptance of the Freudian critique of religious vocation by the religious themselves
-- Masonic and Communist infiltration

So modern post-Vatican-II Catholicism has a rather thin connection with what Catholicism was from Pentecost 33 AD until 1962. The proponents of this faction in the Church, or this way of being Catholic, who have run things for the last 40 years, hate the traditional Mass, because it represents and expresses pre-1962 Catholicism.

Now, almost all American bishops are committed to Vatican II. They were in formation at the time it happened and they rose through the hierarchy while it was being implemented. I blame their shocking indifference to justice, truth, honesty, and their actual duty to care for souls instead of finances on the spiritual, intellectual and moral void created by these wrenching changes. I’m sorry about the state of the Church in America, but it doesn’t pose a moral problem for me, since I identify with and am loyal to the AD 33-1962 Catholicism, not the post-1962 Catholicism which, I’m afraid, is all 99% of American Catholics have been permitted to experience since 1969.

I also think that this extreme style of Vatican II Catholicism is coming to an inevitable end. It is so spiritual empty that the faithful are not nourished by it and have little reason to remain within the Church. Hardly anyone wants to become a priest within it, while traditional seminaries and religious orders are flourishing. The generation actively committed to those ideals is old and has no successors.

“Save the liturgy, save the world”.

God bless.

Athanasius - it seems you are establishing a "pattern." Stop in for a very brief time, and then leave when things get a bit uncomfortable, rationalizing that "choice to leave" in ways that are eerily similiar to others we know around here.




If you were here, which of course you won't be, I would ask you a few things about this such as;

1. The church that is what Jesus spoke about is not the RCC, though that IS the RCC position, and as you said in another post, all Protestant religions are, therefore heretical and the people who are Protestants are, then, themselves heretics.

2. The RCC was NOT "established" around 33 A.D., despite the claims of the RCC. Neither was Peter a "Pope" nor was Peter the "Rock" that Jesus was referring to. This RCC position of being the "exclusive visible church on earth" is eerily similar to the Jewish beliefs of Jesus' day AND the orginal "understanding" of Peter.

3. You "condemn all 'American Catholics'." But it would require a more involved discussion to get to the "heart" of your rationalizations and the justifications inherent in your position of; "I identify with and am loyal to the AD 33-1962 Catholicism, not the post-1962 Catholicism which, I’m afraid, is all 99% of American Catholics have been permitted to experience since 1969. "

Athanasius, you HAD the opportunity to actually discuss and talk about "differences" in Christian belief and what the SCRIPTURE, not any particular "Council of....," has established as the official RCC position. You have declined or avoided every one of them. Other American Catholics "rushed" to your aid and defense of the "RCC positions," when you set me up to respond to a call to discuss "Christian Doctrine, all the while not knowing what your "real intent and/or beliefs really were." You, once again, begin to let the truth begin to be glimpsed behind the "rationalizations and justifications" you employ. It is YOUR "doctrine" that you want to push, and to push it as being "Catholic doctrine" when in reality you despise that actions of the RCC since 1962 and want to push "rolling back the clock." That "rolling back the clock" was done once before...by a courageous Catholic priest....it was called the Reformation. But then, you "label" them heretics and Protestant belief as heresy even as you seem to label the post-1962 RCC church.



You attempt to USE the RCC faith to manipulate people to being what you consider to be a "good Catholic," responsive only to the RCC. And here you rather plainly state you don't "mean" the current RCC, the current teaching and tradition, but something quited different. While I know it may be bit repugnant to hear, are you suggesting, perhaps, a return to the wonderfully "concerned about others" time of the Inquisition? Loyalty to the RCC was the issue to the inquisitors of that time and the RCC leadership, NOT the truth.

Ath, it is the TRUTH that sets men free, not the RCC, the Protestant faith, the Greek Orthodox faith, etc. The TRUTH is found in the Word of God. It is the interpretations of "man" that always need to be "examined" against what is actually said in the Word of God so that we can "test the spirits" and know if what they say is "of God or of men."

What MEDC raised is in the "arena" of "of men," especially when those "men" try to get people to believe that they are "shepards of God's flock" according to their own desires and interpretations that are not supportable by Scripture.

MEDC is NOT questioning "faith that saves," he is questioning the "sin-natured" men in charge, THEIR submission to God, etc. "Ex cathedra" aside, if a fallen man, still subject to a fallen "sin-nature" as we all are, is to be believed to be "inerrant" in what he says, they WHY has he NOT banned all that you "object to," plainly and simply, with NO concern for anything other than speaking the will of God that is 100% in concert with the will of God?

Have you ever considered that "silence connotes consent?" THAT is a major point of what MEDC has been saying.

And by the way, you DID attack MEDC when you made it clear that he had left the "one true church, the RCC church" and that you prayed that one day he would be restored to the only true faith.

To others who may be "offended" by this post and consider it to be "Catholic bashing," I offer that is not my intent. Athanasius has done more of that with this post than I have ever done, essentially "dissing" all Catholics, at least those from 1969 on.

What I have ALWAYS said is that we ALL need to stand ready to obey the Scriptural directive to "be ready to give anyone who asks an answer for why you believe." I do, Athanasius does not.

Athanasius seems to prefer "leaving" rather than discussing, especially when the issue being discussed "seems difficult." That may be simply that he has not experienced infidelity and the lesson that it teaches all who have that, "difficult or not, changes in what I think that are needed or not, it requires discussion, evaluation, loving confrontation, and recognizing "sin" for "sin" and self-centeredness as the primary problem for infidelity."

Bottom line: I'm not in the least suprised that he is "leaving" again. For those who are "worried" or "saddened" by his leaving, he'll be back to drop in a few "gems" that benefit him.

To Athanasious: the biblical directive is to NOT pray to, or worship, any angels or any man. We take our requests DIRECTLY to God the Father through God the Son. Jesus is our ONE intercessor and God commands the angels. That IS my opinion, and one that I am willing to support biblically. What say you about "biblical support" as the way to determine the truth in the matter when their are divergent opinions?

Be ye conformed to the likeness of His Son, not to the likeness of anyone else.

Soli Deo gloria

exactly

Ant... your answer is disappointing to say the least. You were asked real simple questions and you basically offered few(and vague) answers. And no matter how much money you give to your local church... KNOW that some of it is being kicked up to the leadership.

So, what did you think of the GJ report????

What does it say about the current pope that he is rushing to sainthood a man that protected pedophiles and church money? Wouldn't that suggest the pope is participating in a sham?

And I clearly said "here on Earth" as far as talking about the leadership of the church.

Frankly, you come here and use a lot of words when you show up... and other than your constant (and obviously myopic) defense of the church, I am at a loss to understand you. YOu now appear as though you are dismissing the vast majority of the church (much like Mel Gibson does with his strict adherence to the "older" ways in the church) as irrelevant and not truly catholic. Your first response to my telling of my experience was asking if I had attended a certain type of mass. Perhaps attending a mass where I did not understand the language would be better. I am sure that if your didn't know what he was saying, that Hitler could have been seen as just a motivational speaker.

The facts are clear regarding this "ship." I am trying my best to help pump out the bilge... yet she takes on more water. All the while the captain and crew are on the dock laughing away abd counting their money. It is a shame and frankly it breaks my heart. The Church was meant to be so much more than a "syndicate." As it stands, they are a corrupt an organization as exists today. My faith in the Lord has been strengthened once I got away from leadership that while PRETENDING to be taking care of the flock is really using their power to harm them in the most unimaginable way possible.

and clearly the concern does not stop with the RCC in the US. Since the Vatican conspired with the "American" church to hide some of the criminals, they are just as guilty since they drove the get away car.

FH and MEDC,
After re reading this thread, I must apologize if I came off overly obtusive. I have this curse of an Irish temper, that has not served me well in all my years.
Your points on this thread are well taken, and, in truth, I don't disagree much with what you have stated. How can one argue with the truth?

I guess I am just sad and disheartened by what my church has eroded into. How must Christ be suffering! But today is a good day to reflect upon that.

All Blessings,
Jerry

Jerry, there is no need to apologize to me, we all need to apologize to God at times for how poorly we mirror Christ in our lives.




Try my Scandavian temper sometimes....I liken it to a volcano...all nice and calm most of the time as the pressures keep building....then a few warning tremblors....and then WHAM! it explodes in anger.

We all need to listen to God's instruction to be slow to anger to avoid reacting in ways that might be sinful. There is nothing at all wrong with anger, per se. In fact God gave us all of our emotions and we should feel anger at sin, especially willful sin acting in disobedience to God.




And therein is a truth for all believers everywhere. We do tend to identify with the local church or denomination that we are members of, but there really is only one true church, the church that makes up the "bride of Christ."

When we lose sight of the fact, or find it easier to "let someone else tell us what to believe," it is very easy for temptations to creep in....and before long, for false teaching that serves "man" rather than true Scriptural teaching that serves God to become a the "faith du jour." It changes things from what God wants to what Man wants.

Suffice it to say that ALL men in church leadership ARE fallable people who are subject to all the temptations of the flesh that are common to man. That is part and parcel of the ongoing effect of the "Fall" that resulted in our total separation from eternal life with God. But through God's grace and mercy, He provided the means for us to be "cleansed" and reconciled to him so that we now have a body that is still dead because of sin but a spirit that is alive because of Christ.

Until then, we are told by the Scripture to put our hope and faith in NO man. That belongs to our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, and to God alone. "Test the spirits and know whether they are of God or of Man."

For those in positions of authority, God also gives a terrible warning....they are directly answerable to God for how they shepard the flock. They, and we all, will stand before God and all of our sins and all of what we did (good works) out of love for God will be exposed, some receiving no rewards from God, just barely escaping the eternal judgment of God. But the warning to all is there will be many standing there who THINK that they are Christians, but who never were, and Jesus will tell them so.

People can be fooled, Jerry. People can appear "pious and religious," but many are the people who follow their own hearts and not God's heart. Many are the sins listed in the Scripture that are prima facia examples of people who, no matter what "religion" they claim to be, WILL NOT be in heaven. It is equally clear that many who have sinned those very sins WILL be in heaven. The difference between the two is who has, and who does not have, Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Very sobering. Or at least it should be.




This is love, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The gate is narrow that leads to life and the way is broad that leads to destruction.

This is the "work" of man, to believe in him whom God has sent.

For it is by Grace you have been saved, not of works, lest ANY man should boast.

Today is the day that we remember the day that I hammered the nails into Jesus, hung him on the tree, and let him take my just punishment. And he did it all because he loved me even though I was "ugly" and "offensive" beyond measure to God, and because he humbled himself to obedience to the Father's will, no matter what it cost him personally.

"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" - which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The price of sin was never so high. The wrath due me was poured out on Him.

How dare we NOT get angry against sin against God?

What need have I to forgive you, Jerry. You ARE forgiven by the only one whose forgiveness matters.

God bless.


From a still, quiet heart and mind, with tears of sorrow over what I cost you....Thank you Jesus.

May I be worthy of your service as you mold me and shape me for your use.

(butting in for a second, here)

For a relatively "new" Christian, this post is so very interesting.

Started out in the Catholic Church due to family origin on both sides ... have moved to a nondenominational because it just seems to speak to us better.

No bashing, just what seems to be working for us.

Those reports, I must say, gave me the willies. Yikes! How does something like this happen?

(okay, I'll just keep reading ... VERY educational)

those reports are not even the tip of the iceberg. sad, but true.