₦airaland Forum

You can find this book:

Darkness Visible: A Christian Appraisal of Freemasonry
by Walton Hannah

As a practising Christian, is Freemasonry compatible with one’s duty to Jesus Christ? That is the question which the Rev. Walton Hannah, then a Church of England clergyman (and subsequently a Catholic priest), set himself to answer with the publication of Darkness Visible in 1952.
Darkness Visible contains the entire and authentic text of the Masonic ritual of the first three degrees and of the Royal Arch. Hannah wrote this book to substantiate his conviction that for a quasi-religious organisation such as Freemasonry to offer prayers and worship to God but exclude the name of Jesus Christ demonstrates its incompatibility with Christianity.

www.baroniuspress.com

there are several other books out there too but this is the one I trust and another one, I can't remember the name.

Chakula can u answer my question?

I really want to know, thanks in advance. I'll be back to check.

what is WoF?

Image123:
^
Why the bother? At least according to you, they can't lose their salvation. Or you want them to be aware that you know something.

Exactly why is 5solas bothering himself on people that can never loose salvation. They can freely hold whatever belief they want, they won't loose their salvation, so what's the problem?
Sit back and relax.
Unless you do realise that one can loose salvation when they don't hold the true belief.

shaking my head at how illogical the Solas are.

This for me is the more plausible reason why the Vatican would excommunicate freemasons. It is also the reason why King Philip of France would try to exterminate the Knights of the Temple (and for their wealth too). It is all about power, political power, not spiritual power.

I'm glad you're finally doing research, unfortunately you don't do enough research to gather the full story to come to a logical conclusion.

The Knights Templars were soldiers for the Church, freemasons later infiltrated it to bring down the Church, they've also attempted it in the 20th century until Pope John Paul I got a list of those in the Vatican that were freemasons and he tried to publicly excommunicate them but they killed him the night before (do not ask how I got this info, I've got my contacts ). His reign was 33 days.

King Philip IV of France did not go after the Knights for their wealth, he went after them for their heresy (freemasonry) and some say because he wanted to free himself from the debt he owed them, but nothing about they're powerful and rich. There's no possible way one can come to such a conclusion if one studies history and applies logic.

The freemasons did not always have money, they seldom did anyway, it wasn't until the recent centuries that they gained wealth and power, but before then, the Church was already at war with it because of its heresy.

Stop looking for things that aren't there.

Yes Lady but have you tried to follow the links given by otitokoro1? The sre so helpful to many things about masonry. I'm now starting to believe that these people do worship satan. Iswa the list of gods the worship and satan is one of them. The information was true then no doubt they worship devil. Here it is:

Please my dear you must understand that I am not one to be easily convinced by anything anyone puts on a website. I know just how biased and illogical people are.
Any bloke can have a webpage and try to claim some credibility, that doesn't mean they have any credibility. I happen to know very much about the freemasons and do not need a website to inform me, I know fully well the purpose of their existence, I don't care to discuss it here. I am a scholar of history and I mean objective history not biased history. I don't get my learnings from a website, and I advice you not to get your education from a random website posted by a random person. If you are unaware of how well people lie and twist things, then you need to know.

Please do your own credible research, it takes a lot of effort, but it's much better than believing a lie (not that I'm calling the posts lies)

A lot of these things are just quotations from the bible. Just like Jesus asking why God had forsaken him on the cross is just Jesus quoting from the Psalms. However you then choose to interpret it is the issue not the words in themselves. What does blessed amongst women mean? That you are the same as every other woman?

So because it's just quotations means it's insignificant? Because you cannot explain why Jesus cried My God, My God why have u forsaken me? does not mean it is pure quotations. There's a reason he quotes that go back and read that psalm it is about Jesus.

My reason for quoting those passages?

I quoted it because you and others are hell bent against the Hail Mary prayer, not realising that it is actually sccripture and out of your ignorance are hell bent against scripture.

Anyway if you want to understand truly the importance of Mary then watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3opv0O2iDI

Well, Isaiah 53 describes His life as one of pain, denial and sorrows.

one can still be rich and live a life of pain, denial, and sorrows. Besides Isaiah 53 was a prophecy of his Passion.

material wealth does not amount to a life of happiness as you assume.

alethia has given the most logical position so far.

I hope people understand that riches are not evil, money isn't evil, it is the abuse of it that is evil.

Phillipians 2:12

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

It is an ongoing process, you are not saved until you meet your death. Because at any time you can loose your salvation, and that will be by your own doing. We clearly have evidence of this, with people who were once Christians, but became muslim or atheist or anything else. We certainly cannot know if they will be saved at the end, that is entirely up to God's mercy.

But one has to work out their salvation in fear and trembling and not relax.

I just want a simple answer to this question o.

The Quran states that no one can change or alter the word of God, and that the Quran is the word of God.

The Quran also states that the Jews altered the word of God.

So my question is this?

Why was the word of God able to be altered by the Jews, when no one can alter the word of God?
Was Allah not powerful enough to stop the Jews from changing his word in the first place?
Or did he just automatically become powerful in the time of the Quran?

An honest direct answer to my question would siffice. Thanks in advance.

Anytime i hear the "hail mary poo" i feel sick

Well it's good to know that the Scriptures make you sick.

Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women
Luke 1:42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb

It amazes me that so called "christians" are ignorant of scripture they call their authority.

Dude, you are missing the central point. No one is persecuting one for the crimes of another. This is a case of systemic, institutionalised cover-ups. That is really the issue at hand. The current pope, as cardinal ratzinger, also happened to be in-charge of the body responsible for dealing with these issues.

Actually he wasn't. That's the problem. The Pope didn't handle these cases. When he started handling the case, he started finding solutions to the problem.

I already posted an article that stated clearly that the Pope was the one who started doing something about it. He wasn't involved in the cover up. But then again there are idiots who believe everything the media says.

Vatican did not hand over nada. Criminals were caught by criminal investigators. If there was no criminal investigation I don't think that the catholic church would by it's own initiative hand over it's paedoophile priests.

The Vatican doesn't do the handling over, it isn't supposed to be that way. It doesn't even get to the Vatican in the first place unless it has to do with abuse of the confessional. A lot of the cases did not make it to the Vatican, but ofcourse everyone wants to blame the Vatican.

The cases are to be handles with the Bishops, that's why a few Bishops were the ones who did the moving around not the Vatican. Bisops have authority in their Sees and are therefore supposed to handle the cases themselves. And for a lot of Sees the criminals were handed over to the authorities but nothing was done by the government. And at that time Pedophilia was considered a curable mental problem, a lot of Priests were said to be cured by the Psychologists. So the Bishops put them back to work.

People should actually learn how things work rather tahn show their ignorance by spouting meaningful accusations.

I am not sure of them worshipping Satan, but I am sure that they do not accept the Triune God and should therefore be off limits to Christians.

Most especially to Catholics reading this. I know a lot of people are unaware about Freemasons, I was asked about it by a fellow Nigerian and had to tell him, but just so you are aware, one cannot be Catholic and be a freemason, that is automatic excommunication.

Freemasons do deal with the diabolic, and they do believe in all gods, which is directly contrary to the Catholic faith, you cannot swear an allegiance to them.
For the women their sisters are the Order of the Eastern Star so stay away from them too.

Though it may seem that they're harmless or that their past are no longer with them, but that is the great trick of the devil, to try to get you to believe that he isn't real.

for an 83 year old man who works as much as he does, I am surprised he can still hold up.
I certainly can't do all the work he does and stay up. I can't even do the little work I do and stay up, lol, and I'm in my 20s.

Viva Il Papa.

There's the link at the bottom of the page, and you asked for the article.

so many peters in the house

EXACTLY!!!!

I was going to post that.

People please do not commit the sin of presumption. I know you want to affirm yourself of this, but the best you can do is pray that God gives u the grace to profess Him in times of adversity.

That is my prayer.

Ok here's the article

Unlike the Roman papacy, in certain circles the New York Times still enjoys the presumption of authority. So when the front page carries a story headlined "Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Deaf Boys," people notice.

Written by Laurie Goodstein and published March 25, the thrust is twofold. First, that the Rev. Lawrence Murphy, a priest who abused children at St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee from the 1950s to the 1970s, went unpunished. Father Murphy, she wrote categorically, "was never tried or disciplined by the church's own justice system."

This all feeds the kicker: "the effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency." In other words, Murphy got off scot-free, and the cardinal looked the other way.

Ms. Goodstein cites internal church documents, which the Times posted online. The documents were provided by Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan. They are described as "lawyers for five men who have brought four lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee."

What she did not tell readers is that Mr. Anderson isn't just any old lawyer. When it comes to suing the church, he is America's leading plaintiffs attorney. Back in 2002, he told the Associated Press that he'd won more than $60 million in settlements from the church, and he once boasted to a Twin Cities weekly that he's "suing the s--t out of them everywhere." Nor did the Times report another salient fact about Mr. Anderson: He's now trying to sue the Vatican in U.S. federal court.

.None of this makes Mr. Anderson wrong or unworthy of quoting. It does make him a much bigger player than the story disclosed. In fact, it's hard to think of anyone with a greater financial interest in promoting the public narrative of a church that takes zero action against abuser priests, with Pope Benedict XVI personally culpable.

Asked about the omissions in an email, Ms. Goodstein replied as follows: "Given the complexity of the Murphy case, and the relative brevity of my story, I don't think it is realistic for you to expect this story to get into treating other cases that these attorneys have handled."

Martin Nussbaum, a lawyer who is not involved in the Murphy case but who has defended other dioceses and churches in sexual abuse suits, emailed me four interesting letters sent to Murphy from three Wisconsin bishops. These documents are not among those posted online by the Times. They are relevant, however, because they refute the idea that Murphy went unpunished.

In fact, the letters from these bishops—three in 1993 and one in 1995, after fresh allegations of Murphy's misconduct—variously informed the priest that he was not to celebrate the sacraments in public, not to have any unsupervised contact with minors, and not to work in any parish religious education program.

It's accurate to say Murphy was never convicted by a church tribunal. It's also reasonable to argue (as I would) that Murphy should have been disciplined more. It is untrue, however, to suggest he was "never" disciplined. When asked if she knew of these letters, Ms. Goodstein did not directly answer, saying her focus was on what was "new," i.e., "the attempts by those same bishops to have Father Murphy laicized."

As for Rome, it did not get the case until 1996, when the archdiocese of Milwaukee informed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Back then, the CDF handled abuse cases when they involved a breach of confession (Murphy was accused of using the confessional to solicit boys). At that time, too, the only real option for reducing Murphy to the lay state was a church trial. And the bishops in Wisconsin did begin a trial.

Ms. Goodstein's original article said simply that Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy halted Murphy's trial after the priest sent the cardinal a letter saying he was dying and asking for clemency. A follow-up Times article last Thursday clarified that Rome came down the way it did because Murphy had shown "apparent good conduct" for the last 24 years, and "it would be difficult to try him" because "so much time [had] passed between the crimes and the trial."

Plus, his bishops had already stripped Murphy of his priestly faculties, the equivalent of taking a doctor's medical license. Does all this really suggest people callously looking the other way?

A few years later, when the CDF assumed authority over all abuse cases, Cardinal Ratzinger implemented changes that allowed for direct administrative action instead of trials that often took years. Roughly 60% of priests accused of sexual abuse were handled this way. The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn't the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger's experience with cases like Murphy's helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?

That's not to say that the press should be shy, even about Pope Benedict XVI's decisions as archbishop and cardinal. The Murphy case raises hard questions: why it took the archbishops of Milwaukee nearly two decades to suspend Murphy from his ministry; why innocent people whose lives had been shattered by men they are supposed to view as icons of Christ found so little justice; how bishops should deal with an accused clergyman when criminal investigations are inconclusive; how to balance the demands of justice with the Catholic imperative that sins can be forgiven. Oh, yes, maybe some context, and a bit of journalistic skepticism about the narrative of a plaintiffs attorney making millions off these cases.

That's still a story worth pursuing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html

There are several other articles like this one that calls the bluff of the NY Times, I will go dig them up, I hope I remember the websites.

@ Enigma

the article is another topic, but how do I link it here?

The fact is there had to have been a first set of trail blazers in the persons of Jesus' disciples

But they weren't the only disciples that Jesus had at that time, why did Jesus not give the authority to bind and loose on the other disciples at that time? Why did he not give the power to forgive sins at that time?

If it was to be given to everyone in the Church, why then was Matthias needed to replace Judas?
Certainly, there would've been no point of replacing Judas, everyone could've just gone on their way if the authority was given to all, so what was the point of replacing Judas? What does that signify?

did He intend to limit that responsibility to the then disciples only,

On the contrary the Catholic belief is that it wasn't limited to the then disciples only but to the successors of those disciples. Only those who are validly ordained are direct successors of the apostles, and you know where the direct succession is.

It must not, and should never bee seen to mean that sinful men would reserve the right to receive confessions, and to be able to forgive anyone's sins.

So basically you will determine for God how he will carry out his forgiveness? Even after he has already clearly pointed out that he has given sinful men the authority to forgive sins.

No matter which way you put it, you cannot deny that Jesus did give authority to men to remit and retain sins. But not just any sins, the sins of others. Or is that not what the Bible says?

Only God alone deserves the right and authority to forgive sins

This is where we agree, where we disagree is that you have the right to determine for God how he will carry out his forgiveness. Especially when he's already told us how he will carry out his forgiveness

Can men who are sinful beings themselves be given the responsibility to both receive our sins, and to forgive them all at once?

Ofcourse, the men he breated on and told to release sins or hold them are men aren't they?

Mark 2: 7 Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only? 8 Which Jesus presently knowing in his spirit, that they so thought within themselves, saith to them: Why think you these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

The Jews didn't know Jesus as God and therefore saw Jesus forgive sins as man. Now after the question Jesus answered them as the Son of Man not the Son of God. He could've easily stated that he forgives as the Son of God, but instead speaks of forgiving as the Son of Man (his humanity).

It therefore begs the question

why does it beg the question as to whom the other Priests would confess to? If Priests can forgive then any Priest can forgive sins, duh.

Remit means to release, or pardon

2. Retain means to hold in place, or keep in mind.

And you still prove the Catholic Church correct.

If we go by your definition it means that the apostles had the authority to release or pardon one from their sins and to hold their sins in place. Either way it is forgiving or not forgiving sins.

Why has the Catholic church limited this statement to its priesthood? Was this remark by Jesus limited to His disciples, or was it intended for the wider diaspora of authorized ministers?

Because it was to the Apostles alone that he gace such authority. He didn't give it to the other disciples that he had. If Jesus intended for all to have this authority then he wouldn't have bothered having 12 disciples in the first place to whom he deposited the faith to.

What do all these passages really mean? Do they mean that the Roman Catholic priests have the power to receive our confessions and to forgive our sins?

Absolutely.

As a Catholic, I am not happy the way the Pope and his media managers handled the crisis!

Maybe as a Catholic you should first find out if the articles by the media is true. I just posted one by another major newspaper agency that flat out called the other news agency liars, which they really are.

If one is going to be prosecuted, shouldn't they be prosecuted for the actual crimes, rather than for crimes that people claim was committed but can't prove?

what the press is writing is the truth, only the truth will set us free not pity party or blame game!

Actual the press isn't telling the truth, that's why there's been great defense of the Pope even from Non-Catholics.

Ok apparently the media does not care to actually report the truth and when called out for it, to save face still manages to twist things.
But one newspaper doesn't think bad journalism is a good thing. So here is the Wall Street Journal on the NY Times and the Pope.

Unlike the Roman papacy, in certain circles the New York Times still enjoys the presumption of authority. So when the front page carries a story headlined "Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Deaf Boys," people notice.

Written by Laurie Goodstein and published March 25, the thrust is twofold. First, that the Rev. Lawrence Murphy, a priest who abused children at St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee from the 1950s to the 1970s, went unpunished. Father Murphy, she wrote categorically, "was never tried or disciplined by the church's own justice system."

This all feeds the kicker: "the effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency." In other words, Murphy got off scot-free, and the cardinal looked the other way.

Ms. Goodstein cites internal church documents, which the Times posted online. The documents were provided by Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan. They are described as "lawyers for five men who have brought four lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee."

What she did not tell readers is that Mr. Anderson isn't just any old lawyer. When it comes to suing the church, he is America's leading plaintiffs attorney. Back in 2002, he told the Associated Press that he'd won more than $60 million in settlements from the church, and he once boasted to a Twin Cities weekly that he's "suing the s--t out of them everywhere." Nor did the Times report another salient fact about Mr. Anderson: He's now trying to sue the Vatican in U.S. federal court.

.None of this makes Mr. Anderson wrong or unworthy of quoting. It does make him a much bigger player than the story disclosed. In fact, it's hard to think of anyone with a greater financial interest in promoting the public narrative of a church that takes zero action against abuser priests, with Pope Benedict XVI personally culpable.

Asked about the omissions in an email, Ms. Goodstein replied as follows: "Given the complexity of the Murphy case, and the relative brevity of my story, I don't think it is realistic for you to expect this story to get into treating other cases that these attorneys have handled."

Martin Nussbaum, a lawyer who is not involved in the Murphy case but who has defended other dioceses and churches in sexual abuse suits, emailed me four interesting letters sent to Murphy from three Wisconsin bishops. These documents are not among those posted online by the Times. They are relevant, however, because they refute the idea that Murphy went unpunished.

In fact, the letters from these bishops—three in 1993 and one in 1995, after fresh allegations of Murphy's misconduct—variously informed the priest that he was not to celebrate the sacraments in public, not to have any unsupervised contact with minors, and not to work in any parish religious education program.

It's accurate to say Murphy was never convicted by a church tribunal. It's also reasonable to argue (as I would) that Murphy should have been disciplined more. It is untrue, however, to suggest he was "never" disciplined. When asked if she knew of these letters, Ms. Goodstein did not directly answer, saying her focus was on what was "new," i.e., "the attempts by those same bishops to have Father Murphy laicized."

As for Rome, it did not get the case until 1996, when the archdiocese of Milwaukee informed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Back then, the CDF handled abuse cases when they involved a breach of confession (Murphy was accused of using the confessional to solicit boys). At that time, too, the only real option for reducing Murphy to the lay state was a church trial. And the bishops in Wisconsin did begin a trial.

Ms. Goodstein's original article said simply that Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy halted Murphy's trial after the priest sent the cardinal a letter saying he was dying and asking for clemency. A follow-up Times article last Thursday clarified that Rome came down the way it did because Murphy had shown "apparent good conduct" for the last 24 years, and "it would be difficult to try him" because "so much time [had] passed between the crimes and the trial."

Plus, his bishops had already stripped Murphy of his priestly faculties, the equivalent of taking a doctor's medical license. Does all this really suggest people callously looking the other way?

A few years later, when the CDF assumed authority over all abuse cases, Cardinal Ratzinger implemented changes that allowed for direct administrative action instead of trials that often took years. Roughly 60% of priests accused of sexual abuse were handled this way. The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn't the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger's experience with cases like Murphy's helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?

That's not to say that the press should be shy, even about Pope Benedict XVI's decisions as archbishop and cardinal. The Murphy case raises hard questions: why it took the archbishops of Milwaukee nearly two decades to suspend Murphy from his ministry; why innocent people whose lives had been shattered by men they are supposed to view as icons of Christ found so little justice; how bishops should deal with an accused clergyman when criminal investigations are inconclusive; how to balance the demands of justice with the Catholic imperative that sins can be forgiven. Oh, yes, maybe some context, and a bit of journalistic skepticism about the narrative of a plaintiffs attorney making millions off these cases.

That's still a story worth pursuing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html

One more thing, Murphy died before anything was done to him. So the question remains, how does one prosecute a dead man?

InesQor:
@~Lady~:

Nope, I'm not inserting my views anywhere, it is there for you in plain English. The Father as used in your sense of calling a Pope or Priest Father, is not the same sense in which the appelation Teacher or Rabbi is used in the Church. It is not the same way in which Paul was Father to Timothy, Onesimus or the Corinthians, and you know it! The Pope stands in a place of worship that Paul never stood in, as far as Biblical evidence and history shows.

Now let me wait for you to also twist the scriptures concerning the CLEAR instruction that forbidding people to marry is a wrong injunction.

Hahaha you just made my day, thanks for the laugh. It is really easy to spot fools.

Celibacy in the Catholic church is an instance of an 'institutional vow' - in which case, it does not allow a "free will" exercise for anyone who instends to marry to then be able to do so. In this case, the catholic church has IMPOSED that 'vow' in direct controversion of what the Bible teaches (1 Tim. 4:2-3). The Bible does NOT "impose" celibacy upon anyone who is seeking to serve the Lord in any capacity - which is why I noted much earlier that celibacy is a choice and not an institution.

Good u said celibacy is an instance of 'institutional vow' so I asked you about another instance of 'institutional vow' that of marriage and yet you refuse to answer. It is an actual yes or no answer.

Should a married man have the free-will to sleep with another woman?

Yet you're failed to give me that.

'institutional vow' - celibacy
'institutional vow' - marriage
2 sides of the same coin.

(b)  Celibacy as an "institutional vow" is a system - and that system has FAILED.

Marriage as an "institutional vow" is  a system - has that system also FAILED? Married people commit the same crimes as Celibates.

Okay, I would have posted a few to show that this has happened at least one notable case. But I have to let the discussion alone at this point. Thanks and cheers.

Anyone can post anything does not mean that what they posted is the truth. You would be wrong. Hence teh reason why I laugh so much when u guys make fools of urselves. You know nothing that you claim to know, and all you've become is a puppet to someone who posted something on a website, that got it from someone else, who got it from someone else, who got it from someone else, and the list goes on. It's really saddening to see you go.

Both do NOT take the same 'vows' - for in the case of the political office, the President does not indenture any vows of celibacy in the office of presidency in his capacity to serve the people. In the pontificate and Catholic institutional vows of priesthood, the vow is not just to serve people but one of celibacy.

Who said both takes the same vows? Why can't u just read?

Mat 23:9  And do not call anyone [in the church] on earth father, for you have one Father, Who is in heaven.

Oh but ur missing the other parts of the saying. Infact this is what Jesus said
8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

I do not see any of you protesting that the word teacher be used. Infact you use them yourselves

But anyway still, your misinterpretation of this passage can clearly be shown, bcus there are places where the Apostles called themselves father of the church, and the christians their children.  Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called "fathers.
1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus."
Phil. 2:22 - Paul calls Timothy's service to him as a son serves a "father."
Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus.
1 John 2:1,13,14 - John calls the elders of the Church "fathers."

Is the Bible contraditcting? Absolutely not. But your intepretation is contradicting scripture. Stop taking your own view and inserting it in the Bible.
What is Christ talking about? He's talking about the Father in heaven, no one on this earth should be called Father who is in Heaven.

Perhaps you're skipping my points and assuming you can see what I've been saying - which is little wonder, judging from the way you seem to offer excuses that have not helped your conjectures and post-shifting

oh no I understand what you're saying. What you're saying is, u don't want to have logic in this conversation right? You just want to make a statement, and every chance that you're clobbered, you will refuse to answer and then attempt to make it seem like the other person isn't answering your questions. Sorry it doesn't work with me. You will either anwer or you will answer.

Ah there! What did you say when I pointed out the difference? You were quick to dismiss it as the ideas of . . who? . . . "non-catholics and ill-informed Catholics" (post 26). But now you turn round to argue for a distinction between them? This is so wimbledon!

Lol nice try, but u did no such thing. All you spoke of was the labeling of Priests who have actually stepped down from their duties of the Priesthood. I'm sepaking of those who still hold to their duties of the Priesthood who never stepped down. I speak of those who still perform their duties as Priests, and that there are distinctions between married and unmarried ones. Big difference my dear.

Hehe. . . I'm sure I qualified my statements. I was particular in noting that your argument for "free will" does not correlate with an 'institutional vow of celibacy'. I made that point plain for all to see - so coming with this excuse that it was a non-starter in ANY situation sort of spins round issues for you. Now again, you shift the goal post to argue that "free-will is still limited" after having blandly argued the complete negation of same for priests who are seeking to get married ("a Priest cannot marry", said you - the "cannot" smacks of a tone of finality).

Hahaha nice try in twisting my words, but u fail miserably.

As all have seen, u speak of an institutional vow, and if u will attempt to make ur case by logic, then by all means it is applied to all walks of life. Unless ur intent is to not have an intelligent discussion, then I can completely understand, not everyone can have one.

If u will speak of institutional vow of celibacy u must speak of the institutional vow of marriage. Why? Because if one doesn't take that of celibacy one will take that of marriage, so you see they are correlated. It's a coin, u can't escape it as much as you want to.

So question again, would a married man have the free-will of sleeping with another woman?

What is the difference between tradition and tradition? please remind me, the bible is the guide to every christian and we should at all times act according to its guidance, a case whereby things not in the bible are being practiced is not really worth accepting as a Christian (Christ-like).

1. It is not tradition and tradition. It is Tradition and tradition
2. Tradition is that instituted by Christ and His Apostles. I know this may come as a shocker but we are asked to hang on to Traditions. So you see not everything labeles tradition is actually bad. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "[size=16pt]Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle[/size]."
o my goodness, did the Bible actually tell us to hold on to traditions? WOW!!!

3. tradition is what was spoken against by Christ, and it's only those traditions that were made up by the Pharisees.

I refuse to accept, the post of a father/pope is no where in the bible, i mean where did the catholic derive such words/post from? check through the post/titles (God) recognizes in the bible and you'd find out that pope/father aren't included

I will respond to Inesqor so see my response to him for this.

Did I not give an answer already?? Post #11 - "It goes without saying that celibacy is not a cause of misconduct or piety."

Then why do u still hold the position that celibacy is a failed system? if they're not celibate, they will be married, but since the same problem is in marriage and even more so, then celibacy isn't a failed system, and your whole point is null and void.

I think Catholics should base their principles on the bible, especially on what God/Jesus stated than what the Apostles stated.

So the Apostles didn't write books in the Bible?

Or is it that, bcus the Apostles did write books in the Bible, and since you're saying they shouldn't be listened to so much, then parts of the Bible shouldn't be listened to so much?

Yes it's possible, because we have watched/heard/seen cases where fugitives escape with their immediate family, it's not new and it still happens today so there are tendencies that he must have in one way or the other been with his wife within his fugitive escapades. one more thing, Peter was not the only Apostle, why ain't you taking about the others that were not on the run like the main characters?

See I was trying not to laugh at your first statement, but see this one is way too funny I had to laugh. You think that the times back then is the same as it is now, and that we have cases of fugitives back then? What did they use to run, the Honda Accord, I have one it's really fast, a good get away car. Did Peter use a Honda? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Are you kidding yourself? Did I argue that celibacy is the reason for priests (or anyone's) failed marriages or immorality?

Ofcourse you did, you've been arguing that it is a failed system. If it isn't the cause for immorality then it isn't a failed system. Pick a stance please.

Now, who was the pope who was so morally vile that he was chased out of his office and ended up giving it up altogether in order to go and pursue his adventures? Note: he sold his office of popery. Oh c'mon - you know the answer already! And you talk about "married pastors" being actually far worse?!?

Oh but darling a Pope can never be chased out of Office. He holds that Office till his death. He cannot proclaim error so we know he won't teach wrongly. But a happy death is prayed for for him. But a Pope is never chased out of Office, it makes one wonder where ur source is from. This is why I laugh when non-catholics post rubbish. When u don't know the rules in the Church, u can easily believe anything online so I don't blame u at all. But then again shouldn't u be wise enough to research and find out if a Pope can be chased out of Office?

Oh yes, it did - and that is why you have been trying to defend it unsuccessfully, making up stories for Peter as you trudge along.

How u manage to make correlations of things amaze me still.

So bcus I state that Celibacy does not lead to sexual errors, it means that Celibacy is imposed? Wow what logic you have.

Haha - even Catholics themselves know that it is a huge failure! That is why more and more Catholics themselves are questioning it and asking that such a thing be summarily thrown out. Tell us: what has the Catholic institutional vow of celibacy achieved in the lives of erring priests?

Haha nice try. Rather look at the percentage of priests that are celibate and those that have actually erred. See that the percentage is very much low about 1% then u can try to see if celibacy is the cause of the error.
Asking this question is like asking what has marriage achieved in the lives of those who've committed adultery. It holds no grounds.