Two weeks ago, we reported (in this NB post) that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles publicly objected to coverage of the priest abuse scandal by the Los Angeles Times. Two articles by the Times in the second half of March contained false information, contended the Archdiocese. One of the articles was cited as being particularly "insulting to all Catholics." Rebuttals to the Times were printed in the archdiocese newspaper, The Tidings, the largest diocesan paper in the United States. (Here and here are the rebuttals.)
Is the Times now retaliating against Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony for calling the paper out on its falsehoods?
Yesterday's Times (Saturday, April 14, 2007) parades a front-page article that claims that "Mahony's influence is dwindling in L.A." It's a typical unflattering portrait of its subject. Many would call it a hit piece. The article seems to serve no other purpose except to take a cheap slap at Mahony.
Does the article cite any polls or studies to back up its claim of the Cardinal's supposed "dwindling influence"? No. Rather, it quotes a potpourri of various individuals, largely unknown, including a Cal State professor (big whoop), the leader of a "mainly Protestant" activist group, and a minister "who spoke on the condition that his name not be used." Good grief.
The paper also reports that "a growing number of Latino officials — notably [Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian] Nuñez and [L.A.] Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa — ... now command much of the leadership that once was Mahony's." Hmm. The last time I checked, the Cardinal did not hold any political office. But apparently the Times didn't think of this.
The paper also shamelessly drags the tragedy of the church abuse scandal into the current political debate over AB 374. AB 374 is a bill that would make California the second state in the country (behind Oregon) to legalize physician-assisted suicide. The Times, following the lead of top Democrats in the state, has thrown its support behind AB 374 (here). Cardinal Mahony strongly opposes it, and he has reminded Catholic politicians of the Church's teaching against physician-assisted suicide. (Assembly Speaker Nuñez still doesn't get it, and he probably never will.)
Fairness? Balance? Honest reporting? Not at the Times. (On a number of occasions, we've cited the paper's anti-Catholic tilt. See here, here, here, here, and here for just a few examples.)
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Impossible !! The LA Times be
April 16, 2007 - 07:09 ET by richflanjImpossible !! The LA Times being thoughless, immmature, vengeful, angry, silly, bitter, vindictive? Now why would a liberal publication do that? Oh, wait, never mind. I just answered my own question.
Meanwhile, the number of LA Times subscribers continues to decline.......
Cause and effect, anyone?
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." --Hubert Humphrey
It is very sad that a news so
April 16, 2007 - 08:02 ET byIt is very sad if a news source feels the need to lie about that which in and of itself is a horrific story to begin with, a story that does not need lies to give validity to it. If the LA Times is really trying to make that which is already a tragedy, even worse, by lying about it, such is despicable.
The reason I say this, is because then it makes that which is very bad, look as if it is not bad enough, as if what really did happen, was not bad enough to have validity to it, all on its own.
Debra...
You can bet a dollar to a d
April 16, 2007 - 08:48 ET by motherbeltYou can bet a dollar to a donut that every story the LA Times publishes about the Catholic Church, even if it's the fact that they bought an office building in downtown LA, will mention the priest scandal.
And frankly, I doubt that Cardinal Mahony really cares if his "influence" with local politicians has "dwindled". They never cared a fig for him or Catholics in general, anyway.
Right
April 16, 2007 - 11:36 ET by iveseenitallRight. And don't you dare ever contradict a liberal lie. You become an enemy for life. Furthermore, the lies from the left are "free speech", the truth from the right is "hate speech". That's from the "gospel" of the media.
P.S. As the Catholic church turns more and more liberal, it will find out who its true friends were.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
please, seenit
April 16, 2007 - 11:44 ET by tumbler_2007The Church can't be liberal, nor is it ever conservative or "moderate". People within our Church can adopt a liberal stand, or stand up for traditional faith. But the Church doesn't exclude a soul for believing in the trends, unless they're sinful. It's on account of something God gave everyone: Free Will.
Troll alert!NEVER,NEVER trust
April 16, 2007 - 11:54 ET by iveseenitallTroll alert!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Tumbler, here's a trend the
April 16, 2007 - 11:55 ET by MightyMouthTumbler, here's a trend the church shouldn't have allowed. Wouldn't you agree?
To establish political and religious unity.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Silence concerning Hitler. So
April 16, 2007 - 12:03 ET by iveseenitallSilence concerning Hitler. Socialism in Central America today "Liberation Theology"
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Less then "vigorous&qu
April 16, 2007 - 12:08 ET by MightyMouthLess then "vigorous" expulsion of the tiny minority of those abusing children within it's ranks.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
dear iveseen
April 16, 2007 - 12:31 ET by tumbler_2007Silence concerning Hitler. --Is completely debunked. The vatican was NOT silent about Hitler, that's been shown as complete fabrication.
Socialism in Central America isn't what the Church gave the people. Demagogues gave it to them. The Pope condemned all clergy participation or support of so-called liberation theology as against the teachings of Christ. Any priests who supported those errors was in danger of excommunication after the Pope spoke.
NEVER, NEVER trust an alarmist
Wrong, Tumbler. The Catholic
April 16, 2007 - 13:03 ET by iveseenitallWrong, Tumbler. The Catholic church is behind liberation theology in Central America today. And liberalism has infested the once traditional church everywhere in the world. To deny it and call me an "alarmist" is to be an orstrich. The modern Catholic church has not stood for tradition.( You are also wrong about the Hitler situation. More "head in the sand " from you.)
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
wrong: you're mistaken
April 16, 2007 - 13:11 ET by tumbler_2007What you're giving us here, ive, is purely your opinion. You are certainly entitled to it. It just isn't true. And, I wouldn't always trust you (NEVER, NEVER!) since you clearly ARE an alarmist.
Whoa, hold on there, iveseeni
April 16, 2007 - 13:41 ET by KC MulvilleWhoa, hold on there, iveseenitall. Just a couple weeks ago, the Vatican went after Jon Sobrino, SJ, a leading writer of liberation theology. They claimed that his recent work insufficiently decribed Jesus according to traditional church understanding. Sobrino is a world class Jesuit theologian. So, how would you describe this? How does this square with your assertion that "The Catholic church is behind liberation theology in Central America today." Who is the church you're referring to?
iveseenitall won't bother
April 16, 2007 - 13:55 ET by tumbler_2007Forget it, KC;
Iveseeeen won't likely bother to Google the Jon Sobrino SJ; affair & the Pope. -- It doesn't suit her purpose. Besides, she's educated, you can't tell her anything. She also insists on the Hitler Pope calumny. There have been several books and articles, some from Jewish sources, exposing the giant lie about Pius XII's "silence" during World War II. Would iveseenitall care to read any of them ? NO, because despite touting "an open mind" she's got her mind already made up.
Church helping the Jews
April 16, 2007 - 15:15 ET by ladyluckCertainly the Roman Catholic Church helped SOME Jews to escape the tyranny and evil of Hitler but it was definitely too little. I had a problem with that for many years as both a Catholic and a German-American. Revisionist history is great,though, isn't it!
iveseenitall, if you Googl
April 16, 2007 - 14:15 ET by motherbeltiveseenitall, if you Google "Pius XII and Jews" you will find many aritcles that support the fact that he did indeed help Jews escape, and was not silent about Hitler. I would link you to a couple, but you might discount them because of who wrote them, so I will leave it to you to choose which to read. The record shows that, at the very least, there is no clear indication that the Pope was a silent bystander at the Holocaust
get better informed, mm
April 16, 2007 - 12:25 ET by tumbler_2007We're living in a different age. In its own milieu the Spanish Inquisition was a good thing; from the eclessiastical POV.
From our own, it seems only something diabolical and --naturally, anti-catholics dwell on any aspect of Catholicism that might be deemed reprehensible. Instead of trying to please you as opposed to defending the faith, I'll ask you to read something more useful than a Wikipeadia blurb. There's a lot out there to read if you wish to find the truth.
It may be best to point out one fact often ignored by Inquisition-hawkers: The abuses of that HOLY office mostly arose from political sources, not the Church in herself. For instance, the most reprehensible of sins, an auto-da fe was only ratified by clergymen. The state condemned a victim. More often than not, the Church stood between an accused person and his persecutors. Many conditions were imposed and carefully overseen by the Church to ensure there would be no injustices. Looking back now, it's devilish easy to blame the Catholic Church for those offenses committed by men. The Inquisition is only one variant; and anti-catholics love to bring it forward.
"We're living in a dif
April 16, 2007 - 12:38 ET by MightyMouth"We're living in a different age"
That does not come into play when talking about the one and true Universal Church of Jesus Christ. How could the true church of Christ do such things if it were not merely a human institution? If you know your church history, you know there have been corrupt and vile men at the very top position. How could God allow his "true" church to be led by such men?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
mighty learned mouth ?
April 16, 2007 - 13:08 ET by tumbler_2007I realize the words I'm speaking are unpopular when opposing anti-catholic tenacity.
You seem very self-assured. And; my post is a challenge. So be it.
". . . talking about the one and true Universal Church of Jesus Christ. How could the true church of Christ do such things if it were not merely a human institution? If you know your church history, you know there have been corrupt and vile men at the very top position. How could God allow his "true" church to be led by such men?"
You seem to overlook all I said; the CHURCH hasn't "done such things." MEN have; and some were acting to ensure the survival of the faith against outside attack. (You wouldn't understand that, you're safe from whatever you might consider false.) That's why I advise you to read and become better informed.
I'll propose this argument, just for YOUR contemplation:
Jesus called twelve apostles to Himself; to receive His commission and the graces necessary to spread the Gospel all over the world. Only TWO of the twelve did not die martyrs for the faith. John the Evangelist died of old age, a holy apostle to the end. JUDAS was guilty of selling Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. -- He later committed suicide !
How could Jesus possibly call them the nucleus and beginning of His kingdom on earth, if one was a traitor? -- By YOUR standard, the twelve apostles were a false Church, not bringing us the teachings of Christ -- After Judas betrayed Our Lord, Jesus was supposed to disband the apostles; according to the logic of "mighty mouth." But He didn't. Just as He has not damned or abandoned (much less changed) His Church on account of a bad prelate here and there, or public scandals. In fact, Christ PROPHESIED to His followers that scandals must someday come. He says so in the scriptures, adding: "Woe to him by whom scandal comes; it were better for him if a millstone is tied to his neck and he's cast into the sea."
Jesus foretold those evils. We are expected to have unwavering FAITH in all He has promised. He NEVER promised that He would bring a reformation, anytime, anywhere of His HOLY CHURCH.
Anti
April 16, 2007 - 13:24 ET by iveseenitallTypical Tumbler. Anyone who disagrees with him or questions his view of the world is labled "Anti" something. He sees all opposing views as an attack upon him. This is ignorance. For his information, I am sure I am more formally educated then he ( including 20 years of Catholic schooling). One thing I've learned is that no one is always right and that having an open mind is the path to the truth--a message this man has missed somewhere along the way.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Oh, thank you, iveseenital
April 16, 2007 - 13:38 ET by tumbler_2007Oh, thank you, iveseenitall.
By your assumed name it seems YOU are the only one who sees it all. You're actually the person you think I AM.
It was to be expected, I guess, that you'd launch a personal attack on me. Only because you're unable to debate this question with any authority. Beat up the messenger; SURE.
Did you suppose that by bragging about your "education" it would of course invalidate all that I said above? How come you say: "This is ignorance"--? Because iveseenitall says so ? One thing I have learned, is don't bother somebody who sees, knows it ALL with a strong argument; it will only make him/her your enemy. The only argument you'll accept is a WEAK one; so you can emerge on top. Sorry I couldn't help you.
wrong
April 16, 2007 - 13:56 ET by iveseenitallYou just proved my points, Tumbler.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
correction, iveseen
April 16, 2007 - 14:07 ET by tumbler_2007You haven't made a single point.
You started from false premises and never proceeded anyplace else.
Go back please. Reword your posts and MAKE some point.
False premises
April 16, 2007 - 15:01 ET by ladyluckThis is a comment site,no, tumbler? There was no need to personally criticize those that disagree with you, is there? I think the point that ive was making was that ,as a well- educated Catholic, he agreed that people are the ones to blame,not the Church.
I like ladyluck
April 16, 2007 - 15:40 ET by tumbler_2007Yes; I've been a happy horseplayer most of my life, so lady luck is truly My Lady.
I haven't lowered the boom on ayone, LL. --I merely exchanged viewpoints with overly-sensitive and combative friends. At least, I call them my friends. They haven't tried to be friendly for a long time.
However, don't let that seem to you as if I complain. -- I do not. This is a free country. When some folks are unwilling to hear me with any attempt at understanding, that's fine. No problem. They've lately wasted their time trying to throw me out of NewsBusters. This makes them very anxious to defeat me in a debate; ANY DEBATE.
Unfortunately for one or two, they picked the one subject to debate in which Tumbler became engrossed since early adulthood; Christian faith. It happened because I was under a terrible physical affliction that lasted more than 3 decades. By sheer faith and my love of God, I finally was given relief; as if by miracle. MEANWHILE, I read every fine Catholic book, the lives of the saints and the Bible without any respite. I'd be a natural at Jeopardy answering questions on the CHURCH. (Of course i'd fail miserably to put my answers in the form of a question.
Now I live the happiest individual in the world. Yesterday was the greatest day of my life. I received Jesus Christ in Holy Communion (again). Each time this happens once more it becomes for me-- the greatest day of my whole life. I'm so devoted to the Holy Eucharist. LUCK had nothing to do with it. To the Holy Spirit goes all the (blame) glory -- Lol!
Anyhow; they'll debate but they'll be sorry.
--
Faith and Love of God
April 16, 2007 - 15:51 ET by ladyluckThat is what religion is all about,Tumbler, faith and love. You are a lucky one to have such great faith. Love God above All and Your Neighbor as Yourself- great ,great teaching.
Tee, I like you man. Not t
April 16, 2007 - 16:04 ET by The Wicked ConservativeTee, I like you man. Not that that should mean a hill of beans to you but I like you. I've only been checking out NBs for a few months now but in that time you've become one of my favorite participants. I happen to think you are loco on immigration but I really admire your faith. And Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, or Pentecostal all that matters is faith in Jesus as our savior, that is the only way to heaven. Would you agree with that?
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Talk sense to a
liberal and he calls you a racist, sexist, biggot, homophobe, denier.
shucks, I like you too
April 16, 2007 - 17:18 ET by tumbler_2007I like you too, Wicked. If you checked out NB for months, how can you think I'm loco about immigration? I believe whoever crosses the border illegally is supposed to be caught LEGALLY, and deported LEGALLY.
We have dudes here who say (no fooling) that our side should just SHOOT anybody who's caught on this side without papers. That's not loco ? You'd better not say it is; you might become their next most-hated enemy.
The other day a dame here says, "Just wait, Bumbler, Fumbler ! When Fred Thompson is President, you're going to be such a cry baby! You'll be screaming murder, etc., --on & on. You & your disgusting illegal aliens !"
So I replied, Is that so ? I figure on voting for Fred Thompson. He's my choice until we see somebody else better (fat chance.) Well; that was all. She hasn't come back to argue with me again.
If you LOVE Jesus Christ, remember ALL His words; not only the ones that make you feel "saved". He definitely wants you to be His; but if you die in your sins, it'll be your fault, not His. Nobody goes to heaven with unforgiven and unrepentent sins. Not Catholics, not you, not the Pope.
The basic revealed truth is --LOVE JESUS, He wants your love!
Then repent. --Ask His forgiveness. No matter what your Bible wisdom or denomination. --We are all Pilgrims in this lifetime. Better not be a Wicked one.
Do you really think this is t
April 16, 2007 - 16:28 ET by RJDo you really think this is the way you are meant to extoll your religion, Tumbler?
For example, telling people they'll be sorry for debating with you? Or intertwining your expressions of faith with condemnation of others for the sin of expressing their religious point of view? Or telling others they are liars when they say they have forgiven others? Are those things and your general demeanor your idea of good Christian behavior?
Well, your behavior shows that you do think so, but rather than uplifting, it seems a dark kind of belief, almost cultish....
dear R J
April 16, 2007 - 16:56 ET by tumbler_2007I started out willing to tolerate anyone who disputed me as a defender of the DIGNITY of Mexicans. It turned into a pissing match with a few-- JUST a few; who declared me hateful on account of my personal feelings for the underprivileged and illegal immigrant. The very fact I opposed hate speech and denigration, became the weapon used daily aginst me; by people like YOU. You weren't content to debate the issue. It was "juicier" when you could feed me a daily humiliation with your outrage against Mexicans at the border. You began to insist that I favored breaking our immigration statutes by those people.
Every day I re-explained how I support our law, I support capture and deportation. I am NOT in favor of anyhing illegal.
But you lied, saying that I do. In fact; I recall it was YOU, who referred to my faith itself as bigotry. Now you expect to lecture me on faith, while I meekly think, "Oh, he's not such a bad guy." You're going to tell me about Christian behavior, who daily call me senile, demented, Go ahead and die soon, old fool. We hate you. --Why this change of heart, R J ? It can't be because you're finished with the verbal abuse. MINE is the "dark kind of belief"--?
I'm reminded of the satrap who had John the Baptists' head lopped off. He jailed him because John wouldn't shut up and leave him to his sins. Then because a pretty girl danced for him, Herod had John killed. They'll finally hurt you badly when you keep telling them the truth. Good people embrace it; bad people want you silenced.
It's like watching a badly made movie.
April 16, 2007 - 18:19 ET by RJMy goodness, Tumbler, what a web of fantasy you've woven to protect your sense of self-righteousness.
No, I'm not attempting to lecture you on your faith. Unlike you, I don't do that. Nor did I refer to your faith as bigoted. I don't do that, either. In my post, I observed that you constantly talk about your faith, gave you some examples of your behavior, and asked if you you felt it was representative of Christian behavior. The answer is in you, Tumbler, not me.
Your behavior IS dark. Certainly, even you can't call it uplifting. Go re-read my last post and see if my questions are not good ones. Can you answer them?
I'm not trying to get you to change your opinion of me. I really don't care what your opinion of me might be. I reserve that for people I respect.
No you did NOT set out to "tolerate." The word is not in your being. I'll remind you again that it was you who spewed hatred at me right at the beginning, and it was ONLY because I said your ranting, angry, over the top behavior was just like liberals argue. Nothing about illegals, but you came ranting at me with bile poring from your keyboard.
As for debating the issues, that's something you are incapable of doing without becoming venemous. That's true whether it's illegals or religion....more of that dark nature I spoke of.
Finally, I have not said you should "die soon." That would take a stronger emotion about you than I have. Mine puts you at the approximate level of watching a badly made movie.
re: our co-blogger
April 16, 2007 - 17:01 ET by misterbillre: our co-blogger--there is none so blind as they who will not see!
Tumbler...should go somewhere
April 16, 2007 - 17:09 ET by Clear thinkerTumbler...
should go somewhere that would be more apt to like his stand on illegals. He has done nothing here but insult people while defending the rights of illegals, something that almost nobody on this site agrees with. He claims to be a conservative, but I have very serious doubts. With a friend like tumbler.....you know the rest!
Run Fred...Run!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
as usual, no clear thought
April 16, 2007 - 17:35 ET by tumbler_2007Please, ct-- think clearly now:
"while defending the rights of illegals, something that almost nobody on this site agrees with. He claims to be a conservative, but I have very serious doubts."
Illegals haven't any constitutional rights in the U.S. I never defended any "rights" except that a baby born here is automatcally an American citizen (it's the law).
I HAVE spoken against hate speech and lies directed against these people. I've defended them from ethnic slurs and all racial injustice, as ANY GOOD AMERICAN is allowed to do. We are NOT in Nazi Germany, where someone can enforce the hatred of a minority, or because haters are the majority.
Once more an analogy: The vast majority of German citizens in 1930s were brought up hating Jews. Jews were persecuted by their leaders with almost the full consent & co-operation of the people. Hatred of ethnic minorities is a sin against the human race. Racial injustice is a sin. Even when you're a majority and "don't agree" with me.
you have done enough ranting for one day
April 16, 2007 - 17:49 ET by misterbillyou have done enough ranting for one day. Go sit on the patio. Have a relaxing drink, smile and say, "Boy, a successful day, managed to piss off at least a half a dozen people". But I must compliment you on one thing--you called them "ethnic minorities" which is one of the few times you have named these poor disadvantaged people correctly.
The Jews were already in Germany--the economy was in the toilet and the propagandists of Hitler's hate machine singled them out. They owned property, they paid taxes. But they had something the Nazis wanted. money and property.The Jews were not sneaking in illegally. The Jews were German citizens. They had entered Germany legally. They were reviled and picked on because of Hitler's campaign of hate propaganda. You are a propagandist yourself. Your comparison of the situations is weak at best. We do not want to kill anyone, we do not want to seize their money and property. We do not want to violate their women (can you say the same for the large number of criminals among the illegal invaders ?). Get down from your pulpit. Stop pushing illegal immigration and Catholicism in everyone's face. Stick to analyzing the MSM and their lies. Have that drink and call your psychiatrist in the morning.
OK, misterboil
April 16, 2007 - 17:54 ET by tumbler_2007Looks like you're right. I'm taking a break now.
CIAO4NAO, Pasta Fazzuli
pasta fazzuli
April 16, 2007 - 17:59 ET by misterbillsincerely, thank you. It is an affectionate name I use often, myself.
Tummy one thing you are not
April 16, 2007 - 14:03 ET by Dan The Man 2Tummy one thing you are not is I AM. The Catholic church is in decline and has been for a long time. Men have corrupted it, not neccessarily the Pope, at least not the last couple of Popes. But the men who are in charge of day to day operations. The Catholic church needs to root out those men and send them packing. You know the ones that abuse choirboys and the enabler that let them, that kind. The Catholic church itself needs to get right and about Jesus and scripture as it does not teach these things.
I say that and you are testament to that assertion with your convoluted theology and knowlege of scripture and what it means.
The Catholic church in the USA will go teh way of the Episcopals given time. Liberal theology is teh death of traditional first century Christianity.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
dear dan the man
April 16, 2007 - 14:23 ET by tumbler_2007Jesus Christ is her founder; and if it weren't for that fact, your view might have some merit. He gave her His word (the Word of God) that where she was, He would always be. He showed her His fidelity by raising her up even in the midst of centuries of persecution.
His Church outlasted the Caesars; she survived the barbarian hordes, she converted the heathens and preserved western civilization through the dark ages. God has blessed the Catholic Church. Her rivals He can tolerate for a long time, as it pleases Him. But Jesus foretold also: "Other sheep I have also that are not of this fold and I must bring them, they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." The One fold is the Catholic Church, Dan. Nothing started by Christ can be finished by men.
As for theology, I don't have any. It's all theology taken from the Church's truth; given by Jesus' apostles and the Holy Spirit. When you dispute "MY" convoluted theology, you trivialize the Word of God. He is the author of our theology.
You trivialize Him by your
April 16, 2007 - 14:34 ET by Dan The Man 2You trivialize Him by your blinders for immigration. When He said "..,on this rock I will build my church.." he did not say Catholic church. He did leave behind the Bible though and over the years was used by the Catholic church to oppress the people. The Catholic church was against the Bible being published in language where the common man could understand it. Forunately God brought up a man in the midst of this tyrany to stand up for the common man.
Funny how many of the concepts Luther brought out the Catholic church hsa adopted. Luther pointed them out and the church killed him for it. Men corrupted the church and God had to show men again He was in control, in teh same way He showed the Pharsees and Sanhedrin where they had gone wrong.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
dan--with all due respect
April 16, 2007 - 14:53 ET by tumbler_2007Dan; when you labor on and on like that, you show how badly deceived you've been. I can't force you to believe against your will. But for certain, Jesus Christ founded only ONE Christian Church; and the Catholic Church is that same one He founded 2000 years come down in time. We don't need private opinions from Dan to ascertain where the Catholic Church came from. I recently debunked the ideas you offer similar to DebraJDavis's on the same subjects.
It's a plain fact that you & other Bible Christians have been deceived all along by self-ordained ministers who had ZERO authority coming from Christ or His apostles, much less the Holy Bible. These men spoon-fed you a distorted and false interpretation of the scriptures for only ONE reason, and it was not to save your soul. The reason was simple: To make you unfaithful to the Church founded by Christ, and faithful to the ministers whom you support with their honor and livelihood. Your spiritual world is upside-down, Dan.
MIND YOU, I'm not quoting from a Church teaching there. It's only my considered opinion based upon HISTORICAL proof. Today our Church much better hopes in our reunion with protestants in a peaceful, ecumenical manner. I'm actually breaking some rules by contradicting your false belief. But I do that because I think you're intelligent and the effort isn't wasted. You must think for yourself and discern the truth. I'll pray for you, Sir.
There is a difference of opin
April 16, 2007 - 15:09 ET by dscottThere is a difference of opinion on when the Catholic Church as we recognize it began.
The early Catholic Church came to be organized under the three patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, to which later were added the patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem. The Bishop of Rome was at that time recognized as first among them, as is stated, for instance, in canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople (381) - many interpret "first" as meaning here first among equals - and doctrinal or procedural disputes were often referred to Rome, as when, on appeal by St Athanasius against the decision of the Council of Tyre (335), Pope Julius I, who spoke of such appeals as customary, annulled the action of that council and restored Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra to their sees. The Bishop of Rome was also considered to have the right to convene ecumenical councils. When the Imperial capital moved to Constantinople, Rome's influence was sometimes challenged. Nonetheless, Rome claimed special authority because of its connection to Saint Peter[3] and Saint Paul, who, all agreed, were martyred and buried in Rome, and because the bishop of Rome saw himself as the successor of Saint Peter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism
There is a physical difference between a line of succession and a claimed heritage. The Catholic Church definitely has a "heritage" but not an officially universally recognized line of succession from the Apostle Peter. Just remember for a time the Eastern Orthodox Church considered Catholics, heritics. Then there's the Coptic Church, (Alexandria, Egypt) which is recognized as one of the oldest of Christian denominations.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
i'm sorry, dscott
April 16, 2007 - 16:15 ET by tumbler_2007You were really doing well until this part of your post:
"The Catholic Church definitely has a "heritage" but not an officially universally recognized line of succession from the Apostle Peter. Just remember for a time the Eastern Orthodox Church considered Catholics, heritics. Then there's the Coptic Church, (Alexandria, Egypt) which is recognized as one of the oldest of Christian denominations." Maybe I don't follow you correctly ?
--"an officially universally recognized line of succession from the Apostle Peter." What is officially? What is recognized universally? Of course there are dissident factions and heresies.
There were already in Paul's time. But the Catholic Church originates as a body on Pentecost, 33 A.D. at the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and Mary the Blessed Virgin. That is the FIRST DAY of our unbroken line as ONE CHURCH. It didn't begin later; as we can see in ACTS. The apostles converted about 3,000 people to the faith on that first afternoon. These were only the beginnings. In every succeeding day since, new souls have been added to the Church. Peter was already in primacy and so continued during his lifetime, ending in martyrdom in the Roman Collosseum.
There in Rome his successor was named; and as bishop of Rome became the second Pope. We have the total list of popes in unbroken line today, down to our present one, Benedict XVI -- I can get them for you if you like. The other churches you name above were not the Church but heretical offshoots which lost the original faith of the apostles in large part. The Orthodox retain some, yet are separated for denying the authority of the bishop of Rome (Schism). Since he alone represents the See of Peter, all others must be loyal. That's how it has been from the beginning.
Sure, I'm game on seeing the
April 16, 2007 - 17:16 ET by dscottSure, I'm game on seeing the exact claimed succession, but you probably should do that via PM. I agree with another poster who said NB news threads really isn't the place to be discussing theology or deep religious beliefs. Like I said it a difference of opinion, which of course depends on what perspective you come from in an honest disagreement. I don't see Catholics any less of Christians than Coptics or Eastern Orthodox or other Protestants, and it is I believe official Roman Catholic Church doctrine that anyone who receives baptism is a Christian no matter what their denomination, otherwise they wouldn't recognize the Anglican Church (Episcopal) or accept their preists.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
No...
April 16, 2007 - 16:53 ET by Mr. BishopNo, Jesus Christ is not the founder of the Catholic Church, if that is what you are attempting to say here. Jesus Christ founded no church at all. Peter founded the Catholic Church after the death of Christ.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
look who's here
April 16, 2007 - 17:51 ET by tumbler_2007"Christ is not the founder of the Catholic Church, if that is what you are attempting to say here. Jesus Christ founded no church at all. Peter founded the Catholic Church after the death of Christ."
OK . . . Peter founded the only Church to last us 2,000 years and still on fire with the same faith. --I guess you know what you're talking about.
NEXT CASE--
+
Common sense?
April 16, 2007 - 18:44 ET by Mr. BishopApparently you have none. You made the empty statement, about Christ founding the Catholic Church, thus (somehow) attempting to validate its existance, and then create an instance of undeniability to it being the "true church". Well, as usual Tumbler, you are wrong. Accept it, and move on. Christ did not found any church. Christ, himself, was a jew. He was jewish until the very end of his life.
Instead of trying to sound intelligent with your banter and attempting to change the subject, shut your mouth and listen for a change. Peter, as I pointed out, founded the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, as has been noted in the past, is not a whole church. There have been thousands of splintered religious groups and churches formed. Still on fire with the same faith? Well, congratulations on being involved in a church that has survived that long. It's really a shame that your statement concerning the "only church to last us 2,000 years..." is also incorrect. I imagine that jews are not the least bit happy with that outright lie.
Now, instead of coming back with your usual mundane and insane babble, just accept your inaccuracies, and shut your mouth for a change.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
T007,The Catholic Church is t
April 16, 2007 - 21:30 ET by upcountrywaterT007,
The Catholic Church is the worlds oldest Corporation, it's a business. Hay i like business.
Detonated Plutomium has a very large carbon footprint.
your mouth invalidates you!
April 16, 2007 - 14:09 ET by misterbillyour mouth invalidates you! shut up and go away--leave people alone you lurker!
ive--you are letting the most bigoted
April 16, 2007 - 14:08 ET by misterbillive--you are letting the most bigoted person on the site get to you. We need a little levity. 20 years of Catholic schooling?? If you did your homework, you could have done it in 12. JOKING JOKING!!!! I just remember all the homework they used to give us. Tumbler is a Catholic who makes others hate Catholicism. Whatever you prove to him from your experience and knowledge will be refuted by statements such as--"not the church--a man did it' and other arguments of this type. He is known throughout Mejico as the "Master of the Bastinado". I cringe, as a Catholic when he goes on one of his rants.
thanks, sir bill
April 16, 2007 - 14:29 ET by tumbler_2007I appreciate your kind words.
Yes; it is very apparent in what I've said above; others must hate the Catholic Church, because I'm a Catholic. It's misterboil who has authority here, not me.
Tumbler, who was the first
April 16, 2007 - 14:10 ET by MightyMouthTumbler, who was the first Pope?
Is the Pope called the "Holy Father" by you?
More "google" stuff for you.
More here...
Now compare the above to this.....
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
dear mighty mouth:
April 16, 2007 - 14:33 ET by tumbler_2007Let's discuss by private message, please. You won't be disappointed.
Here we'll be interrupted by silly people like misterbill; and by those who only enoy dumping on me. (BTW; the links you're sending aren't important. Give us YOUR opinion and then defend it if you can.)
I didn't read those links.
Not now tumbler, there has
April 16, 2007 - 14:40 ET by MightyMouthNot now tumbler, there has been some kind of school massacre!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
But, but, but
April 16, 2007 - 14:52 ET by misterbillBut, but, but -- you won't be disappointed--(twisting the ends of his waxed mustachio.)
32 Dead at Virgina Tech.
April 16, 2007 - 14:58 ET by MightyMouth32 Dead at Virginia Tech.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM,This has made me ill.I pra
April 16, 2007 - 15:03 ET by bigtimerMM,
This has made me ill.
I pray for the families and friends as I said earlier on a different thread.
Unfortunately there will be law-suits, blame, and more discussions on the 2nd amendment...I have already heard some of it started today with msnbc and Nora O'Donnell.
I was hoping for an open thread... I went to NB's Week-end thing to post earlier.
This is a sick sad world.
I bow my head in prayer today for all.
BT -I am bowed down in sorrow.
April 16, 2007 - 15:10 ET by misterbillI am bowed down in sorrow. What a mad , sick world. I cannot stand to think what the MSM is going to do with this. I instead am going to my place of prayer here in my sitting room. I am going to pray for the souls of those poor young people and the will of all their parents to survive this horrible incident.
later!
misterb...We already know fro
April 16, 2007 - 15:16 ET by bigtimermisterb...
We already know from experience what the media will do with this ad nauseum...sadly.
I dread it...they have no shame.
I hate to say this right now, but this is going to take the sails out of ChuckESchumer, Spector and Leahy and their interrogation of AG Gonzales tomorrow...it will be a non-event compared to this...this is the biggest massacre in history so far on a campus.
come into my parlor little fly--
April 16, 2007 - 14:43 ET by misterbillBeware the Lurker!!! Gene the unclean machine!
at home
misterb...LOL!Love the pictur
April 16, 2007 - 14:46 ET by bigtimermisterb...
LOL!
Love the picture.
Gracias senora---
April 16, 2007 - 14:50 ET by misterbillGracias senora---I also have one of him when he had a brain.
Young Eugene
here we divert the thread
April 16, 2007 - 14:57 ET by tumbler_2007Yeah; misterboil and his pals here want to silence Tumbler. Even by deliberately taking another thread off-topic. How many more posts on Tumbler now? He's the new subject and misterboil wants to call the shots. He's so unselfish.
I always hesitate to discuss
April 16, 2007 - 14:08 ET by KC MulvilleI always hesitate to discuss religion in a non-religious forum. It always winds up being a spitting match, throwing snippets of devotion at one another. However, this is a frequent criticism of the Catholic church, and as a Catholic, I don't want to leave it hanging freely.
The standard Catholic answer is to freely and fully admit our human failings. We don't excuse the horrors that Catholics have done throughout history, of course. We deserve the shame attached to the horrors done (supposedly) in our name. However, we also believe, as Catholics, that leading the Catholic church doesn't require personal perfection. Popes and bishops don't have to be saints. If perfection was required, why did Jesus pick Judas? Sometimes, we admit that God works in mysterious ways.
OK, we admit ... when it comes to Jesus and faith, we think we're right. We think we preserve the essential message that Jesus taught his disciples. We think we preserve that as a tradition, going back to the apostles. If you don't think so, that's your right, and that's fine. We happen to think so.
If anyone thinks the Catholic church offers a 100% guarantee of holiness and perfection, well, I assure you that this isn't in the brochure. We don't make that promise. If that's what you're looking for, go ahead and see if you can find it elsewhere. We'll be here, waiting, if that search comes up empty.
KC well said!
April 16, 2007 - 14:12 ET by misterbillKC well said! I should not have jumped in. We are here to discuss the political situation a s reported by the MSM. We are not here to settle centuries of religion and the various opinions we hold on them. I will shut up!
Thank you, misterbill. No nee
April 16, 2007 - 14:24 ET by KC MulvilleThank you, misterbill. No need to shut up. I agree, however, that we need to lighten up. It turns people off, and we gain little in return.
misterbill,I agree that NB
April 16, 2007 - 15:46 ET by Dave Rmisterbill,
I agree that NB really isn't the place for the discussion of religion unless it is a topic introduced by one of the contributers or comes up in an OT (by the way, where's my Shrub Report?), but certain people here cannot seem to hold their tongue when it comes to discussion of same and seem to want to apply it to subjects that are wholly un-related. Our resident hispanderer as well as our resident theocrat are but two examples of such people.
I would, however, welcome a knock-down drag-out between the above mentioned members in the forum area, as the entertainment potential is nigh onto unlimited. Translation for tumbler: A debate between two people as obstinate as you two (you and Debra) would be a real hoot!
As for your deft handling of tumbletroll, you are doing a fine job, as per always, in annoying the crap out of him and therefore making me smile. Have much to do at work, so I'll be on my way.
By all means, carry on, sir! :-)
PS: Tumbler, go jump in the lake. And if you call misterbill misterboil one more time, I'm sending a complaint email to The Vatican myself. Do you think Pope Benedict would approve of the language you use on this blog?
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
a hypocrite speaks:
April 16, 2007 - 16:36 ET by tumbler_2007Here's Dave R, a racist and a hypocrite:
By all means, carry on, sir! :-) (He means MISTERBOIL.)
PS: Tumbler, go jump in the lake. And if you call misterbill misterboil one more time, I'm sending a complaint email to The Vatican myself. Do you think Pope Benedict would approve of the language you use on this blog?"
Let's ask the Pope, if you'll accept his authority. Clearly you do something hypocritical, praising misterboil who daily erupts in screaming fits and below-the-belt ad hominems; while damning me for saying he's a Doofus and a phoney. Or saying YOU are a racist and a liar. Or your Sphincter-Report is written by a cheap-shot muck-raker & silly SOB. Who takes liberties here in NewsBusters like calling an hispanic "Taco," while denying his racist agenda. But, if he's to your taste, check him out; see what outrage he promotes today against married couples. YOUR KINDA GUY, Dave. Natural-born Killers hang together.
foffah
April 16, 2007 - 16:41 ET by misterbillfoffah
dweeb----help is on the way
April 16, 2007 - 16:54 ET by misterbillDrama queens, saviours, rescuers, feigners and attention-seekers
Attention-seeking personality disorders,
victim syndrome, insecurity and centre of attention behaviour
"The emotionally immature person, however, has low levels of self-esteem and self-confidence and consequently feels insecure; to counter these feelings of insecurity they will spend a large proportion of their lives creating situations in which they become the centre of attention. "It may be that the need for attention is inversely proportional to emotional maturity, therefore anyone indulging in attention-seeking behaviours is telling you how emotionally immature they are. "
My little tumbler----
For all your intelligence , you are sorely lacking in the confidence you should have.