On his HBO show that aired over the last week, Bill Maher joked that last Friday, "President Bush spoke at a Catholic prayer breakfast, and you could tell this was a Catholic prayer breakfast because [Maher laughs] it was in the morning and he said 'I'm dying for a little joe' and they brought him an altar boy." The crowd laughed and applauded, and Maher said, "See, I'm not afraid!"
Aside from the fact there are craven bishops who still deserve this joke, isn't this show supposed to be "topical"? Isn't this a little like cracking jokes about that wacky Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle?
A week after we heard endless lectures about how hard-working ethical heroes like the Rutgers women in no way deserve the humor Don Imus dished out, can't we also suggest that hard-working ethical heroes like the nation's Catholic priests in no way deserve Maher's line of "ho" humor?
But for Maher, this isn't about humor. It's personal. It's about his hatred of religion, a hatred so raw that when he went on ABC's The View the other day with his usual rant that religion is "childish destructive nonsense," and Joy Behar lamely suggested maybe he shouldn't be harsh on old ladies who go to the church to light a candle, he replied, "They are certainly better than people who fly planes into buildings, yes. But they are enablers for some thing that is worldwide and winds up killing more people, distracting us from more good works."
As for good works, I can only suggest a new motto: "Annoy Bill Maher. Pray for him."
PS: At the end of this show, in a "New Rules" segment, Maher joked over a picture of Keith Richards, who joked he snorted his father's ashes with cocaine: "New rule. Snorting your father is not crazy. Eating your father, that's crazy." Maher showed a picture of a priest offering a woman the Holy Eucharist. Earth to Maher: Catholics teach the Eucharist is the body of Christ -- the son -- not the Father.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Comments Policy
Time to start a national camp
April 20, 2007 - 20:41 ET by ex buff e-dubTime to start a national campaign to get Mr. Maher pulled from the air. If he really is unafraid, let's see him make disparaging comments about Islam and Mohammed. If Imus can get canned for his comments, then something this egregious most certainly qualifies.
I canceled my subscription
April 20, 2007 - 20:43 ET by Free StinkerI canceled my subscription to HBO because of that Jack@$$
Bill Maher
April 20, 2007 - 20:53 ET by shawn228I realize you want to make a statement but missing the last season of the Sopranos is a big price to pay, when you can just change the channel. Umm i guess I should ask, do you watch the Soprano's?
Vince
April 20, 2007 - 20:56 ET by Free StinkerThe only thing I'm missing is the last season of Entourage. (EDIT: And Big Love)
As if it won't be on Bravo or A&E next year ;-)
Besides which you can buy the
April 20, 2007 - 20:58 ET by botgBesides which you can buy the whole season at Frys (with a little patience)
I had HBO for 20 years, the
April 20, 2007 - 22:01 ET by Night WatchmanI had HBO for 20 years, then the cable company said I had to get this
monster box under my TV for an additional $120 a year. All it did was
enable me to get HBO and pay per view, so I fired them. I rent the
Sopranos from NetFlix. HBO and Maher are pretty much bullet proof with
no sponsors. I'm a big South Park fan and can't help but notice that
"Girls Gone Wild" is their only sponsor. When will the people at GGW be
offend enough to yank their ads?
Okay, Free....Get out your gu
April 20, 2007 - 21:09 ET by BlondeOkay, Free....
Get out your gun. Shoot me if you dare.
I watch both the Sopranos, and Entourage (and, of course, as we all know here, Nip/Tuck).
Fortunately, I get free HBO on my non-box cable (not that the cable company knows about it...but I've not pirated it, so if they are too stupid to pipe it in w/o the cable box...oh well).
And I would be bothered that
April 20, 2007 - 21:12 ET by Free StinkerAnd I would be bothered that anyone else still has HBO because . . . ?
:-/
Free,You should only be bothe
April 20, 2007 - 21:15 ET by BlondeFree,
You should only be bothered if someone bothered to pay for it!
Since the cable company streams it for free....hmmmm....I watch it occasionally.
Having to pay for it would be a horse of an entirely different color, however.
:D
P.S. Who is going to get whacked on the Sopranos this year?
My vote is Christopher.
The only NJ based show that
April 20, 2007 - 21:23 ET by Free StinkerThe only NJ based show that I watched was That's Life
Chg the channel
April 20, 2007 - 21:09 ET by shawn228I know Free Stinker, but this is one of the main things I disagree with the publisher of this site. If you don't like whats on. Just change the channel. No reason to drop a great Cable channel because of someone you don't like. Ever since the whole Janet Jackson thing, people are scared to put things on TV that are a considered indecent. This takes away from more choices on TV
The left is no better. They have definately shown their hypocricy with the whole Imus thing.
It's only TV.
April 20, 2007 - 21:13 ET by Free StinkerNo reason to drop a great Cable channel because of someone you don't like
Actually, there was a great reason. I don't want to help pay that Jack@$$'s salary.
It's only TV.
TV is my biggest Vice
April 20, 2007 - 21:22 ET by shawn228I take my TV very seriously. TV and internet are my drugs of choice. DVR is the best present I ever had. Not easy to watch all my favorite showsl, being a father and all.
Isn't Rosie O'Donnels propaga
April 20, 2007 - 21:24 ET by ahusserIsn't Rosie O'Donnels propaganda piece for gay and lesbian parents cruise on HBO? Who really owns that Cable network. I vote with my remote finger.
He is very afraid and he will
April 20, 2007 - 21:15 ET by Trix RabbitHe is very afraid and he will never make any disparaging remarks about Islam because it's as I've said before, he does not have the testicular fortitude.
Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell
Catholic-bashing doesn't ha
April 20, 2007 - 20:43 ET by motherbeltCatholic-bashing doesn't have to be "topical". It's always open season on Catholics, and good for a laugh. hahahaha
The number of abusive priests has been estimated at about 4% of the total number of priests. With an estimated 10% of Muslims believing in violent jihad, we are cautioned not to tar all Muslims with the militant brush. But apparently 4 % of priests is a majority, a large enough number to impugn them all.
Maher obviously hates religion, and Catholics especially. And I'm sorry, I'm just not a good enough Catholic to pray for him right now.
I honestly haven't figured ou
April 20, 2007 - 21:27 ET by ahusserI honestly haven't figured out why any Christian (especially catholics) would ever vote Democratic. Jews for that matter either. The way the left continuously bashes them.
I can't either. I think it
April 20, 2007 - 22:17 ET by motherbeltI can't either. I think it has to do with the fact that the Democrats usually favor social programs, which Catholics see as a form of "charity." You would think that the Democrat support of abortion on demand, gay marriage, etc. would turn off Catholics, but old habits die hard.
Did you hear the Pope blast
April 20, 2007 - 22:33 ET by Night WatchmanDid you hear the Pope blast the Iraq war?
He's a refined Bill Maher when it comes to the war.
Did you hear the Pope blast
April 20, 2007 - 22:35 ET by Free StinkerDid you hear the Pope blast the Iraq war?
Nope. Wasn't paying any attention.
NW - You remind me of someone . . .
FSI'm the guy who sits here
April 20, 2007 - 22:57 ET by Night WatchmanFS
I'm the guy who sits here till midnight, playing on the computer, and
calls 911 if the alarm goes off. Then I run like hell. I actually do a
mock drill once a month, I get tired thinking about it. I just found
this site, forgive me if I get mud on the carpet. I'm all over the map
on my views and flip flop like a trout on dock.
An accute case of Liberalism
April 20, 2007 - 23:46 ET by Free Stinkerflip flop like a trout on dock.
Ah, yes. An accute case of Liberalism. All you Libs sound alike.
Please read P.J. O'Rourke's book Eat the Rich, and take a statistics class. That might help.
don't exaggerate
April 20, 2007 - 23:05 ET by tumbler_2007The Pope wasn't blasting anything. He spoke out for peace. It wouldn't matter, really, if he HAD; but he doesn't have to do that. Please DON'T refer to the Pope as Bill Maher in any way, shape or form. Refer to me as Bill Maher if you like. Please respect the Pope.
Pope Benedict XVI says:
April 20, 2007 - 23:22 ET by Night WatchmanPope Benedict XVI says:
".......nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees."
Bill Maher would agree.
President Bush should tell them both how the surge is working.
Me either ahusser.
April 20, 2007 - 23:49 ET by bigtimerMe either ahusser.
How do you which are the 4%
April 20, 2007 - 22:30 ET by Night WatchmanHow do you know which are the 4%, and how do you keep them away from your kids?
How do you know which guys
April 20, 2007 - 22:56 ET by motherbeltOh, I see, because 4% of priests abused kids, they are all suspect? How do you know which guys at the gym are gay, and how do you keep them from making a pass at you?? Do you just assume they are all gay, and stay away from men altogether?
motherbelt,My YMCA is like
April 20, 2007 - 23:07 ET by Night Watchmanmotherbelt,
My YMCA is like a private club, 95% of the time I'm alone in the locker
room, the other 5% of the time no one ever hit on me. I do have to
fight off the ladies, very girl's crazy about a well built guy. And how
did you know I work out?
night watchman
April 20, 2007 - 23:34 ET by misterbillI know who you are and the reason the locker room in the Y is empty 95% of the time is because the rest of us pass the word that you are in there!
HA! Motherbelt, Get him !
April 20, 2007 - 23:47 ET by tumbler_2007Here is a hunk who holds a job as a night watchman. Of course he's so handsome he stops traffic in an empty YMCA. To hear him tell it, hahaha!
Over HERE, Girls ! He's in the Y !
Y...M...C...A...The Village P
April 20, 2007 - 23:52 ET by bigtimerY...M...C...A...
The Village People?
LOL!
tumbler,your may be a watch
April 21, 2007 - 02:45 ET by MightyMouthtumbler,you may be a watchman and defender of kids, but there is no way you are Handsome, at your age! :=)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
strange characteristic
April 21, 2007 - 12:20 ET by tumbler_2007About the handsome or attractive man. He is praised all the time by others. He won't venture any opinion. Yes, youth has its advantages.
When is the Catholic communit
April 21, 2007 - 01:23 ET by TRHWhen is the Catholic community going to stand up and defend itself? The priests involved in abuse are not pedophiles, they are gay. The overwhelming number of victims were teenage boys. It is easy for the media and comedians to bash priests as pedophiles. Nobody defends a pedophile. It is another to bash them for being gay. There would be a backlash.
One small problem
April 21, 2007 - 01:45 ET by Cool ArrowOne small problem: Homosexual acts are also a breach of chastity vows.
The Catholic community instead should stand up and demand priests the right to marry.
I guarantee you Mrs. Priest wouldn't allow Mr. Priest to spend so much time alone with little boys. It's one of those things he couldn't hide from a woman very easily. Not one with whom he's intimate
Celibacy is an open invitation to perverts seeking an avenue to cure their disgusting predilictions.
Here's how it goes down:
No, they're stuck with being waht they are.
nonsense, riled
April 21, 2007 - 13:05 ET by tumbler_2007First things first:
"Catholic community instead should stand up and demand priests the right to marry.
I guarantee you Mrs. Priest wouldn't allow Mr. Priest to spend so much time alone with little boys. It's one of those things he couldn't hide from a woman very easily. Not one with whom he's intimate." ......................................................................REPLY: The Catholic Church has never denied anyone the right to marry. However, only a single man or widowed can be ordained a priest. Deacons can be married.
If an ordained priest wants to marry he has the right to apply for laicification (proper term ?) JESUS CHRIST IS CELIBATE, and a priest vows to act in Persona Cristi, not in Persona Hubby or Daddy.
PLUS, the flock has no authority to "demand" anything from its shepherds. A community of God is a hierarchical communion with all authority coming from ABOVE. Almighty God >>>Vicar of Christ Popes)>>> Prelates (bishop >>> Presbyter (priest) >>>> and ME + YOU, who are authorized to worship, pray and love one another; not demand. If there comes a controversy, it's passed upwards to an authorized minister (bishop).
Bishops have messed up badly. Their penalty is from above. If the popes fail in policing them adequately, God will demand an account in due time. They also pass from this life and immediately come before Our King and Judge. Many may be found derelict in their duty. Many will be made saints in His kingdom. As we sow, we shall all reap. The flock as well as its shepherds.
You proclaim, as if you are the authority:
"Celibacy is an open invitation to perverts seeking an avenue to cure their disgusting predilictions." NOT SO. God calls priests, They don't choose God. When a pervert infiltrates, it's like in the great parable of the wheat & the thistles; "An enemy hath done this." ( Matt, 13 :27-28 ) We must be watchful, not judgmental. And if the Church prays, God protects his people. The faaithful never PRAY as much as they could. Do penance, give alms to the poor, have an effect ! PRAY !
--You go on: "Here's how it goes down:
Young man feels attraction to young boys
Young man knows this is a Mortal Sin
Young man believes solemn vow of Chastity will stop his urges.
Young man becomes a Priest.
Young man finds more men who joined for the same reason.
Young man becomes old pedophile enabled by a corrupt system bent on holding on to its earthly treasure."
Yes, it may occasionally happen that way. A faithful seminary can weed out the evil ones. You may not see it, but many thousands or young men are turned away, it's not an open door for bad boys. During the history of our Church, many abuses go unreported, we're all sinners ! There have been hundreds of bishops too worldly and afraid of consequences to kick out a sinner priest. That is a grave sin ! But it doesn't mean "the system is corrupt." For every faulty individual, the Church has produced a thousand saintly, devout ones. A "corrupt" system, or hierarchy could never result in saints like Mother Theresa, Padre Pio, St Maxillian Kolbe, and hundreds of thousands more heroic souls.
You have to remember this lifetime is a PILGRIMAGE. Many good souls lag far behind. But just as many and MORE, reach salvation and it's by way of CHRIST'S HOLY CHURCH that they achieve that. Not by luck, Riled One.
Are you serious?
April 21, 2007 - 15:25 ET by Cool ArrowInteresting Paul refers to forced celibacy and forced abstinence from meat as "Doctrines of devils" Evidently the Church is more learned and closer to God than Paul was.
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
How many people were damned to hell because they had the unconfessed Mortal Sin of eating meat on Friday on their soul?
How many Godly men were called to the Priesthood but feared they could not live up to man's law of celibacy.
Include in that small percentage of pedophiles the silent enabling heirarchy and peers who participated in the shell game of "hide the pedophiles" (see also "millstone around their neck."
You may not think it is your business to judge idolatry and abomination among Church leaders, but I'll take Scripture rather than Canonical doctrine, thank you.
Scripture rather than Canonical doctrine,
April 21, 2007 - 15:51 ET by tumbler_2007Riled, do what you please:
But find us the text where Jesus says: "Blessed are Bible scholars who shall supercede my apostles." I figure you must've read that in your Bible.
Or, find Jesus saying in the Bible, "I shall build my Church, but the Bible shall keep her OUT of my peoples' lives." I need that verse, so I can tell the Pope to shove it.
Next, look up a verse, Matt, 18 :17, "If he refuses to hear them, apppeal to the Church. But if he refuse to hear even the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Amen, I say to you (His Church) --whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven." Bind or loose is referring to authority. He gives the Church His own authority to command us.
This authority serves to tell me, if we abstain (voluntarily, not "forced" as Christ's Church) from eating meat during Lent, it's because we are not allowed to disobey Christ and his Church. Celibacy is not "man's" law; but the DISCIPLINE approved for priests by Christ's Holy Church. We call it "self-denial."
Doctrines of devils means your insistence on "reforming" what Jesus gave the world; HIS Church. It's the heighth of pride and arrogance to assume authority from nowhere to CHANGE what the Son of God instituted. You are simply in rebellion against His Holy Word, Riled. (Now- find the verses I'm requesting above. Please.
Luke 4:38Jesus heals Peter's
April 21, 2007 - 16:21 ET by botgLuke 4:38
Jesus heals Peter's wife's mother, Peter (the 1st pope?) was married
Gal 2:11
Paul withstood Peter (the 1st pope?) to his face "because he was to be blamed"
In Acts the apostles choose another to replace Ischariot but God chooses Paul
absolutely not, botg
April 21, 2007 - 18:00 ET by tumbler_2007Peter had a wife. But he left everything behind to follow and serve Our Lord. Or do you think he needed anything more?
Paul did rebuke Peter; we know Paul is Christ's apostle. Nevertheless, Jesus appointed Peter the Shepherd over all His lambs. That included the others, "Simon, Simon; behold Satan has desired to have you; that he may sift you (the Church) like wheat. But I have prayed for THEE (Simon Peter) that thy faith may not fail; and do thou when once thou hast turned again (after the 3 denials) > > >
Strengthen thy brethren." (Luke, 22 :31-32) --Only Peter was to called specifically by Jesus to strengthen the Church.
Paul was not a Pope. He wasn't given primacy, but Paul was called to another great mission. We celebrate the same day, Sts Peter and Paul, as one feast, to acknowledge the two greatest saints in the Church.
The point being that Paul did
April 21, 2007 - 18:18 ET by botgThe point being that Paul did not contact those in Jerusalem for at least fourteen years plenty of time for Peter to be strenghtened after his 3 denials. Paul did not ascribe to the infallibility doctrine. Also if Peter was married why not all the popes? The apostles choosing a 12th while God appoints a different should be amply reason to wonder if Our Lord intends to have centralized universal authority until His return. He has promised His church another Comforter who will teach you all things. Where did Our Lord say "I will have you to elect a man to oversee"? (BTW catholic means universal thus the catholic church in its true interpretation would be the saints)
you're off on a tangent
April 21, 2007 - 19:25 ET by tumbler_2007"Paul did not contact those in Jerusalem for at least fourteen years plenty of time for Peter to be strenghtened after his 3 denials." Reply: You're confused. Go back and read what I quoted, Peter confirms the brethren, by Christ's authority. Jesus PRAYED for Peter, so his faith would not fail, and it didn't.
"Paul did not ascribe to the infallibility doctrine." Yes he did; in Galatians 1 Paul clearly pronounces anathema any gospel which controverts the one HE (in the Church) has preached, even if you hear it from an angel of light! THAT'S INFALLIBILITY ! He speaks for the Catholic Church.
" Also if Peter was married why not all the popes?" Reply: If the conditions for ordination were changed by the Pope, all priests COULD. He has the authority. But he hasn't; we do NOT require married priests. --That is what YOU want, not God. God asks for priests in the image of His SON, a celibate, holy man who serves the Lord. Jesus has never had a wife.
"The apostles choosing a 12th while God appoints a different should be amply reason to wonder -- Reply Again, you're confused. God allowed the apostles to select a substitute for Judas. His name was Thaddeus, or JUDE. You'd better go back and correct your distorted interpretation of this scripture, God did NOT "appoint" Paul to replace Judas. Jesus simply called Paul as one besides the original twelve. Don't invent or calculate what God should be doing; it's not yours to judge. God spoke to Ananaias, (Acts 9, :15) saying Saul (Paul afterwards) was a CHOSEN VESSEL; He said nothing whatever about Judas or the original twelve. Note his name was changed as well, same as Christ changed the name of Simon Bar Jonah to Peter, Rock.
A name change for the people of God signified God's power and authority imparted to His servant, with subsequently greater responsibility and rank.
"He has promised His Church another Comforter who will teach you all things." Reply: Yes, the comforter or Advocate is God the Holy Spirit. He descended on the CHURCH --His apostles and disciples (including MARY) on Pentecost, 33 A.D. It's in the Bible. See Acts 2, Chapter 2, :1 to :4
Christ still said in John 17 :17, [Father] "Sanctify them in the truth. Thy word is truth. Even as thou hast sent me into the world, so I also have sent THEM --" He sent his CHURCH. --YOU are disputing with her, a mere human being without any authority, botg !
A man oversees because Jesus ordained it so. Why are you disputing Jesus ? The Church is Catholic and you and mere men have changed it to some scattered 28,000 disparate little sects. These were never ordained or equipt by Jesus for such a monumental task. None of them received the fulness of His Spirit. But you HAVE it for the asking in the Catholic Church. --Nobody's taken it away from you, you rejected it. It's called throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
-- Where did Our Lord say "I will have you to elect a man to oversee"? Reply: In Matt 16 :18 & on: I say to thee, thou art Peter (changed of name from Simon to Cephas, Rock) --upon this rock (His apostle Peter) I will build my Church." Not Peter's confession of faith, Peter the MAN. He stated He would give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If that hasn't convinced you,
What MORE do you require in order to to believe ? He gave Peter charge over his Church. And you call yourselves "believers"-- O ye of little faith ! You dispute the words of Jesus Christ for the false preaching of men. It's tragic or it would be laughable.
Paul did not ascribe to the i
April 21, 2007 - 21:34 ET by botgPaul did not ascribe to the infallibility doctrine." Yes he did; in Galatians 1 Paul clearly pronounces anathema
Are you saying Paul was infallible, i thought it was only the popes and you said Paul was not a pope
we do NOT require married priests. --That is what YOU want,
You don't allow married priests, as for me i don't care one way or the other but the doctrine is of men as you say the pope could change it if he wanted
Jesus simply called Paul as one besides the original twelve. Don't invent or calculate what God should be doing; it's not yours to judge
I don't invent, Paul called himself an apostle and Revelation tells us there are Twelve
He sent his CHURCH. --YOU are disputing with her, a mere human being without any authority, botg !
We (the believers) are the church, the saints. In another post you called Mary the church here you say her.
Why are you disputing Jesus ? The Church is Catholic
I have been telling you the Scripture what Jesus said not disputing Him. You are the one who must reconcile what you say with the Word. And yes the church is universal.
I say to thee, thou art Peter (changed of name from Simon to Cephas, Rock) --upon this rock (His apostle Peter) I will build my Church."
"Thou art Cephas, upon this Petros I will build my church" My Lord ever good and wise knew to use two different words here to avoid the confusion you seem to have.
You dispute the words of Jesus Christ for the false preaching of men. It's tragic or it would be laughable.
I have brought His words in context you seem to think they are to be used for special pleading to backup doctrines which men have brought which contradict the Word.
Tumb does not start at the start
April 21, 2007 - 22:14 ET by Cool ArrowJesus starts the conversation with:
Jesus: Peter, who do you say I am.
Peter: You are the Messiah, the son of the Living God.
Jesus: Not man, But My Father has revealed this to you. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock (the statement You are the Messiah is the Rock upon which the church is built)
Catholics erroneously claim Peter as the Rock in order to claim ownership of Christianity.
Jesus does not say "The gates of hell shall not prevail against you, Peter".
then the correct exegesis wou
April 21, 2007 - 22:29 ET by botgthen the correct exegesis would be the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (The church founded on true knowledge of Christ------as expressed by Cephas)
Not too hard to understand is it?
April 21, 2007 - 23:36 ET by Cool ArrowThat's my take on it.
Beware those who refuse you the right to a literal understanding of Scripture.
Peter had a wife. But he left
April 21, 2007 - 18:20 ET by botgPeter had a wife. But he left everything behind to follow and serve Our Lord
Are you implying that Peter abandoned his wife?!!
Nonsense
April 21, 2007 - 18:32 ET by Cool ArrowPeter was never appointed pope. He also is not the figure of infallibility the papacy has evolved into.
You are being disengenuous.
April 21, 2007 - 17:10 ET by Cool ArrowYou are trying to tell me that a man who has a desire to become a priest is not required to take on the yoke of celibacy to do so?
Please explain how man's law is not restricting God's law.
God never said a Priest should not be married. In fact, you might note the New Testament gives requirements for all sorts of church offices, but never mentions popes or priests.
I have an advocate with The Father. He is Jesus Christ. No other man in the middle is necessary. I thank God I'm no longer living under the bondage of Catholicism.
Read this and decide whether your church or the Gospel of Matthew is lying:
Matt 1:24
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
There's your tradition calling itself greater than Scripture again.
Tumbler, having problems?
April 21, 2007 - 18:49 ET by Cool ArrowWhy aren't you explaining to me how "Blessed Mary ever virgin" can exist when the Scripture denies it?
Matt 1:24&25
Struggling with it aren't you?
struggling with what ?
April 21, 2007 - 19:40 ET by tumbler_2007"Why aren't you explaining to me how "Blessed Mary ever virgin" can exist when the Scripture denies it?" Reply: --Show where the scripture denies she is His mother? Or that she isn't a virgin ? --Matt 1 :24 & 25 doesn't say Mary has stopped being a virgin.
It has no bearing on her virginity. She bore a son as VIRGIN and remains one. Joseph married her, but not to give her children; only to serve God. He never had relations with anybody; Joseph lived a chaste man and husband. God gives saints GRACE for the impossible, Riled.
Mary bore her firstborn son. That is no cause to conclude more came after Him. Because we KNOW there weren't any. (This is no struggle. You don't know your scripture, that's all.)
MT 12:47 Mk 6:3 speak of Ou
April 21, 2007 - 19:59 ET by botgMT 12:47 Mk 6:3 speak of Our Lords brothers and sisters
not to worry, botg
April 21, 2007 - 20:36 ET by tumbler_2007Mary had NO other children after Jesus. Those called brothers are "family"-- the brethren related to Mary either in her immediate family, or to Joseph, who also didn't have children after Jesus. Tradition says he may have been a widower. His offspring (if any) would not have been Christs' siblings but rather His cousins.
We know this, on account of a particular FACT.
At His crucifixion before dying, Jesus entrusted his holy mother to the apostle John; "Son, behold thy mother," and "Mother, behold thy son (John)." From that day she went to live in the house of the apostle. Mary went with a man who was not her kinsman. --WHY ? Jesus knew she had no other sons or daughters.
If Mary were also mother to Jesus' --"brothers and sisters" -- He can't have sent her elsewhere to live after His departure. Mary would have been absolutely given to her own sons or daughters. Otherwise, the Israelite community would have been scandalized.
Mary was all alone. Jesus knew this and He gave her to John for safekeeping. In this wonderful act of love and reverence for His mother, Jesus is seen giving Mary to all of His faithful; therefore we ALL receive her as Our Blessed Mother. As she belonged to John after Jesus, she was to belong forever to the Church. TO US, and that means YOU as well, botg. If you truly love Jesus, Mary is your Blessed Mother forever.
True Jesus did entrust his mo
April 21, 2007 - 20:50 ET by botgTrue Jesus did entrust his mother to John. The rest is conjecture and the Scripture is clear on His brothers and sisters. Changing the meaning of the words is not an apologia. (Usually the answer from the KofC would be brothers and sisters is meant spiritually or followers) Either way a 'just-so' story doesn't provide proof of an assertion and you are the one making the assertion that the Scripture (Holy Spirit) does not speak plainly.
As to Mary, what an amazing women, to be chosen of God to be the bearer of Our Lord.
Ps. a word for you from Mary&
April 21, 2007 - 20:53 ET by botgPs. a word for you from Mary
"Whatever he (Jesus) says to you do" Jn2:5
She does know where to direct us after all.
botg - Thank you
April 21, 2007 - 21:06 ET by Free Stinkerbotg - Thank you. I was foaming at the mouth when I read bumbler's post, but you took care of it. :-)
Tumbler I did show you
April 21, 2007 - 22:05 ET by Cool ArrowRemember where I asked you to explain
Matt 1:24&25
That's where it states Joseph knew her not till Jesus was born.
Let me explain to those who feign ignorance in the face of Scriptural fact:
Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. This passage is more than mere suggestion.
Granted you can stall till tomorrow when you can ask the priest how you are supposed to understand this passage, but I was hoping for something more than a canned response from you.
David Koresh and Jim Jones told their congregations how to understand Scripture. Those sheep followed blindly also.
Acts 17:11Now these Jews were
April 21, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Cool ArrowActs 17:11
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni'ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
You are commanded to test doctrine against Scripture to see if it's true. Yes you may choose to do the opposite, but there is no such license in scripture.
The "Rock" upon which Jesus built his church are these words:
you're failing to interpret
April 21, 2007 - 16:26 ET by tumbler_2007The Thessalonican only had written scripture coming from Moses & the prophets. Our Bible wasn't in existence until many years later. What's more, the Holy Bible was certified by the authority of the Holy Spirit who is the Church's Advocate promised by Christ. Every canonically genuine text came from the saints whom He inspired; IN the Catholic Church. Without them we wouldn't read anything but the Old Testament, like they did at Thessalonica. You aren't authorized to intepret privately but in communion with Christ's saints & apostles. Your gospel is described by Paul in Galatians 1, :6 to :9 . . . "Anathema."
not so sure about your versio
April 21, 2007 - 16:37 ET by botgnot so sure about your version of the Jerusalem Bible but mine has two letters from Paul to Thessalonica
You curse yourself
April 21, 2007 - 16:44 ET by Cool ArrowBy definition, Paul says any gospel that is made up after that which the apostles preached is accursed.
Your observance of days, Your devotion to Mary, Your doctrine of infallibility, all evolved after the passing of the apostles.
You are using the very Scripture that indicts you to condemn me.
observances and authority
April 21, 2007 - 18:21 ET by tumbler_2007Maybe you never read it, but at the end Matthew's gospel, Chapter 28 :19 &20
Jesus told His aposltles and disciples: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. --teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you, and behold I am with you all days even unto the consummation of the word."
Two points to ponder:
The apostles were not ordered to give commands in writing; and He said they should teach ALL he had commanded them to observe.
That includes infallibility (in the Holy Spirit's guidance) devotion to His holy mother and His saints, observing holy days, and just about every aspect of our faith. JESUS authorizes it all in that verse as well as Matt: 16, :19 "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," Whatsoever is taught in and by his Church is done with His authority. No authority was allowed self-ordained protestants or Bible Christians. Nor has Jesus ever prophesied his Church was to be "reformed" by men. That would be absurd, judged by the scripture which says "I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world." Galatians 1 is a direct anathema of false ministers who think they're "reformed" Christians.
Furthermore, Riled One; nobody has "condemned" you or any other Bible Chrisitan. I only tell you the truth; and it's to help you, not condemn you. Jesus loves us all. But He founded only ONE CHURCH, My Friend.
Read up
April 21, 2007 - 18:40 ET by Cool ArrowYou really need to investigate the contemporary nature of the doctrine of infallibility. It wasn't proclaimed until somewhere around 1880 when the Church incidentally proclaimed one of its greatest heresies. (Immaculate Conception)
You're telling me there was this doctrine of perfection that existed for almost 1900 years that the church was not aware of? And that the church discovered after that same Period this new revelation about Mary?
Wake up.
Nonsense, Riled One
April 21, 2007 - 20:17 ET by tumbler_2007Infallibility is revealed from the start. Many verses in scripture attest. You're confusing the DOGMA with the doctrine.
Dogmatic pronouncement makes a belief mandatory under penalty of sin. It's necessary in many instances because a doubt arises; about teachings going back to the beginning, questioning if they're absolute truth or not. The Church must take on whatever divides her faithful, making the "judgment call." It's definitive after "Peter and the Holy Spirit" have spoken. It removes all doubt, because the Holy Spirit is never able to deceive or be deceived. The Pope is infallible in faith and morals. His word is infallible because ex cathedra he is sustained in the truth by God the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of infallibility of the popes was always extant from the days of the apostles. In modern times the need to certify its truth led to that proclamation. But nothing new was invented. You don't have to invent anything Jesus Christ taught us. His words will never pass away. Same with the Immaculate Conception. Far from being a heresy or false; this was clarified by the Pope because men had challenged her sinless soul, imparted by God to Mary by a special grace. This was and is today, chalenged by people like just like you (incidentally sinners.) In making the doctrine DOGMA, it put the matter to rest for faithful Catholics.
For others, we can pray. They have nothing they can call Vicar on earth who can settle questions of faith or morals. They try by themselves and it results in fractured sects, each one going its own way, the blind leading the blind. If the Bible could settle everything, they'd be united as one fellowship. But the Bible stumps everybody who has no Holy Spirit. Thus the confusion and lack of unity.
Why do you think denominations now number in the tens of thousands, all claiming to teach the truth? All doing their own thing, oblivious of God's Will ? They have no apostle to correct them. No PETER !
Then the council of Nicea was
April 21, 2007 - 20:26 ET by botgThen the council of Nicea was the first of the false teachings since the pope did not attend.
Seeing that you have cleaned your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit to unfeigned love of the bretheren love one another with a pure heart being born again, not of corruptable seed but of incorruptable, by THE WORD OF GOD which lives and abides forever. Peter(the 1st pope?)
1st Peter 1:22,23
tumb
April 21, 2007 - 20:31 ET by botgps. you have i think five other points i've made still left unanswered
scripture talks of Jesus' brothers and sisters
Paul withstood 'the infallible one'?
why don't popes follow Peters example and have wives
catholic means universal and the church is the believers not a building or institution
the apostles elected but God chose differently
so add to the list is the cou
April 21, 2007 - 21:10 ET by botgso add to the list
is the council of Nicea valid? if so how is it God works the major statement of faith for the church without the pope who you say is God's arbitar and vicar?
How is it Peter tells us to follow the word of God to be born again?
How is it you say Thessolonica had no New Testament writings when 2 Epistles were addressed to them?
Again you're not being truthful
April 21, 2007 - 18:53 ET by Cool ArrowYou use Scripture to refer to my Gospel as "anathema" when it in fact refers to "added thought" after the consolidation of Scripture.
My Gospel?
April 21, 2007 - 16:35 ET by Cool ArrowThe Gospel "Good News" I follow does not create mortal sins just to keep fishermen happy.
My Gospel doesn't seek constantly to heap power on its leaders rather than Christ. It does not require the observance of feasts upon pain of Mortal sin as yours does. In fact, my Gospel commands against it. But again, the church that promoted the segregation of the "perfidious Jew" into ghettos (the Germans just picked up where the pope left off) is the same Church that claims infallibility in matters Jesus indicated strongly against.
Ex Cathedra has been invoked twice. Name them.
(the Germans just picked up w
April 21, 2007 - 22:32 ET by dahliatravers(the Germans just picked up where the pope left off)
Can't let that pass, Riled. While the Vatican has bordered on anti-Semitic in some of its statements, there is a world of difference between segregating a group of people and murdering them.
Why not
April 21, 2007 - 22:50 ET by Cool ArrowPerhaps you should research it. You are being much too kind when you say the Vatican has bordered on anti-Semitic in some of its statements.
I guess condoning the kidnaping of Jewish children for purposes of making Christians of them is OK and not anti-semitic, but if I were a Jew, I'd probably call it something more than "bordering on anti semitism"
And, yes, the first Jewish ghettos were sponsored by the Vatican to deny Jews the right to conduct business.
Through the Vatican, Europe understood the concept of "ghetto" and "perfidious Jew" long before Nazism.
I stand by it.
I stipulate all of your chara
April 21, 2007 - 22:57 ET by dahliatraversI stipulate all of your characterizations of the Vatican's statements.
But are you saying that the Vatican sponsored the ghettos deliberately and knowingly as a prelude to mass murder?
Are you comfortable with this analogy?
April 21, 2007 - 23:10 ET by Cool ArrowWill you stipulate that a Supreme court ruling denying the humanity of fetuses is not a prelude to mass murder?
dear dahliatravers
April 22, 2007 - 02:09 ET by tumbler_2007Ironically, Riled wanted to see me "struggling" against his/her impudence and blindness. They always flatter themselves, Pharisees. -- Recall when one good man said, "Let's leave Jesus alone; He might be a holy man," -- But the Pharisees answered him: "Are you too a Galilean? Search the scriptures and see, out of Galilee comes no prophet!" Instead of the scripture revealing the truth to them; all it did was make them even prouder and above correction.
Just pray for these souls.
A coalition, Tumbler
April 22, 2007 - 18:55 ET by Cool ArrowTumbler, now, rather than explain how Scripture can state Joseph and Mary had sex after Jesus was born, Rather even than refute my above claim that Antisemitism was promoted by the Vatican. (Pius XII was so pius in fact that he sold 53% of Germany over to Hitler in exchange for a foolish title)
Rather than debate, you call Dahlia aside and try to build a coalition ? I would have thought you'd come back from church this morning with a complete arsenal of pretzellian treatise explaining away the awful simplicity of the Bible. Surely you invited Father Bother over for Sunday dinner and drinks just to pick his brain?
Try reading Scripture literally and you might understand how many of these practices you follow from rote are comdemned by The Savior.
What are you talking about?
April 21, 2007 - 16:25 ET by Cool ArrowI don't find the word "Bible" anywhere in Scripture. And I seriously doubt either of the quotes you mention are in Scripture.
Matt 18:17 does not address a Church which refuses to deal honestly with its followers. The Church chose to protect its money and deal deceitfully with its grievants.
riled one
April 21, 2007 - 17:59 ET by misterbill"MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD"
Some input about your post and the mighty churchman who challenges you.
1. "The Catholic Church has never denied anyone the right to marry. However, only a single man or widowed can be ordained a priest. Deacons can be married." That's a duh if I ever read one. They deny priests the right to marry. That was the first wrong statement.
2. "PLUS, the flock has no authority to "demand" anything from its shepherds." Really??? So the church has never changed to keep their congregation???
(guitar masses, masses in English, etc.
3. "You proclaim, as if you are the authority:"
Indeed you are, for yourself and free choice.
4. "Young man becomes old pedophile enabled by a corrupt system bent on holding on to its earthly treasure."
Perhaps this is the problem with your challenger.
5. Celibacy is not "man's" law; Horsefeathers!!!!!
RO, I am sorry you feel that you had to break free to be free. But you are honoring God and Jesus as all good Christians must do.
More importantly, once again, a blogger who imagines he is THE expert on salvation is turning a blog site concerned with the work of the Media and political issues into his own private proselytizing instrument. <