EXCOMMUNICATION THREAT witness gag order in church sex trial

[michaelmac]

SIMON PETER, Christ’s pri mordial fisher of men, established the beginnings of the Catholic Church in Rome’s Vatican City, skillfully veering away from the controversial ancestral lands where Israel now stands. Simon Peter did not veer from the teachings of his Master Jesus Christ, who repeatedly stressed the greatness of children and the need to imbibe their attributes to enter the kingdom of heaven. Simon Peter’s ring, known as “The Fisherman’s Ring,” had been passed on to the popes that came after him, with the mission of following in the footsteps of the compassionate, loving, child-oriented Christ.

 

[Denise_Shae]

SIMON PETER, Christ’s pri mordial fisher of men, established the beginnings of the Catholic Church in Rome’s Vatican City, skillfully veering away from the controversial ancestral lands where Israel now stands. Simon Peter did not veer from the teachings of his Master Jesus Christ, who repeatedly stressed the greatness of children and the need to imbibe their attributes to enter the kingdom of heaven. Simon Peter’s ring, known as “The Fisherman’s Ring,” had been passed on to the popes that came after him, with the mission of following in the footsteps of the compassionate, loving, child-oriented Christ.

Commentary from the DRV:

18 “Thou art Peter”… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

18 “Upon this rock”… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

I’m glad we agree on this issue.

God Bless!

 

[michaelmac]

P.S. – I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, or unsympathetic, but if you’re going to take the first part literally, then why not take the second part literally as well?

That text seems simple enough to understand, as well.
We can’t just choose Biblical texts to suite our own personal beliefs/feelings and ignore the other texts.
It doesn’t work that way.

God Bless!

So we take the second literaly and the first part ,You have a number of the hierarchy of the church who would be dumb ;Plus a number who would be dead ,???

 

[Denise_Shae]

So we take the second literaly and the first part ,You have a number of the hierarchy of the church who would be dumb ;Plus a number who would be dead ,???

You’re missing my point.

What I’m saying is, you can’t take one Scripture passage out of context and decide what verses you’re going to take literally and dismiss the rest that don’t suit you.

If you take Matthew 18:5-9 literally, and I take Matthew 18:32-35, literally, then we are at an impass.

Again, it just doesn’t work that way. Scripture needs to be taken in Its full context. We can’t go around picking verses, here and there, that suit our own beliefs/purposes/feelings.

God Bless!

 

[Denise_Shae]

NAB MAT 18:5

"Whoever welcomes one such child for my sake welcomes me. On the other hand, it would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believes in me, to be drown by a millstone around his neck, in the depths of the sea. What terrible things will come on the world through scandal! It is inevitable that scandal should occur. Nonetheless, woe to that man through whom scandal comes! If your hand or foot is your undoing, cut it off and throw it from you! Better to enter life maimed or crippled than be thrown with two hands or feet into endless fire. If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna.
The first part of the above text is very simple to understand , Jesus is saying your life on earth is over if you harm a child ,does any of whats said here say he is forgiving those who harm children.Yours Michael McManus

See:

Mark 3:28-29 Amen I say to you, that all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and the blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.

In this passage, Jesus clearly states that all sins shall be forgiven, except the sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

It doesn’t say, “all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, except the sins of those who have destroyed the lives of others”.​

Now, how do you reconcile Mark 3:28-29 with Matthew 18:5?
Is Jesus lying in one of these passages? (Because both of them are crystal clear.)
If He is lying, which passage is incorrect?

You see? You can’t pick and choose. It doesn’t work. Sorry.

God Bless!

 

[michaelmac]

Denise ,I use texts from the bible that are apporpriate to the suject i am writing about , yours michael

 

[Denise_Shae]

See:
In this passage, Jesus clearly states that all sins shall be forgiven, except the sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

It doesn’t say, “all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, except the sins of those who have destroyed the lives of others”.​

Now, how do you reconcile Mark 3:28-29 with Matthew 18:5?
Is Jesus lying in one of these passages? (Because both of them are crystal clear.)
If He is lying, which passage is incorrect?

You see? You can’t pick and choose. It doesn’t work. Sorry.

God Bless!

Again, we see in Matthew 12:31-32 (DRV)

“31 Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.”

And here’s the commentary:

31 “The blasphemy of the Spirit”… The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such wilful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it, are seldom or never converted: and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin, which God cannot or will not forgive to such as sincerely repent, and have recourse to the keys of the church.

32 “Nor in the world to come”… From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place.

God Bless!

 

[Denise_Shae]

Denise ,I use texts from the bible that are apporpriate to the suject i am writing about , yours michael

So am I, Michael.

“Repentance” and “Forgiveness” of sins.

These are your words, not mine:

I am very puzzled ,How can some one repent ,If they have destroyed a life ,yours Michael McManus

I’m not taking anything out of context, here.

So it looks like we’re at an impass, because no one is going to make me believe that a repentant sinner will not be forgiven.

God Bless!

 

[Steven_Merten]

P.S. – I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, or unsympathetic, but if you’re going to take the first part literally, then why not take the second part literally as well?

That text seems simple enough to understand, as well.

Quote:
If your hand or foot is your undoing, cut it off and throw it from you! Better to enter life maimed or crippled than be thrown with two hands or feet into endless fire. If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna.

We can’t just choose Biblical texts to suite our own personal beliefs/feelings and ignore the other texts.
It doesn’t work that way.

God Bless!

Hello Denise,

Do you agree that Jesus is talking about the Jewish term Karet and the Catholic term anathema in the above verse you quote? Biblically, to “cut off” a limb from the body of the Church means to put a member of the Church to death. Jesus talks about the Church using both physical death, “drowning the culprit in the depths of the sea”, and the Church using spiritual death, the Church spiritually cutting of one of Her limbs, a member, and casting that limb into hell. In Matthew 18 Jesus is instructing the Church to use both physical death, like the Inquisition, and spiritual death, like the use of spritual death Church anathema to protect the body of the Church from being dragged into Gehenna.

Throwing Stones

 

[Steven_Merten]

If the Church is going to use spiritually destructive punishments like anathema or excommunication to get to the trurh in court, such spiritually destructive punishments should be targetted at the wicked guilty culprits and not the witnesses.

The Church should excommunicate or anathamatize any Cardinal, Pope, Bishop, Priest or Catholic lay person who has not yet come forward to reveal the truth in court about the clergy abuse scandal. Once they come forward and confess in court the truth about the scandal, then yes the Church could loost the anathema or excommunication. If, after being compelled to tell the truth in court or suffer anathema or excommunication, they still refuse to confess in court then it will be the spiritual destruction related to Church excommunication or Church anathema that they face in the next world. Now this is how the Church should use spiritually destructive punishments to get clergy to confess the truth in court.

The Church should be targeting the the wicked clergy child molesters and any Bishop who knowingly, secretly put sex offenders where they could abuse children. These are the guys who should face Church retribution of excommunication or anathema lest they repent and confess in court.

 

[Denise_Shae]

Hello Denise,

Do you agree that Jesus is talking about the Jewish term Karet and the Catholic term anathema in the above verse you quote? Biblically, to “cut off” a limb from the body of the Church means to put a member of the Church to death. Jesus talks about the Church using both physical death, “drowning the culprit in the depths of the sea”, and the Church using spiritual death, the Church spiritually cutting of one of Her limbs, a member, and casting that limb into hell. In Matthew 18 Jesus is instructing the Church to use both physical death, like the Inquisition, and spiritual death, like the use of spritual death Church anathema to protect the body of the Church from being dragged into Gehenna.

Throwing Stones

Actually, Steven, I wasn’t aware of that.
I went to the site you linked to, but I only skimmed over it, as I was preoccupied at the time.

I’ll read it more thoroughly, tomorrow. It’s almost 1:00 a.m. here in PA, and I’m getting rather tired.

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[Denise_Shae]

If the Church is going to use spiritually destructive punishments like anathema or excommunication to get to the trurh in court, such spiritually destructive punishments should be targetted at the wicked guilty culprits and not the witnesses.

The Church should excommunicate or anathamatize any Cardinal, Pope, Bishop, Priest or Catholic lay person who has not yet come forward to reveal the truth in court about the clergy abuse scandal. Once they come forward and confess in court the truth about the scandal, then yes the Church could loost the anathema or excommunication. If, after being compelled to tell the truth in court or suffer anathema or excommunication, they still refuse to confess in court then it will be the spiritual destruction related to Church excommunication or Church anathema that they face in the next world. Now this is how the Church should use spiritually destructive punishments to get clergy to confess the truth in court.

The Church should be targeting the the wicked clergy child molesters and any Bishop who knowingly, secretly put sex offenders where they could abuse children. These are the guys who should face Church retribution of excommunication or anathema lest they repent and confess in court.

P.S. – Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic.

I have a spitting headache.

God Bless!

 

[rlg94086]

NAB MAT 18:5

"Whoever welcomes one such child for my sake welcomes me. On the other hand, it would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believes in me, to be drown by a millstone around his neck, in the depths of the sea. What terrible things will come on the world through scandal! It is inevitable that scandal should occur. Nonetheless, woe to that man through whom scandal comes! If your hand or foot is your undoing, cut it off and throw it from you! Better to enter life maimed or crippled than be thrown with two hands or feet into endless fire. If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna.
The first part of the above text is very simple to understand , Jesus is saying **your life on earth is over if you harm a child ,does any of whats said here say he is forgiving those who harm children.**Yours Michael McManus

Actually, you are misreading the text and drawing a conclusion that is not there. Jesus doesn’t say “your life on earth is over,” he says it is better for the person to be drowned in the sea than to commit such a sin and face God’s judgment.

It also says nothing about any of the sins being unforgivable. As I already pointed out, it says just the complete opposite later in the chapter.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Steven,

Thanks for the link, but I don’t know if it’s an accurate analysis of the chapter. I will have to read some other commentaries.

The part that troubles me is this…

A fleshly limb cannot be thrown into hell. Only souls are thrown into hell. If the hand, foot or eye of the body of people is its down fall cut it off and throw it into Gehenna.

The passage clearly doesn’t talk about cutting off a hand, foot or eye and throwing it into Gehenna. It says “**Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna.” ** So, it reads to me like a hyperbolic reference to the need to avoid sin (i.e. Jesus doesn’t really want to have us cutting our limbs off), so we can “enter life” rather than be “thrown…into fiery Gehenna.”

I don’t discount that Jesus may have been talking about excommunication, but I don’t know that for certain based on the link you provided.

Hello Denise,

Do you agree that Jesus is talking about the Jewish term Karet and the Catholic term anathema in the above verse you quote? Biblically, to “cut off” a limb from the body of the Church means to put a member of the Church to death. Jesus talks about the Church using both physical death, “drowning the culprit in the depths of the sea”, and the Church using spiritual death, the Church spiritually cutting of one of Her limbs, a member, and casting that limb into hell. In Matthew 18 Jesus is instructing the Church to use both physical death, like the Inquisition, and spiritual death, like the use of spritual death Church anathema to protect the body of the Church from being dragged into Gehenna.

Throwing Stones

 

[michaelmac]

Actually, you are misreading the text and drawing a conclusion that is not there. Jesus doesn’t say “your life on earth is over,” he says it is better for the person to be drowned in the sea than to commit such a sin and face God’s judgment.

It also says nothing about any of the sins being unforgivable. As I already pointed out, it says just the complete opposite later in the chapter.

If Jesus says it is better you be drowned in the deplth of the sea .What other meaning can it have , A question If a Catholic says sorry publicly ,And his actions are the opposite and none of the clergy oppose him are they not backing an unrepentent man ,yours Michael McManus

 

[rlg94086]

If Jesus says it is better you be drowned in the deplth of the sea .What other meaning can it have , A question If a Catholic says sorry publicly ,And his actions are the opposite and none of the clergy oppose him are they not backing an unrepentent man ,yours Michael McManus

Yes, Jesus is saying that the punishment for such a sin is severe. He is not saying that the person can’t be forgiven. As to the contriteness of one’s public apology, I agree it may look suspect. Also, just because a priest has apologized and/or confessed a grave sin of fornication/sodomy with a minor doesn’t mean they should retain their pastoral position. It also doesn’t mean that the priest should be above man’s laws. Much has been done improperly by some priests and bishops.

Now, with that all said, it does not mean these men are not able to repent of their sins and be forgiven. That is what you were seeming to post - that Jesus would not forgive them. As humans, we can certainly judge their actions and expose their sins, but we are not in a position to determine the fate of their souls.

God bless,

Robert

 

[Saint_Michael]

I was hoping that people could comment on the excommuncation edict in this case. I have never heard of excommunicatin being threatened for something like this, and I see it as a bad sign moving forward.

But I see Michaelmac has hijacked yet another thread to be all about him.

Michaelmac if you were molested as a child my heart goes out to you, sincerely it does. I have heard statistics that one out of three boys or even 6 out of ten are molested growing up, so you certainly aren’t the only one. Not every topic pertaining to an issue like this has to be hijacked for your own agenda. It isn’t only about you, there’s a greater problem in the Church. Now please stop hijacking the threads to rant against priests and the church.

 

[Denise_Shae]

Hi Steven,

Thanks for the link, but I don’t know if it’s an accurate analysis of the chapter. I will have to read some other commentaries.

The part that troubles me is this…

The passage clearly doesn’t talk about cutting off a hand, foot or eye and throwing it into Gehenna. It says “**Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna.” ** So, it reads to me like a hyperbolic reference to the need to avoid sin (i.e. Jesus doesn’t really want to have us cutting our limbs off), so we can “enter life” rather than be “thrown…into fiery Gehenna.”

I don’t discount that Jesus may have been talking about excommunication, but I don’t know that for certain based on the link you provided.

Hi rlg,

I’m glad you brought that point up.

Fr. Groeschel talks about Jesus using hyperbole in reference to that passage.

If anyone is interested, here’s the audio: Conversion Of The Body.

To download the audio, go to: Retreat Teachings with Fr. Groeschel and scroll down to number 26 “Conversion of the Body”.

God Bless!

 

[Denise_Shae]

Yes, Jesus is saying that the punishment for such a sin is severe. He is not saying that the person can’t be forgiven. As to the contriteness of one’s public apology, I agree it may look suspect. Also, just because a priest has apologized and/or confessed a grave sin of fornication/sodomy with a minor doesn’t mean they should retain their pastoral position. It also doesn’t mean that the priest should be above man’s laws. Much has been done improperly by some priests and bishops.

Now, with that all said, it does not mean these men are not able to repent of their sins and be forgiven. That is what you were seeming to post - that Jesus would not forgive them. As humans, we can certainly judge their actions and expose their sins, but we are not in a position to determine the fate of their souls.

God bless,

Robert

I agree with you 100% here.

Just because I don’t believe a sincerely contrite priest/bishop/cardinal, cannot repent and amend his life, doesn’t mean I condone such despicable behavior.

However, this brings another question to mind: How does the Seal of the Confessional apply in cases like this?

If Fr. Smith committed the deplorable act of hurting a child, realizes the horror of what he’s done and goes to Confession with a sincere and contrite heart, what is the responsibilty of the Confessor?

Are there exemptions to breaking the Seal of the Confessional?

I remember watching “Web of Faith” once, where the question of breaking the Seal came up.
Fr. Levis said a priest can never break it, and he went on to use the “Poison in the Wine” scenario.

I’m sorry this is so far off topic, but now my curiousity is on hyper-drive.
If a Moderator feels it necessary to move my question, please do so.
In any event, I’d really like to know what happens in a case like this.

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[Corki]

If Jesus says it is better you be drowned in the deplth of the sea .What other meaning can it have , A question If a Catholic says sorry publicly ,And his actions are the opposite and none of the clergy oppose him are they not backing an unrepentent man ,yours Michael McManus

It doesn’t matter what other people do. God knows if the person is repentant. It is His forgiveness that has been given in the Sacrament of Pennance. We can not judge a man as damned if God Himself has forgiven him.