Long read, but today, the Catholic Church forever changed...

http://news.yahoo.com/bishops-acknowledging-reality-catholic-families-094555875.html

VATICAN CITY (AP) � Catholic bishops signaled a radical shift in tone Monday about accepting gays into the church, saying they had gifts to offer and that their partnerships, while morally problematic, provided homosexual couples with "precious" support.

In a preliminary report, released half-way through a Vatican meeting on family life called by Pope Francis, the bishops also said the church must welcome divorcees and recognize the "positive" aspects of civil marriages and even Catholics who cohabitate, as well as the children of these less traditional families.

While it does not change church doctrine, the tone of the report on a host of hot-button family issues such as marriage, divorce, homosexuality and birth control was one of almost-revolutionary acceptance and understanding rather than condemnation. It will guide a closed-door debate until a final document is issued Saturday.

Gay rights groups hailed what they called a "seismic shift" in the church's attitude toward gays.

"For the LGBT Catholics in the United States and around the world, this new document is a light in the darkness � a dramatic new tone from a church hierarchy that has long denied the very existence of committed and loving gay and lesbian partnerships," said Chad Griffin, president of Human Rights Campaign, the biggest LGBT rights organization in the U.S.

Some conservative cardinals downplayed the report as insignificant or derided it as unacceptable, while conservative groups denounced it as heresy and a "betrayal" that will only serve to confuse Catholics.

"Confused, contradictory chaos in Rome," headlined the arch-conservative commentator Michael Voris.

Bishops clearly took into account the views of the pope, whose "Who am I to judge?" comment about gays signaled a new tone of welcome for the church. Their report also reflected the views of ordinary Catholics who, in responses to Vatican questionnaires in the run-up to the synod, rejected church teaching on birth control and homosexuality as outdated and irrelevant.

In a sign of the chasm that is apparently underway, Francis decided late Friday to add six progressives from four continents to the synod leadership to help prepare the final document after several conservatives were elected to leadership positions. None of Francis' appointees were Africans, who are traditionally among the most conservative on family issues.

"The drama continues," a wry Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, archbishop of Manila, said of the debate.

The bishops said gays had "gifts and qualities" to offer and asked rhetorically if the church was ready to provide them a welcoming place, "accepting and valuing their sexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony."

For a 2,000-year-old institution that teaches that gay sex is "intrinsically disordered," even posing the question was significant.

"This is a stunning change in the way the Catholic Church speaks of gay people," said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit author. "The Synod is clearly listening to the complex, real-life experiences of Catholics around the world, and seeking to address them with mercy, as Jesus did."

The bishops repeated that gay marriage was off the table. But it acknowledged that gay partnerships had merit.

"Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions, it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners," they said.

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Catholic gay rights group said that though the report repeats doctrine about gay marriage, "the move toward accepting and valuing the gifts of gay and lesbian people is a major step forward."

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York, downplayed the significance of the report, saying it was merely a draft and did not represent any kind of "earthquake" in church teaching. "It's not the final word and we're going to have a lot to say about it," he said in an interview with the SiriusXM/Catholic Channel.

Indeed, Polish Cardinal Stanislaw Gadecki called the report "unacceptable" and a deviation from church teaching, according to an interview with Vatican Radio.

Conservative groups rejected the report as a "betrayal" and even heresy.

"What will Catholic parents now have to tell their children about contraception, cohabiting with partners or living homosexual lifestyles?" asked Maria Madise, coordinator of the Voice of the Family, which says it represents several pro-life and conservative groups. "Will those parents now have to tell their children that the Vatican teaches that there are positive and constructive aspects to these mortal sins? This approach destroys grace in souls."

The tradition-minded blog Rorate Caeli called the document "heresy, homoheresy."

In the report, bishops said the church must grasp the "positive reality of civil weddings" and even cohabitation, with the aim of helping the couple commit eventually to a church wedding.

They also called for a re-reading of the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which outlined the church's opposition to artificial birth control. The bishops said couples should be unconditionally open to having children, but that the message of Humanae Vitae "underlines the need to respect the dignity of the person in the moral evaluation of the methods of birth control."

There has been much talk inside the synod about applying the theological concept of the "law of gradualness" in difficult family situations, including over contraception. The concept encourages the faithful to take one step at a time in the search for holiness.

In matters of birth control, the concept amounts to a tacit acknowledgement that most Catholics already use artificial contraception in violation of church teaching. But applying the concept pastorally would encourage priests to meet these couples where they are, and then help them come to understand the full reasoning behind the ban and then adopt it themselves.

Bishops also called for "courageous" new ways to minister to families, especially those "damaged" by divorce. The document didn't take sides in the most divisive issue at the synod, whether Catholics who divorce and remarry without an annulment can receive Communion.

Church teaching holds that without an annulment, these Catholics are living in sin and thus ineligible to receive the sacraments.

The document said these Catholics deserve respect and should not be discriminated against, and then laid out the positions of both sides: those who want to maintain the status quo barring them from the sacraments, and those who favor a case-by-case approach, in which the couple undertakes a path of penance.

Pope Francis has called for a more merciful approach to these couples, but conservatives have insisted there is no getting around Jesus' words that marriage is indissoluble.

There have been suggestions that the conservatives were being sidelined, if not silenced, behind the synod walls given Francis' known position on the matter.

Asked about the perceived sidelining of conservatives at the synod, Tagle, the archbishop of Manila, said there had been "ample space" for people to speak their minds.

On other issues, the bishops said:

�The church must speed up and streamline the annulment process to make it "more accessible and flexible." Proposals include removing the automatic appeal for annulment cases and allowing an administrative rather than cumbersome judicial process, the bishops said.

�Divorced Catholics who remarry in civil unions must be treated with respect "avoiding any language or behavior that might make them feel discriminated against."

�Children of gays and divorcees require special pastoral care. "The church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given a priority."


This is no longer your Grandpa's Catholic Church.

Being Catholic would be a lot easier for folks, if the church just did away with all moral teachings. Become more like the Unitarians.
Good thoughts are all that really matters, eh?

I am reminded of Luther's confession when commanded to recant...

Stupid people will always amaze me.

the "gifts" he is refering to is MONEY

ked

The catholic Church has always been about money.... They think if they let them in and "accept their money - ugh I mean Them" that they will gain more members than they lose...

never had any respect for the catholic church after seeing some of the most ornate gold filled churches in south America and seeing the people around it living in such poor conditions and filth... they care about them selves... not the people.

What do you expect from a group of people who put up with child molesters

Uh, no.

ACtually the thought that homosexuals have nothing to offer anyone or anything is crazy.

But how they go about it can be just as crazy.

Bottom line they are people too. And they can either be a positive or a negative in life, aside from the sexual part.

How they handle it and how folks receive it is what is going to matter.

I will say that we had a homosexual pastor for years that no one knew his leanings. And he was one of the very best ministers that church had. But he never followed his leanings, stayed single, and probably 10-20 folks out of maybe 600 ever knew....

I feel the same way about Bank of America.

And both have voluntary membership....

Mortgages are not casual participatory. Cept maybe for neegroes.

I've yet to find a church that exists without money.

I've also yet to meet a person that was molested in a Catholic church, not saying it ain't happened, just ain't met one.

I HAVE met a few that have been molested by Baptist deacons. I also know of the churches that have kept it quite.

Here's a hint, if a church is made of people, they ALL have their bad apples.

Homosexuals are people too. No less, no more, a sinner than any Catholic, or folks from any other religion.

They should be welcomed into any church. Would the Lord turn anyone away? Performing their marriage is another story though. I dont believe though that any church has the right to perform same sex marriage. Letting them in isnt condoning their sin. Performing their marriage is.

But I do believe, though I hate the idea of it, all states should allow same sex marriage. Big difference between mans law, and Gods.

We're all tempted to sin, ALL of us. Being tempted by illicit sex is almost universal. However, being tempted is not a sin. Giving in to it IS a sin but its one we can resist. The Bible promises that we can't be tempted beyond our ability to resist. God will always give us a way out. It sounds like your pastor found the way out.

We will all sin but we can all be forgiven if we repent and ask for it. That's the downfall of homosexuals. They're convinced that what they're doing is 'normal' and they refuse to repent. Without that repentance, they're doomed.

Before this is over, the true church will be underground. The visible church will be regulated by laws that force it to allow sin. The real Christians will leave and join secret churches that will obey Christ, leaving the visible, 'official' churches to wallow in sin.

You don't get around much. Yes, the most visible churches are visible because of what they do with money, but there are thousands of house churches that try to follow the New Testament. They are not visible because they have lay leadership and give their money away. The third world is full of them, and a movement exists in the United States that is pursuing this model. There could be one in your town without you knowing about it.

Steve.

Hey now don't go to picking on the Unitarians.

Sweet! I take it the houses were gifts from God?

In a way, yes. Private homes privately paid for by the owner/occupant who thanks God for the skills and energy with which to produce an income. Even you could have a house church in your home.

Steve.

Now Ya went and did it, Antlers ain't gonna like that! Ya had to go and tell the truth eh?

Churches have to have money... True they have to be good Shepard's of the money. The catholic church does not care about much other than money...

True that churches are made up of people... and there is always a % of bad apples. But I do not see the SBC or the CBF run like the mafia.... it is all the about the money with the catholic church leadership...

The sole reason this pope is in place is to try and bring people back to the church (for the money) no matter what they have to ignore in the bible....

Do not forget that Jesus told the woman at the well that she was forgiven and to go and sin no more.... The homosexuals do not like the last part... We all should try everyday to do what is right and to not sin.... the Homosexuals do not want to do that.. they want to keep right on doing each other

The Bible has many, many passages about sex. Everything it says about it can be condensed into 2 simple rules:
1. you must be married to your partner
2. your partner must be of the opposite sex.

That's all of it. Sex within those rules is blessed by God. Any sex outside of them is cursed by God. Jesus even so far as to say that fantasizing must be kept within those rules.

Church is filled with sinners. Always was and always will be. How is gays who keep having sex any different than the barber that cheats on his wife saturday night and sits in the front row on sunday? Or the man in the back that sold drugs the night before? Should all who repent yet keep on keepin on be banned from church?

As a matter of fact, Paul said to do exactly that. There was the man who was living with his stepmother (presumably his father married a woman much younger than himself. Paul said that he should be thrown out.

1 Cor. 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father�s wife.
2 And you are proud! Shouldn�t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

A practicing homosexual is no different than a church member who's cheating on his wife and they should be treated exactly the same. They should be made aware that their acts are sinful and won't be tolerated by the church. Paul gave a series of steps to take to deal with these things with ejection from the church being the final step.

Thinking there should be an awful lot of empty churches

In context, "forever" will not be all that long.

Jesus said he came to heal the sick, not the healthy. He came to forgive and to save but he also said that those who love him will follow his commandments. He gave us many of those commandments through the apostles and other NT writers.
He will gladly forgive sexual sinners, but only if they repent and ask for the forgiveness. He also told us, through Paul, that we are NOT to keep on sinning. We are to do our very best to stop.

Those were gifts FROM the people.

The gays in church situation is pretty simple. Most folks ask to be forgiven for their sins and repent. The gays expect to be forgiven while continuing in their sins.

The institutional Roman Catholic Church has been functionally in eclipse since the close of Vatican Council II, i.e., 1965. Immediately thereafter, it began a course of self-demolition. I doubt there's been a legitimate Pope since Pius XII. Roman Catholic dogma teaches that any pope who's a formal heretic is, by that fact alone, not a true pope. It's pretty easy to identify the formal heresies of all the Roman Catholic "popes" since Pius XII.

there are

Yep. They started emptying out immediately after Vatican II, which was its purpose.

Follow the money.

My attendance has fallen by the wayside when the Latin Mass was abandoned....and we've had priests which I couldn't understand what they were saying!

Whatever happened to....Benediction and Irish priest??

Good try... but yet you failed in your logic... Again, Christ said you are forgiven now go and sin no more.... If someone in the church was cheating on his wife or someone was selling drugs they should be confronted in the same manner and told to stop it. If they are struggling to stop, help them support them, if they just blatantly say no... they should leave... there is a difference between trying to not sin, recognizing it as sin and trying each day to do better... People will fail... we get that... but to say something is not a sin that is or to recognize something as a sin and continue to do it without trying to turn from it is wrong.

Those were gifts FROM the people.

[/quote

OK... by this do you mean that if the women gave Jesus money he would have put it in his pocket? or do you think he would have wanted her to give it to the poor?

I find it hard to believe that the catholic church spent no money on those churches but spent money given to them by the poor and the people... This to say the catholic church should have used the money more wisely.

Bingo!

I'm saying that the poor you see were the very ones who built the church with money they collected and donated for that specific purpose.

I'm also saying Jesus said that spending money to glorify God is a legitimate use of funds. I think that is pretty plain from the passage.

This is as far as I've read this thread. Not sure if Sako is my twin or not, but I agree. I also like Sakos.

The church is losing members with all of the scandals, driven by Father McFeely and friends, so they need to find a new market to cater to. I have issue with personal lifestyles, religions, etc. Don't ask, don't tell if fine with me. It's just so obvious what they are doing here. The new pope is a marketing force for the church.

I went to catholic school for 8 years

True story: As a child, my wife's family had fallen on hard times. They had gone to church EVERY Sunday. When the priest came to bless the house, suburban Philly, her parents explained that with 5 children and no money, they just couldn't afford a donation. No donation, no blessing. Thanks Father McHypocrite.

Absolutely. It was Judas Iscariot who seemed worried about "wasting" money on glorifying Jesus. It was Jesus who told him the poor will always be with us, while he would not always be among them in the flesh.

And now they get to write off on their taxes.

So have you stopped sinning...or do you continue to sin...? If you've completely stopped, then 'bravo'. If you continue to sin though, why is your continuation to sin less bad than a homosexuals continuation to sin...? Are you just as bothered by drunks who continue to drink, or liars who continue to lie, or those who use profanity who continue to use profanity....? Are entire threads (thread after thread after thread) devoted to the sins of drunkeness, lying, or profanity...? And why are you so bothered by homosexuals who "want to keep right on doing each other" in the first place...?

Money and power.

Control people through fear and collect money from it.

Because not all sins are equal in seriousness.
Are you here to tell us that stealing a nickel stick of gum is as serious a sin as cheating on your wife?


Maybe because it's not in the bedroom anymore - it's in the news on a daily basis. Maybe because we don't have D.A.M.M. (Drunks Against Mad Mothers) but we do have GLAAD. Maybe because we don't read about liars demanding the right to commit fraud. Oh, wait, that last one is talked about ALL THE TIME!

The Catholic Church has likely sexually abused more children than the rest of the churches combined. They have hidden the pedophiles, transferred them to other hunting grounds, and covered up their actions. The church has paid millions of dollars to the victims and that money came from people who were supporting the church, not the pedophiles. Look at what happened to the Cree Indians in Canada and the amount of money the church paid the tribe. Hell is going to be full of Catholic priests.

I used to think that letting practicing homosexuals into the church without the homosexuals repenting their actions and stopping their actions wouldn't work with the rank and file. These days I am not so sure.

What next? Actively recruiting pedophiles to run the youth programs?

Its also being taught as correct behavior in our schools to our kids. It's being forced down the throats of employers and business owners. The time is coming very soon when a huge lawsuit will be filed against a minister who refused to marry a couple queers. Our freedom of worship is being stripped away from us.

All this sinning--fortunately, as a Pagan I don't sin.

10-4

To the majority of us, probably, stealing a nickel stick of gum is not as serious as cheating on ones wife. But in Gods eyes, 'missing the mark' is missing the mark. Period. It's not a matter of missing the mark by a little bit vs missing the mark by a whole bunch. If we miss the mark (sin) and our sin isn't covered by the Blood of the Atonement when we stand in judgement...then we're in a heap of trouble.

Everyone sins, if it were possible to not sin there would have been no need
for Jesus Christ to come and die on the cross.

No, they don't. The rules for tax deductible charitable contributions are pretty clearly spelled out. People gathering in someone's home to worship together qualifies no one for a tax deduction.

Steve.

Actually you can, not under a charitable contribution, but as a business expense.

It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about. If business is being transacted, and a profit is being made, you pay taxes on the profit. A house church hardly qualifies as a business.

Steve.

Please pray tell how that is done because as a tax preparer I would like to know.

AMEN!

The go to site for the Kennedys...

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/tag/annulment/

It's going to be, "I didn't leave the C.Church, the C.Church has left me."
Here in the MidWest, I see them sucking up to the Hispanics, big time.

It is in the Bible that God abhors the sin of sodomy.

The ranks of the priesthood is filled with many deviates and "social justice" activist. It needs a good house-cleaning, starting with many bishops who don't live or preach the word of God.

To some of you know-it-alls, the Catholic Church provides many services to the poor and provides good elementary and high school education thus reducing thr cost to john q. Public. So don't bash what you don't know or understand.

Uh chief, they also remain a poster-child for institutionalized cover up.

[quote/]

The sole reason this pope is in place is to try and bring people back to the church (for the money) no matter what they have to ignore in the bible.... [/quote]

You are talking outta yer arse here... This

The operative word here might be - schism

Actually you can, not under a charitable contribution, but as a business expense.

In addition, you can write of the cost of your housing, even if you own your own home:

http://www.jewcy.com/jewish-religion-and-beliefs/home_church_means_big_tax_breaks

Uh chief, like they are an easy target. Please don't tell me that this is the ONLY institution that covers this or any other schatt up.... laughing

Please enumerate and edify us all with your BS.
Please, GFY !

1st Corinthians chapter 6:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
_________________________

The scriptural position is that sinners are invited to repent and find redemption through free grace that changes the heart and mind and actions.

If folks don't change by way of grace and continue in obstinate notorious wicked deeds that can be observed then Church discipline is to be carried out; the final act being put out of the fellowship after several gracious attempts to affect repentance.

The Pope seems to be obscuring this scriptural position. The Bible is very clear about sins of immorality in the book of Hebrews, the marriage bed is honorable among all but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. The Apostle Paul uses very specific greek words in Corinthians in condemning deviancy; it should be translated catamite and sodomite; the pitcher and the catcher in the unspeakalbe unholy sin against nature.

The Pope is acting a lot like Joel Osteen in this, smooth talking white wash to seduce the masses. A true witness is like Jeremiah; he turns the people back from their sins.

As Luther said at the Diet of Werms... "Popes and councils have erred, my conscience is taken captive by the word of God..."

uuuuh chief,

Other than formal state governments, not sure what else might come close in scale, as far as, cultural influence, art and monetary holdings...

Pope/Vatican recant on gay comments:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/14/world/vatican-backtrack-gays/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

TRH,

Doesn't Empress Irene and the 7th Ecumenical disturb your conscience? She murdered her son by having his eyes gouged out but then convened a "robbers council" to settle the iconoclast controversy? That is a digression that goes back even further than the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre and even the errors of Trent...

You'll have to explain why this should disturb my conscience in particular.

Well said Rock chuck.

Mike

Please pray tell how that is done because as a tax preparer I would like to know.[/quote]

Actually you can, not under a charitable contribution, but as a business expense.

In addition, you can write of the cost of your housing, even if you own your own home:

http://www.jewcy.com/jewish-religion-and-beliefs/home_church_means_big_tax_breaks



[/quote]

Let's assume the IRS would accept your ministry as a part time business you would have to show you were running your business to turn a profit and I don't see how one could do that. There are special tax laws for minsters but minsters have to be ordained from a credited seminary and work for a 501(C)3 church. It's highly unlikely that the IRS would accept a home ministry and church as a 501(C)3 or business as the potential for profit is not there.

I'm impressed you understand a Latin Mass!

from that article:

Yes, Jesus did exactly that. However, the pope is insinuating that Jesus accepted their sin. He certain did NOT. The Bible says that after a meeting with Jesus, they repented. They gave up their sinful ways and followed him. There was one man, commonly called the 'rich young ruler' who placed his wealth above his salvation. He wouldn't repent and walked away in his sin. Jesus looked at him in sorrow knowing that the man was condemned.

The pope has it completely backwards.

I am sorry but you really must not get around much.......my grandfather taught me me a few things but this one stuck....
be wary of a church that has to have the nicest building, the newest equipment, and is trying to out-do the neighboring church.

If people can't realize the humor in Christian religions attempting to tear down other Christian religions as the Muslims are increasing daily, than you have no sense of humor.

People upset about churches taking in Mexicans, regardless that said Mexicans are Christian. Christian against Christian, whilst all you hypocrites talk about Obama destroying Christian rights and non-stop concern about Muslims.

Seems the right answer for the narrow minded is to destroy other Christian religions.

It's AMAZING the amount of stupid I read on the 'Fire. No damn wonder the likes of Obama had no problem getting elected.

I don't agree. The rich young man asked what he needed to do to be saved, and Jesus told him to follow the commandments if he wanted eternal life. The man said that he had always followed them, but wanted more. Jesus then told him how to "be perfect," i.e., to sell all he has, give it to the poor, and come and follow him. This, Jesus said, would give him treasure in heaven, i.e., not just get him there. That's when he walked away, unwilling to sell all he had.

I saw a church once fight the widening of a road, under pretext that they would have to move their sign back 5 feet, but it eventually came out that they didn't want the new low rent housing apartment complex across the street.

I had to ask myself why they didn't see another 200+ folks living across the street as an opportunity rather than a nuisance.

But yeah.

"Own Worst Enemy" comes to mind.

That was the final straw for me was the end of the Tridentine Mass and the fact that my perpetual missal was THE book one Sunday and was useless the next Sunday. Try as I might I never could get into the "New" Catholic Church after Vatican Council II.

That's also when I realized that the Catholic Church was the Roman Pope's Church i.e. the ancient Roman Emperor's Church and the religion about Jesus or God, NOT the religion of Jesus or God. I left Christianity with no regrets.

He was not saved. Here's the quote:

Luke 18:18 A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No-one is good� except God alone.
20 You know the commandments: �Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honour your father and mother.�"
21 "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

He asked what he needed to be saved and Jesus told him he lacked one thing, to give up his wealth. He couldn't be saved until he did that one thing and he refused to do it. He put his money ahead of his soul. Jesus must be first in everything.
Jesus doesn't require us to be paupers. He just requires us to put him 1st. He knew where this man's heart really was.

Graph of Catholics entering seminaries. Vatican II ended, and began to be implemented, in 1965.

Cross reference with Matthew 19:21. What he lacked was not what's needed for salvation (unless you suggest that all must sell all they have and become priests or monks), but what was needed for perfection, i.e., to also store up treasures in heaven, in addition to saving one's soul. He was offering him a higher calling than merely to be personally saved, which he understood him to be looking for, but Jesus knew he wasn't willing to pay the price for that.

"We shall do well to recognize that there are two ways of serving God acceptably - there is the good life required from all religious Christians, and there is the life of perfection to which some, by God's special grace, are called, and which they embrace and fulfill. It was the latter life that Christ put before this young man."

- Pulpit Commentaries, H. D. M. Spence (1836�1917)

There it is, in only 23 words, and only one of them has more than two syllables. 15 are a single syllable! I'd vote for making that a sticky!

Steve.

Now you cross reference that with Luke 18:18. All scripture must be interpreted by other scripture. The x-ref in Luke clarifies Matthew. We can see in the x-ref that he wasn't saved because he was lacking. If he was saved, Jesus wouldn't have told him he was lacking what he needed for salvation. He can't be saved in 1 passage but not in the other.

You make me say, "Huh?" I pointed out that there are small, humble churches which are not generating cash for self-fulfillment. Period. Being invisible to most people, they're not competing with other churches. And you tell me "be wary of a church that has to have the nicest building, the newest equipment, and is trying to out-do the neighboring church"? Yes, that kind of church is familiar to all, but I said nothing about that kind of church. What, pray tell, are you talking about?

Steve.

What he was lacking was the extra mile that would have gained him "treasures in heaven." Jesus was calling him to that (perhaps even martyrdom, as he mentioned taking up his cross), and he declined. He was showing him that he didn't actually want what he was asking Jesus for, particularly due to what it implied, i.e., persecution and (likely) martyrdom for becoming closely associated with Jesus.

I started serving Mass in 1946! The nuns taught us Latin...and I served Mass while in the military quite often up until I was 23 years old!

That's definitely true Hawk. I know Catholics who have told me that the Church is asking parents to dictate at least one child to the priesthood or nunnery. The numbers are so low that the Church is using lay persons and deacons more and more. When I was a kid I never even knew that the Church had deacons because I never heard of one. We seem to have all the brothers, nuns, and priests the Church needed. Now the Church is hurting.

That was a good point. Back in the old days everybody learned Latin and no matter where you went, no matter the language every Catholic could speak some Latin and one could get by. Not now.

BTW: Full Disclosure, I served a stint or two as a Catholic Chaplain's Assistant in the National Guard.

Actually you can, not under a charitable contribution, but as a business expense.

In addition, you can write of the cost of your housing, even if you own your own home:

http://www.jewcy.com/jewish-religion-and-beliefs/home_church_means_big_tax_breaks





Collect some tithes, perform marriages for a fee, sell some holy water and blessed silver projectiles on fleebay, write it all up in a business plan.

Hence, the current conference.

That's all that the catholic church is about

Well dere it is, right on da Innernet. Muss be true.

Steve.