Vatican Raid on Secretariat of State a Portent of Things to Come? ANALYSIS: Sources tell the Register that this week’s investigative actions are primarily targeted at Vatican officials who are no longer working at the secretariat. Edward Pentin VATICAN CITY — A police raid on offices in the Vatican Secretariat of State, the suspension of five Vatican officials, and the appointment of a leading Italian anti-mafia magistrate as head of the Vatican’s criminal tribunal have sparked intense speculation about the extent of financial corruption in the Holy See.
Vatican prosecutors seized documents, computers, telephones and passports and blocked bank accounts in Tuesday’s raid on the administrative section of the Vatican Secretariat of State, the Church’s central governing body.
The Vatican’s Financial Information Authority (AIF), which is the Vatican’s anti-money-laundering watchdog, was also raided.
A Vatican statement on Tuesday said the promoter of justice of Vatican City Court, Gian Piero Milano, and Alessandro Diddi, adjunct promoter of justice, ordered the search after complaints in early summer from the Institute for Religious Works (IOR) — commonly called the Vatican Bank — and the Office of the Auditor General about financial transactions “carried out over time.”
According to Italian media reports, those transactions revolve around expensive property deals, primarily a 2013 multimillion-dollar real estate transaction in London’s prestigious Mayfair district, which is said to have taken significant losses.
The documents seized on Tuesday reportedly relate to the years 2011 to 2018, the period when Cardinal Angelo Becciu, now the prefect for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, was sostituto, the official responsible for the administrative affairs of the Secretariat of State.
The Italian magazine L’Espresso reported that Tuesday’s action led to the suspension of five officials: Msgr. Mauro Carlino, head of documentation at the Secretariat of State, and four lay officials: Tommaso Di Ruzza, the director and No. 2 official at the AIF, Fabrizio Tirabassi, who manages financial investments in the Secretariat of State, and Vincenzo Mauriello and Caterina Sansone, administrators in the same dicastery. Di Ruzza did not respond to a Register request for comment.
The raid and suspension show the reforms begun by Benedict XVI and continued by Francis “really work” and that new laws for Vatican City State “are being applied,” the Vatican said in an unsigned editorial in L’Osservatore Romano, also published at the Vatican News website.
“The painful events made public this week are not a sign the system has failed,” it continued, “but rather show the system has “developed antibodies capable of reacting” and that the process of reforming Vatican finances is “well underway.”
But in the same editorial, the Vatican chastised the media for subjecting the five suspended officials to “pillory,” as “any possible responsibility on their part is still to be proven.” It said a Vatican investigation will determine how that information was leaked, but omitted to mention that the names were distributed internally to all Vatican staff.
Tuesday’s events were also followed this week by the appointment on Thursday by Pope Francis of one of Italy’s leading anti-mafia prosecutors as president of the Vatican’s criminal tribunal.
Pignatone’s reputation as a leading Italian chief prosecutor, who has handled major investigations into the Cosa Nostra and ’Ndrangheta organized crime gangs in Sicily and Calabria, points to the extent of the financial corruption needing investigation in the Vatican.
He replaces Giuseppe Dalla Torre, who oversaw two “Vatileaks” trials, one involving the leaking of documents by Pope Benedict XVI’s former butler and the second relating to a priest and lay official working in Vatican finances. Dalla Torre was also involved in the prosecution of the former president of the Bambino Gesu, the Vatican’s children’s hospital, that also has been embroiled in a web of corruption allegations, including assertions that the U.S.-based Papal Foundation was improperly induced to provide funds to bail out the troubled institution.
Other Targets?
The Register was told that the main target of this week’s raid was not primarily the five suspended officials, nor the current leadership in the Secretariat of State, but rather others who have since left the dicastery and whose past actions continue to be subject to scrutiny.
“This raid was not against the current sostituto, Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, who is striving to perform a clean-up of the mess he has inherited in the general affairs section administrative offices, but, rather, his predecessor, Cardinal Becciu, and his administrative right-hand man, Msgr. Alberto Perlasca,” an informed source told the Register.
In 2009, then-secretary of state Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone appointed Msgr. Perlasca head of the administrative office of the Secretariat of State — an influential position that included handling all financial transactions passing through the Secretariat of State. Cardinal Bertone appointed Cardinal Becciu as sostituto in 2011.
Pope Francis, well acquainted with Msgr. Perlasca since he served in the nunciature in Buenos Aires from 2006 to 2008, retained him as head of the administrative office until July this year, when he appointed him promoter of justice at the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Church’s highest court.
Tirabassi was an assistant to Msgr. Perlasca, and Msgr. Carlino, who had only been in the post of head of documentation since July, was for many years the personal secretary of Cardinal Becciu.
The Register source said Archbishop Peña Parra has been making progress on putting the finances in order and that the suspension of Msgr. Carlino was to “move him away” from the current sostituto, “to distance him from highly confidential material.”
Although not directly and publicly accused of wrongdoing, Cardinal Becciu has been indirectly connected with the sudden dismissal in 2017 of the Vatican’s first auditor general, Libero Milone.
Milone maintained his innocence, telling the media at the time that “a small group of powers” were trying to defame his reputation and that they were afraid of what financial accounts and other details he might show to the Pope and Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican secretary of state.
Cardinal Becciu said at the time that Milone “went against all the rules and was spying on the private lives of his superiors and staff, including me.” Milone insisted it was the other way around, and last year the Vatican dropped all charges against him.
The Register asked Cardinal Becciu Oct. 4 if he wished to comment on this week’s raid and whether he knew of the ill-advised London real estate deal at the center of the raid, but at the time of writing he was reportedly on his way to Brazil and has yet to reply.
The investigations into the Secretariat of State are reportedly connected with the prosecution of Angelo Caloja, a former Vatican Bank president accused of embezzlement.
Internal sources also believe there are connections with financial misconduct reported in the Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See (APSA), the dicastery which handles the Vatican’s real estate, several of which are in prime areas of London, and financial assets.
In July, the Register reported on a similar mishandling of London real estate investments by APSA, as well as cyphered accounts in Switzerland connected to the same dicastery.
Vatican investigations into these areas, notably by Cardinal George Pell, then prefect of the Secretary for the Economy, and Milone, led to a series of obstacles emerging, most significantly the abrupt ending in 2017 of the first external audit of the Vatican.
A few months later, Milone was dismissed, and Cardinal Pell was forced to leave the Vatican to defend himself in Australia against clerical sex-abuse charges, which he vehemently denied.
I recall when a Treasures of the Vatican exhibit came through San Antonio, displaying but a little of their fabulous wealth. It made my skin crawl, and I was raised Irish Catholic.
So, you can molest children and that gets covered up, but don't fkuc with the money.
Seriously, Vatican city is a country, smallest country in the world. It is the last absolute monarchy as far as I know. So, if they find this corruption and wish to punish the perpetrators exactly where would they imprison them? Maybe the king (pope) says put them to death. What else?
Hope they clean it up and put all of those crooks in jail.
It's like America in a lot of ways. We have a corrupt Deep State and political class. We even had a foreign-born Marxist as president. But I am still American.
The church has always attracted people who are after money and power. This is true of all churches, and particularly The Catholic Church, because of theocratic control of a lot of countries through the ages. Greed and control, either through politics or religion, is a story as old as time itself. There are those who enter in to serve God or their fellow people, and those who enter purely to serve themselves. Any church or organized religion is bound to have it's share of Clinton (crooks and thieves) types, as well as law enforcement and other areas that give you control of others. Not out to knock Priest or clergy or cops. Just simply stating a fact. 7mm
“ 45And while all the people were listening, He said to the disciples, 46“Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, 47who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”
Satan is real...he’s been trying to topple Gods holy church since Jesus was still alive as a man. This does not surprise me... nor does it dissuade me
i listen to a lot of catholic radio programing, there are many observers who describe the condition in Rome as 'chaotic'. i don't think the pope is happy with scrutiny from conservative, catholic, american, news outlets, commentators, theologians and educators, of which there are quite a few
A few months later, Milone was dismissed, and Cardinal Pell was forced to leave the Vatican to defend himself in Australia against clerical sex-abuse charges, which he vehemently denied.
That would be child sex abuse charges that he has denied, and been found guilty of...but to be honest I have doubts as to the verdict.
And I have never seen anything to suggest that Pell was anything less than truthful and straight forward in his dealings.
Satan is real...he’s been trying to topple Gods holy church since Jesus was still alive as a man. This does not surprise me... nor does it dissuade me
i listen to a lot of catholic radio programing, there are many observers who describe the condition in Rome as 'chaotic'. i don't think the pope is happy with scrutiny from conservative, catholic, american, news outlets, commentators, theologians and educators, of which there are quite a few
But they seem to relish that the institution of the Catholic Church is subject to the same human failings as the rest of the world. Schadenfreude is not a virtue.
But they seem to relish that the institution of the Catholic Church is subject to the same human failings as the rest of the world. Schadenfreude is not a virtue.
Might have something to do with the fact that the “rest of the world” doesn’t claim that it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself. Agree that schadenfreude is not a virtue.
Too easy. That conflates the Church, its doctrines and precepts, with administration by humans all of whom are bound to screw up to a greater or lesser degree. (And what Christian denomination doesn't believe it is founded on the authority of Jesus Christ Himself?)
Too easy. That conflates the Church, its doctrines and precepts, with administration by humans all of whom are bound to screw up to a greater or lesser degree. (And what Christian denomination doesn't believe it is founded on the authority of Jesus Christ Himself?)
Then maybe “the institution of the Catholic Church” shouldn’t make the claims that it does. And maybe any “Christian denomination” that claims that ‘it’ is ‘the one true church’, shouldn’t...! The ekklesia is the entire body of true believers.
Corruption at the Vatican has always been in full display. Go visit the place and see the wealth they built off the backs of peasants. I was pretty impressed with the wealth and splendor on display, but figure it doesn't come close to what they have in the bank.
Satan is real...he’s been trying to topple Gods holy church since Jesus was still alive as a man. This does not surprise me... nor does it dissuade me
i listen to a lot of catholic radio programing, there are many observers who describe the condition in Rome as 'chaotic'. i don't think the pope is happy with scrutiny from conservative, catholic, american, news outlets, commentators, theologians and educators, of which there are quite a few
Hey fellas: here's a clue: the Catholic hierarchy is NOT God's Holy church. It's a political entity, much like the entity that instigated the crucifixion in the first place.
Raiding the Vatican is akin to raiding the DNC. It could never happen here in America, because the media, law enforcement, and judges are all corrupt as well. I'm amazed the Vatican allowed themselves to be raided. Maybe it is all theater.
Satan is real...he’s been trying to topple Gods holy church since Jesus was still alive as a man. This does not surprise me... nor does it dissuade me
i listen to a lot of catholic radio programing, there are many observers who describe the condition in Rome as 'chaotic'. i don't think the pope is happy with scrutiny from conservative, catholic, american, news outlets, commentators, theologians and educators, of which there are quite a few
Hey fellas: here's a clue: the Catholic hierarchy is NOT God's Holy church. It's a political entity, much like the entity that instigated the crucifixion in the first place.
Disagree
The mackerel snappers have the lineage like it or not
Actually indulgences are free. But you gotta repent and actually mean it. Indulgences started out as an alternative penance. Say your penance was to not eat meat for a year. They were harsh in those days. You could ask the bishop's indulgence to give a year's meat budget to the poor instead. Not exactly a freebie. Of course as humans will some, and some at the top, saw it as easy money.
They still have Apostolic Succession and they still have the ability to drive out the worst of demons in the name of Christ and Protestant churches don't.
Quote
Acts 19:15-16: “But the wicked spirit, answering, said to them: Jesus I know: and Paul I know. But who are you? And the man in whom the wicked spirit was, leaping upon them and mastering them both, prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.”
Notice that those guys even invoked the Name of Christ and still failed. They didn't have Holy Orders (the sacrament of Succession).
Acts 19 is very interesting in that it shows the process of Succession. One Apostle must lay hands upon the new. If that didn't happen, there is no succession. It also shows the power of relics, another verse most Protestants seem to have missed and simply dismiss as "superstition".
As much as you’d like to you can’t re-write the history of the church Jesus created nor the evils he experienced and warned us of
You can cling desperately to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the one created by Jesus Christ until the cows come home, but it just ain't so.
As much as you’d like to you can’t re-write the history of the church Jesus created nor the evils he experienced and warned us of
You can cling desperately to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the one created by Jesus Christ until the cows come home, but it just ain't so.
This is the truth. That BS papist say about tracing back their lineage to the Jesus Christ and the apostle Peter is a bunch of BS. So are the gawdy outfits, accumulation of wealth and power, popes, worshipping idols by praying to Mary etc.
As much as you’d like to you can’t re-write the history of the church Jesus created nor the evils he experienced and warned us of
You can cling desperately to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the one created by Jesus Christ until the cows come home, but it just ain't so.
This is the truth. That BS papist say about tracing back there lineage to the Jesus Christ apostle Peter is a bunch of BS. So are the gawdy outfits, accumulation of wealth and power, popes, worshipping idols by praying to Mary etc.
It would be a far better world if the Catholic Church would simply disappear into the cess pool of history they have created. How anyone can support this church in this day and age is mind blowing. It is nothing but a haven for child molesters and illegals.
As much as you’d like to you can’t re-write the history of the church Jesus created nor the evils he experienced and warned us of
You can cling desperately to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the one created by Jesus Christ until the cows come home, but it just ain't so.
It would be a far better world if the Catholic Church would simply disappear into the cess pool of history they have created. How anyone can support this church in this day and age is mind blowing. It is nothing but a haven for child molesters and illegals.
Flipping channels there was a preacher that would send you miracle spring water which if you used it God would solve all your financial problems. Another would send you a bottle of oil, use it and God would solve your problems whatever they are. Another said send him "seed money" of $40 a month for a year (credit cards accepted) and he' send you a booklet and CD saying God would return your seed money many times over.
As much as you’d like to you can’t re-write the history of the church Jesus created nor the evils he experienced and warned us of
You can cling desperately to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the one created by Jesus Christ until the cows come home, but it just ain't so.
So what church did He create, Calvinist?
He created something brand new...a totally different way of approaching life. Within the context of a brand new covenant that says "Your sin is paid for, now live a life that reflects the love and forgiveness of God as you mirror that in your love and forgiveness of the people around you." A personal relationship with your Creator. No need for ANY mediators.
As much as you’d like to you can’t re-write the history of the church Jesus created nor the evils he experienced and warned us of
You can cling desperately to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the one created by Jesus Christ until the cows come home, but it just ain't so.
This is the truth. That BS papist say about tracing back their lineage to the Jesus Christ and the apostle Peter is a bunch of BS. So are the gawdy outfits, accumulation of wealth and power, popes, worshipping idols by praying to Mary etc.
I love that worshiping idols canard - wholly made up by enemies of the church. Yeah, we pray to Mary (we don't need no steenkin' statue) for her intercession with Jesus. It all goes through Jesus. Sorta help get the message through. The Bible, old testament and new, says to pray to those in heaven for help, some denominations with an agenda like to not talk about that.
Mary was just a person, a very special person, but neither her nor her statue is worshiped. Neither is anyone else except God.
Disagree til time ends. Your choice, but it has no bearing on fact.
It's difficult to escape brainwashing.
Oh, hey...while we're at it, know where I can buy an indulgence? I did something really bad and I need the pope's letter of introduction.
*snork*
Again...acts of the devil in Gods Holy Church are not surprising in the least. It’s exactly what I would do if I were satan
As much as you’d like to you can’t re-write the history of the church Jesus created nor the evils he experienced and warned us of
The church Christ speaks of are those who worship Him by submitting to His instruction as provided in His letter to us called the Holy Bible, not the catechism.
And no, Moslems cant go to Heaven because the havethe faith of Abraham. Yes, you must have faith, but not in what you think, in what He said. Jesus came to bring the good news to all, not just to the few who believe as you.
So all the stuff about upon this rock I'll build my church and supporting scripture are just meaningless words to be ignored, or tortured to the point of incredulity to mean something else? With those interpreting having a vested interest, actually raison detre, for interpreting it that way?
Jesus made it quite clear that He was the messiah of all people, not just descendants of some ancient tribe. Those that hear the word (implies full understanding) are compelled to follow. Everyone else just f--- them? My god is of infinite mercy.
So all the stuff about upon this rock I'll build my church and supporting scripture are just meaningless words to be ignored, or tortured to the point of incredulity to mean something else? With those interpreting having a vested interest, actually raison detre, for interpreting it that way?
Jesus made it quite clear that He was the messiah of all people, not just descendants of some ancient tribe. Those that hear the word (implies full understanding) are compelled to follow. Everyone else just f--- them? My god is of infinite mercy.
Protestants believe that ‘the rock’ that Jesus was referring to was *the statement* that Peter made...it was NOT Peter himself. Agree that this New Covenant ‘is’ between God and all of the people in all of the world.
So, serious question, when Jesus said to Simon thou art Peter (meaning rock) what was He saying.
Wiki says: "Protestant arguments against the Catholic interpretation are largely based on the difference between the Greek words translated "Rock" in the Matthean passage. They often claim that in classical Attic Greek petros (masculine) generally meant "pebble", while petra (feminine) meant "boulder" or "cliff", and accordingly, taking Peter's name to mean "pebble," they argue that the "rock" in question cannot have been Peter, but something else, either Jesus himself, or the faith in Jesus that Peter had just professed.[164][165] These popular-level writings are disputed in similar popular-level Catholic writings.[166]
The New Testament was written in Koiné Greek, not Attic Greek, and some authorities say no significant difference existed between the meanings of petros and petra. "
To me seems a pretty strained interpretation, like they decided on a conclusion and strained for a justification.
Petros - masculie Petra -feminine Which one for Simon? Sounds like they had gender identity problems way back when Matthew was written - Nothing new under the Sun? (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Or it could been something as, "Hey Simon all you apostles keep coming to me for help. I won't be around much longer and I wan you to take my place in keeping the word straight." Seems reasonable.
Or it could been something as, "Hey Simon all you apostles keep coming to me for help. I won't be around much longer and I want you to take my place in keeping the word straight." Seems reasonable.
It doesn’t seem reasonable at all, when...5 verses later...Jesus refers to Peter himself as “Satan”.
You can cling desperately to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the one created by Jesus Christ until the cows come home, but it just ain't so.
More than a little ironic that your .sig quotes the Archbishop of Philly.
Quote
“Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.”
So, serious question, when Jesus said to Simon thou art Peter (meaning rock) what was He saying.
The "boulder vs pebble" thing is another line of BS made up by Protestants. Jesus called Peter the Aramaic "Cephas" and Paul did too. And of course, pile on the Greek Masculine vs effeminate gender too. Of course, even if Jesus did call Peter a Greek name, it wouldn't have been in the feminine gender.
Dipping into the church coffers for personal gain is a Catholic tradition going back well over a thousand years. In the old days, they would just say it was God’s will, and kill anyone that brought it up.
Or it could been something as, "Hey Simon all you apostles keep coming to me for help. I won't be around much longer and I want you to take my place in keeping the word straight." Seems reasonable.
It doesn’t seem reasonable at all, when...5 verses later...Jesus refers to Peter himself as “Satan”.
Aw crap, not that prime piece of misinterpretation again. Consult any good bible commentary.
Why didn't all those characters in the old testament go to heaven? Original sin, they had to wait for the Messiah to redeem them. Could Mary have served as the mother of God if she was stained by original sin? No. Why she is called Immaculate Mary. And that qualifies her to be assumed into heaven. That's the gist of it, look up the details if you want.
Pray to Jesus, pray to Mary for her intercession with Jesus. Pray to all the angels and saints. Your prayers are heard by Jesus as the mediator however they get there. A lot of people relate better to the saints. Plain people like themselves that have overcome troubles and lived exemplary lives.
Or it could been something as, "Hey Simon all you apostles keep coming to me for help. I won't be around much longer and I want you to take my place in keeping the word straight." Seems reasonable.
It doesn’t seem reasonable at all, when...5 verses later...Jesus refers to Peter himself as “Satan”.
Aw crap, not that prime piece of misinterpretation again. Consult any good bible commentary.
“Misinterpretation”...? Are you saying that Jesus wasn’t rebuking Peter for not setting his mind on the things of God...His ways and His plans and His purposes...? Peter’s mind was set on the things of man, the things of the world and it’s earthly values. It does NOT seem “reasonable” at all that Jesus put him in charge of anything, and then moments later spoke to him harshly because he had turned from God’s perspective and viewed the situation from man’s perspective.
Sure it was a rebuke, and a harsh one at that. Like get your head out of your ass, you know better than that. Not you have revealed yourself to be a worshiper of the evil one.
So did Jesus leave no one in charge, you apostles go your separate ways and teach whatever you want to? Seems like 36,000 denominations would have it that way.
So, serious question, when Jesus said to Simon thou art Peter (meaning rock) what was He saying.
Wiki says: "Protestant arguments against the Catholic interpretation are largely based on the difference between the Greek words translated "Rock" in the Matthean passage. They often claim that in classical Attic Greek petros (masculine) generally meant "pebble", while petra (feminine) meant "boulder" or "cliff", and accordingly, taking Peter's name to mean "pebble," they argue that the "rock" in question cannot have been Peter, but something else, either Jesus himself, or the faith in Jesus that Peter had just professed.[164][165] These popular-level writings are disputed in similar popular-level Catholic writings.[166]
The New Testament was written in Koiné Greek, not Attic Greek, and some authorities say no significant difference existed between the meanings of petros and petra. "
To me seems a pretty strained interpretation, like they decided on a conclusion and strained for a justification.
Petros - masculie Petra -feminine Which one for Simon? Sounds like they had gender identity problems way back when Matthew was written - Nothing new under the Sun? (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Hmmm...was Jesus speaking Greek when he said this?
Could Mary have served as the mother of God if she was stained by original sin? No. Why she is called Immaculate Mary. And that qualifies her to be assumed into heaven. .
How did Mary as a mere mortal avoid inheriting Adams original sin?
Why would a person without original sin need a personal saviour?
only sinners need a saviour, and any dead sinners are awaiting judgement like the rest.
Luke 1:47 “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior”
Could Mary have served as the mother of God if she was stained by original sin? No. Why she is called Immaculate Mary. And that qualifies her to be assumed into heaven. .
How did Mary as a mere mortal avoid inheriting Adams original sin?
Why would a person without original sin need a personal saviour?
sinners need a saviour, and if you need such , you are awaiting judgement like the rest.
Luke 1:47 “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior”
She avoided original sin by the will of God. Exactly how is unknown. One theory involves God not being constrained by time, a favorite conundrum here. Similarly the status of Mary had she refused, and it was her choice whether or not to accept God's will, is unknowable.
Sure it was a rebuke, and a harsh one at that. Like get your head out of your ass, you know better than that. Not you have revealed yourself to be a worshiper of the evil one.
So Jesus made Peter the head of the Christian Church and then told him to get his head out of his ass...?
She avoided original sin by the will of God. Exactly how is unknown..
clearly it escapes you that Mary acknowledged she had a personal saviour,, and there is no need for such lest one be a sinner....thus Mary awaits judgement like the rest.
your arcane catholic dogma spin stories are absurd.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
, pray to Mary for her intercession with Jesus....
again , what can Mary do for you that Jesus , Holy Spirit and the Father cannot, through your prayers?
Seems like 36,000 denominations would have it that way.
So what...? Who gives a flip how many different denominations there are...? Despite the insignificant theological differences between them, there are a few central tenets that all Christians typically hold together...regardless of their particular church or denomination or culture or geographical location. Christians typically believe in God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and they typically believe that all humans are sinful and in need of grace, and that only Jesus makes it possible for people to have a relationship with God through His death and resurrection. Christians also typically believe that the Bible reveals who God is, how they can have a relationship with Him, and how they can extend God’s love to other people. Other beliefs and practices are often the cause of disagreements...and they are secondary.
clearly it escapes you that Mary acknowledged she had a personal saviour,, and there is no need for such lest one be a sinner....thus Mary awaits judgement like the rest.
your arcane catholic dogma spin stories are absurd.
So did Jesus leave no one in charge, you apostles go your separate ways and teach whatever you want to?
He left no one person in charge. And He told His disciples to spread *His teachings* to all the nations of the world.
So did they vote on exactly what his teachings were, they weren't all with him at the same time, or go with gut instinct?
No. Jesus didn’t tell them to “vote on exactly what His teachings were.” And NONE of the Catholic Pope’s throughout all of history were ‘ever’ with Him.
Who gives a flip how many different denominations there are...? Despite the insignificant theological differences between them,
Whoa Nellie! there are some crucial theological differences. Or does close enough for government work apply?
There are essential beliefs (such as those that I mentioned earlier), and there are non-essential beliefs. Individuals do have liberty in non-essential beliefs. Believers do have the personal freedom to have varying interpretations on theological issues that are not clearly presented in Scripture. “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters… Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master servants stand or fall… So then each of us will give an account of ourselves to God… So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” - Romans 14:1, 4, 12, 22
Or it could been something as, "Hey Simon all you apostles keep coming to me for help. I won't be around much longer and I wan you to take my place in keeping the word straight." Seems reasonable.
I don't think you can argue that Peter was in a leadership position in the fledgling church, certainly until the conversion of the Apostle Paul. After that, Paul led an outreach to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, seemingly upon mutual agreement. However, what I don't get is where the concept of succession came from other than the tradition of man, likely post Constantine. Jesus said nothing about it even if we are to assume that Peter himself was the "rock", or the defacto leader at the time.
Speaking of Paul, he busted Pope Peter's chops pretty good about being a hypocrite as far as the Gospel was concerned. If it was understood at the time that Peter had something resembling absolute Papist authority directly from Jesus would Paul have done that? Further, if you read Paul he makes it clear that he saw himself in no way inferior to any other apostle. Evidently, Paul didn't get the memo.
As far as the seven sons of Sceva, the demon said he knew Paul and the book of Acts records Paul casting out demons. Did Paul receive authority over the spirit world from Peter? Paul would tell you that he did not even receive the Gospel from "any man" but by revelation and his immediate response was to not consult with any man or to go to Jerusalem to see any of the others. After 3 years he went to stay with Peter for 15 days. If Peter was in fact the top dog, should not Paul have gone to him to receive permission, a blessing, some kind of bona fides from the beginning?
Building a doctrine around one verse or even one chapter of scripture is often a dangerous thing. I think you guys have done it with Matthew 16:18. Not only a doctrine but an entire political and religious hierarchy. Really no different than what the snake handlers did with Mark 16:18. Just as Catholics with Matthew 16:18, they will argue all day that its in the book and they are right, but fail to apply the whole counsel of the word. When you get right down to it, I think all the denominations do this in what they accept and what they omit from the word.
I respect and love all real Christian denominations...however I do believe M16:18...and I wasn’t raised Catholic. When I came to truly know God I started with the Bible...and history as we know it Including the attempts to discredit the Church. It became clear to me.
I also believe satan is actively trying to discredit and destroy religious institutions. This was foretold
It would be a far better world if the Catholic Church would simply disappear into the cess pool of history they have created. How anyone can support this church in this day and age is mind blowing. It is nothing but a haven for child molesters and illegals.
Flipping channels there was a preacher that would send you miracle spring water which if you used it God would solve all your financial problems. Another would send you a bottle of oil, use it and God would solve your problems whatever they are. Another said send him "seed money" of $40 a month for a year (credit cards accepted) and he' send you a booklet and CD saying God would return your seed money many times over.
Which would prefer?
None of the above.
Those "money changers" have turned it into a business. Check the scripture to see how the Lord handled those types...
Satan is real...he’s been trying to topple Gods holy church since Jesus was still alive as a man. This does not surprise me... nor does it dissuade me
i listen to a lot of catholic radio programing, there are many observers who describe the condition in Rome as 'chaotic'. i don't think the pope is happy with scrutiny from conservative, catholic, american, news outlets, commentators, theologians and educators, of which there are quite a few
Hey fellas: here's a clue: the Catholic hierarchy is NOT God's Holy church.
This is correct. It is the faithul that comprise the Church universal. I already knew that.
Those "money changers" have turned it into a business. Check the scripture to see how the Lord handled those types...DF
The version of this event as recorded in the gospels I believe is a seriously abbreviated version of a much bigger event. This is what I believe sealed the deal with the Jewish religious hierarchy that Jesus had to be killed. He came in a few days earlier to a heroes welcome. I believe it may have set off a wholesale insurrection that required the Roman army to violently put it down. History is chock full of examples of murder of millions in the name of God. The church today isn't much different. In a lot of countries there is still religious totalitarianism supported by the government as a means to control the population. They would be killing people in this country today except for the wisdom of our founding fathers. I am the only one at the church I attend that is glad the supreme court mostly keeps religion out of public institutions. I take the position of Gandhi, I like Jesus, It's the Christians I don't like.
Who gives a flip how many different denominations there are...? Despite the insignificant theological differences between them,
Whoa Nellie! there are some crucial theological differences. Or does close enough for government work apply?
There are essential beliefs (such as those that I mentioned earlier), and there are non-essential beliefs. Individuals do have liberty in non-essential beliefs. Believers do have the personal freedom to have varying interpretations on theological issues that are not clearly presented in Scripture. “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters… Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master servants stand or fall… So then each of us will give an account of ourselves to God… So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” - Romans 14:1, 4, 12, 22
Sorta like this communion thing. Is it real or not? Or somewhere in between? Minor theological difference?
Who gives a flip how many different denominations there are...? Despite the insignificant theological differences between them,
Whoa Nellie! there are some crucial theological differences. Or does close enough for government work apply?
There are essential beliefs (such as those that I mentioned earlier), and there are non-essential beliefs. Individuals do have liberty in non-essential beliefs. Believers do have the personal freedom to have varying interpretations on theological issues that are not clearly presented in Scripture. “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters… Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master servants stand or fall… So then each of us will give an account of ourselves to God… So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” - Romans 14:1, 4, 12, 22
Sorta like this communion thing. Is it real or not? Or somewhere in between? Minor theological difference?
Not to catholics, as you well know. Transubstantiation, claims of the Vicar of Christ, and Indulgences have long been bridges too far for Protestants, even before there were Protestants. Any bible believing but not pope believing person could not swallow those three items accepting death first.
Who gives a flip how many different denominations there are...? Despite the insignificant theological differences between them,
Whoa Nellie! there are some crucial theological differences. Or does close enough for government work apply?
There are essential beliefs (such as those that I mentioned earlier), and there are non-essential beliefs. Individuals do have liberty in non-essential beliefs. Believers do have the personal freedom to have varying interpretations on theological issues that are not clearly presented in Scripture. “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters… Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master servants stand or fall… So then each of us will give an account of ourselves to God… So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” - Romans 14:1, 4, 12, 22
Sorta like this communion thing. Is it real or not? Or somewhere in between? Minor theological difference?
People disagree about certain things in the Bible, understandably so, (such as the stories of Noah or Jonah). Demanding that they believe in things that are not pertinent to one’s salvation only pushes people further away. Believing in the stories of Noah and Jonah are NOT essential to one’s salvation, but believing in the The Gospel is...! Regarding the Catholic doctrine of substantiation...Protestants don’t buy that any more than they buy the Catholic doctrine of praying to Mary.
I believe it may have set off a wholesale insurrection that required the Roman army to violently put it down.
You believe that, why? As far as I know, I've never read any history that happened. Rome just kept killing Christians with impunity until 313. Nero made candles out of a lot of them. Rome did go in and destroy Jerusalem 70 years later, long after Jesus' death and resurrection, scattering the Jews who survived to hither and yon.
There is nothing in the Constitution that makes it a thing to keep religion out of public institutions. The only thing that 1A does is make it so the government cannot create a religion, similar to what England did in creating the Church of England.
Who gives a flip how many different denominations there are...? Despite the insignificant theological differences between them,
Whoa Nellie! there are some crucial theological differences. Or does close enough for government work apply?
There are essential beliefs (such as those that I mentioned earlier), and there are non-essential beliefs. Individuals do have liberty in non-essential beliefs. Believers do have the personal freedom to have varying interpretations on theological issues that are not clearly presented in Scripture. “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters… Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master servants stand or fall… So then each of us will give an account of ourselves to God… So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” - Romans 14:1, 4, 12, 22
Sorta like this communion thing. Is it real or not? Or somewhere in between? Minor theological difference?
People disagree about certain things in the Bible, understandably so, (such as the stories of Noah or Jonah). Demanding that they believe in things that are not pertinent to one’s salvation only pushes people further away. Believing in the stories of Noah and Jonah are NOT essential to one’s salvation, but believing in the The Gospel is...! Regarding the Catholic doctrine of substantiation...Protestants don’t buy that any more than they buy the Catholic doctrine of praying to Mary.
I think the issue for many is the idea that you must believe that the Bible(not sure which one)must be believed in its entirety as the inerrant word of God if you want to be a Christian. To many Christians, there isn't any beliefs that not pertinent.
Who gives a flip how many different denominations there are...? Despite the insignificant theological differences between them,
Whoa Nellie! there are some crucial theological differences. Or does close enough for government work apply?
There are essential beliefs (such as those that I mentioned earlier), and there are non-essential beliefs. Individuals do have liberty in non-essential beliefs. Believers do have the personal freedom to have varying interpretations on theological issues that are not clearly presented in Scripture. “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters… Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master servants stand or fall… So then each of us will give an account of ourselves to God… So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” - Romans 14:1, 4, 12, 22
Sorta like this communion thing. Is it real or not? Or somewhere in between? Minor theological difference?
People disagree about certain things in the Bible, understandably so, (such as the stories of Noah or Jonah). Demanding that they believe in things that are not pertinent to one’s salvation only pushes people further away. Believing in the stories of Noah and Jonah are NOT essential to one’s salvation, but believing in the The Gospel is...! Regarding the Catholic doctrine of substantiation...Protestants don’t buy that any more than they buy the Catholic doctrine of praying to Mary.
I think the issue for many is the idea that you must believe that the Bible(not sure which one)must be believed in its entirety as the inerrant word of God if you want to be a Christian. To many Christians, there isn't any beliefs that not pertinent.
Catholicism also says that unless one is under the pope, they cannot be saved, because the pope, not Jesus or God, saves and forgives sins. And the priest has to hear a person's confession of sin. It's kind of a deal breaker for some.
There is nothing in the Constitution that makes it a thing to keep religion out of public institutions. The only thing that 1A does is make it so the government cannot create a religion, similar to what England did in creating the Church of England.
It does seem to function in that way,to some degree anyway.I suppose it's that government can't really support one religion over another or else it could be claimed they are creating a religion, so they either have to allow all or none. I think it was a very wise thing to put in, no sense in having government involved in religion, that game has been played enough times.
Public institutions can make rules regarding displays of religious material but it has to be all religious material, not just Christian, although they sometimes allow in things like islamic items, likely fearing what might happen if they made it an issue.
However, what I don't get is where the concept of succession came from other than the tradition of man,
Building a doctrine around one verse or even one chapter of scripture is often a dangerous thing. I think you guys have done it with Matthew 16:18.
Succession - How else would you accurately propagate the word, and authority given the apostles, through the ages? Seems common sense to me. Not everything is in the bible, God gave us the ability to work a few things out for ourselves.
There is more to it than that one verse. I'm not a bible scholar by any means, not even close. Went through this stuff to my satisfaction years ago and much has leaked out my ears while I was asleep. So here's the official teaching:
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
400 Cf. Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17. 401 LG 22 § 2. (Lumen Gentium which you can find Here.)
Sure it was a rebuke, and a harsh one at that. Like get your head out of your ass, you know better than that. Not you have revealed yourself to be a worshiper of the evil one.
So Jesus made Peter the head of the Christian Church and then told him to get his head out of his ass...?
Sure it was a rebuke, and a harsh one at that. Like get your head out of your ass, you know better than that. Not you have revealed yourself to be a worshiper of the evil one.
So Jesus made Peter the head of the Christian Church and then told him to get his head out of his ass...?
You've never been told that by your boss?
Not ‘right after’ he put me in charge of the entire operation...!
Those "money changers" have turned it into a business. Check the scripture to see how the Lord handled those types...DF
The version of this event as recorded in the gospels I believe is a seriously abbreviated
As I was taught temple sacrifices had to be of pure animals. To insure purity the temple would sacrifice only animals from approved sellers. And these sellers could accept only temple money so you had to change Roman coin for temple. Kickback city, all in the name of God. Should piss anyone off.
Catholicism also says that unless one is under the pope, they cannot be saved, because the pope, not Jesus or God, saves and forgives sins. And the priest has to hear a person's confession of sin. It's kind of a deal breaker for some.
All of that is factually wrong. Will cite the catechism, the official teaching, if you like.
I think the issue for many is the idea that you must believe that the Bible (not sure which one) must be believed in its entirety as the inerrant word of God if you want to be a Christian. To many Christians, there isn't any beliefs that are not pertinent.
That’s likely unfortunate. The faith of Christianity is tethered to the event of the Resurrection rather than to the authority and inspiration or infallibility or inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible did not create Christianity. Christianity created the Bible. The Bible did not birth Jesus’ Church. Jesus’ Church birthed the Bible. The Christian faith is anchored to the event (the Resurrection) that sparked the movement (the Church) that brought us the Bible. Christianity began on the very first Easter morning with an empty tomb...! The Bible...as we know it...didn’t even exist until the 4th century AD.
However, what I don't get is where the concept of succession came from other than the tradition of man,
Building a doctrine around one verse or even one chapter of scripture is often a dangerous thing. I think you guys have done it with Matthew 16:18.
Succession - How else would you accurately propagate the word, and authority given the apostles, through the ages? Seems common sense to me. Not everything is in the bible...
The same people who don't believe in Apostolic Succession when asked how The Word should have been spread instead will glibly answer "through the Bible" when in fact the Bible did not exist until AFTER Apostolic Succession had been in place for 200+ years and those apostolic successors put it together. IT NOT FOR APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, THERE WOULD BE NO BIBLE.
Re: Mary's intercession - I guarantee you, the same people who question asking for the Virgin Mary's intercession, have no problem asking any random person to pray for them.
Re: Mary's intercession - I guarantee you, the same people who question asking for the Virgin Mary's intercession, have no problem asking any random person to pray for them.
Re: Mary's intercession - I guarantee you, the same people who question asking for the Virgin Mary's intercession, have no problem asking any random person to pray for them.
LOL...your catholic guarantee?...worthless.
I don't ask anyone be it kook Catholic or random person to pray for me.
Christians grovelling to God to get something they want...hilarious.
hint; ..your God already knows what you need lest you doubt it ,.. Maybe you RC dummies should spare everyone your convoluted spin church bulllcrap and heed the example of Jesus at Gethsemane to know what prayer is about.
Still no catholic here can answer ;
Why would the trio of Jesus , Hoy Spirit and Father need a Mary to intercede?
clearly it escapes you that Mary acknowledged she had a personal saviour,, and there is no need for such lest one be a sinner....thus Mary awaits judgement like the rest.
your arcane catholic dogma spin stories are absurd.
Now you're just making stuff up, talk about spin.
Then you either ignore or doubt the words of Mary in Luke 1:47.
If you can find anywhere in Bible that definitively says Mary was born sinless and went to heaven, you should point it out.
not interested in hearing you peddle your (c.1854) Pope Pius IX 'Ineffabilis Deus' snake oil crapola.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
She avoided original sin by the will of God. ..
Mary was fathered by a mere mortal who carried the sin of Adam and passed it on to his daughter.
but trust the Vatican to spin a tale about their poster girl Mary.
I think we can all agree that areas with large concentrations of Catholics have the best Friday night fish fry's.
The North Louisiana Baptist rednecks I associate with will eat all the fried catfish I can provide. We have supper together every Wednesday night after church and they can put away some fish.
Don't know how it fits in but always got a chuckle out of this. Why it popped into my head during dinner I haven't a clue. [video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qev-i9-VKlY [/video
Would you be able (and willing) to post Spiritual Fantasy by Steppenwolf? I don't know how but it would seem appropriate for this discussion.
Sure. Kinda puts me to sleep though. Released 1968, a year Eastern Philosophy was the rage.
Humanity grew weary Of it's doubtful state of mind So it summoned from far and near All the wise men thought to be sincere To heal it's wounds and make it whole And lead the way back to the soul
The charlatans they stayed behind To count their bags of gold And some stayed away as if to say I know that my way's the only way Afraid to learn they may be wrong They preach their nothingness at home
But the wise men came together with the hope to free mankind Of the rubbish that had gathered in god's name To embrace and trust each other in the search for the supreme And they found that all their teachings were the same
And when at last the word went round That all were one and all Many returned to seek the light Nobody claimed that he was right It's sad to know it's just a song To dream and hope still can't be wrong
I believe it may have set off a wholesale insurrection that required the Roman army to violently put it down.
You believe that, why? As far as I know, I've never read any history that happened. Rome just kept killing Christians with impunity until 313. Nero made candles out of a lot of them. Rome did go in and destroy Jerusalem 70 years later, long after Jesus' death and resurrection, scattering the Jews who survived to hither and yon. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes it a thing to keep religion out of public institutions. The only thing that 1A does is make it so the government cannot create a religion, similar to what England did in creating the Church of England.
We really have not much record of what happened in the space of not many days between Jesus (Yeshua) riding in to the equivalent of a ticker tape parade and then ending up with a crowd demanding his death. The chasing out of the thieving money changers you can be assured left blood on the floor along with their scattered money. The rake off of the common folks money was not something that some popular upstart was going to be allowed to interfere with. The priests had to make him dead quick or things were going to crap with their authority. Something big happened that week the details of which are lost. I don't imagine Pilate reported things getting out of hand to Rome. He handled it and swept it under the rug.
Protestants have the best traditional church music. Catholics have the best wedding receptions. I don't really trust the preachers for either side, though. One tries to steal your wallet while the other one has his hand down your pants.
There are certain folks in particular occupations that I wonder about their motive for choosing that line of work. Priests and preachers especially youth ministers get my scrutiny. Others include law enforcement, psychologists, politicians, and of course men who go into traditional female careers.
I’ve never understood the concept of confession to a Priest
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” 1 Timothy 2:5-6 KJV
I attended a church-sponsored college in the mid-1960's, about the time Viet Nam was going strong. It was amazing how many young men heard the "call to preach" about then- - - - -just before their local draft boards came calling! If they didn't wear a heavy shirt, the yellow stripe down their backs came shining through loud and clear! Jerry
Priests are authorized by Jesus to forgive sins. So conceptually you are talking to Jesus. Many people find it comforting to hear absolution and a blessing. No doubt you are forgiven. Also a good way to talk about your moral problems and get good council. And it's all secret. If you get theological there is special grace associated with the sacrament as there are with all sacraments.
Priests are authorized by Jesus to forgive sins....
Scripture indicates there is but one who can forgive sins = the Father and but one who can mediate between man and the Father = Jesus.
Jesus empowered by the Holy Spirit forgave sins, however
I don't know of Jesus aurhorizing 21st century catholic priests to do so.
Show CF readers where the N.T. indicates apostolic authority - succession being handed down. [ that todays priests have the authority to forgive sins and that it is passed down.]
Originally Posted by nighthawk
... Many people find it comforting to hear absolution and a blessing. No doubt you are forgiven...
no doubt?...how do you come to such certain conclusion?
if Catholics aren't pushing their interceding Mary crap, they are pushing their interceding priest crap.
Regarding John 20:23, people should be aware that there is biblical idiom whereby one sometimes is said to actually do what one is merely authorized to declare.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Also a good way to talk about your moral problems and get good council. .
moral council from the Vatican?...the same org. that harbors and protects serial pedophile clergy?
cardinal George Pell who was appointed to the Vatican ,[but is now in prison], and is close friends with the most prolific/ serial offending pedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale....yes trust your catholic clergy for moral council ...
I ask for N.T. scripture and all you present is another load of convoluted Vatican waffle.
Go figure out what a footnote is and try again. Hint: they are largely biblical references.
You make asinine statements insinuating that because some clergy (2) are guilty of moral lapses the entire clergy worldwide is corrupt again I'll call you an ass again.
You make asinine statements insinuating that because some clergy (2) are guilty of moral lapses the entire clergy worldwide is corrupt again I'll call you an ass again.
Just 2 priests world wide are convicted/ guilty?...
You are totally out of touch with reality...an utterly deluded fool.
That stuff you cited is some pretty convoluted stuff. You really think the authority of Jesus was meant to last only one generation? That makes no sense. You people alive today are saved, from here on out fugget about it, you're on your own.
Just 2 priests out of over 400,000. That's all you cited, that's all I responded to. Tack on several orders of magnitude if you want, it's still a tiny fraction.
