The Catholic Church is embroiled in a hell of its own making (Page 2): :sm09:...

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Kazudy wrote:

You poor fool.

Kazudy

Bad Bob wrote:

Well Mr. Bob, let's see if you recegnize any of these names. They are scientist that I can assure you are A LOT SMARTER THEN YOU!!!! Albert Einstein, Blaise Pascal, Erwin Shrodinger, Galaleo Galili, Gugielmo Marconi, Issac Newton, Louis Pasteur, and many more. If you think for a minute that you know better then them go to the mirror and look at what a dumb fool looks like, then post YOUR picture so the rest of us can look at a bonafide fool.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Kazudy wrote:

Well Mr. Bob, let's see if you recegnize any of these names. They are scientist that I can assure you are A LOT SMARTER THEN YOU!!!! Albert Einstein, Blaise Pascal, Erwin Shrodinger, Galaleo Galili, Gugielmo Marconi, Issac Newton, Louis Pasteur, and many more. If you think for a minute that you know better then them go to the mirror and look at what a dumb fool looks like, then post YOUR picture so the rest of us can look at a bonafide fool.

Justsss Loc: Wisconsin

Bad Bob wrote:

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Bad Bob wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-catholic-church-is-embroiled-in-a-hell-of-its-own-making/2018/11/14/07871f66-e837-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.5bc8e8cd21d2&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

In ancient Rome, the gates of hell were always open — a wise rendering of the inferno. “The gates of hell are open night and day; smooth the descent, and easy is the way,” the poet Virgil’s oracle tells his hero Aeneas, “But to return, and view the cheerful skies — in this the task and mighty labor lies.” For most, the effort of escape was too extreme — though an exemplary soul, such as Aeneas, could sometimes make it back to the land of the living if they possessed appropriate courage and willpower.
How little the Eternal City changes. Contemporary Rome now finds itself embroiled in a hell much of its own making, and its gates are wide-open — if anyone has the moral fortitude to simply walk out.
The events at this week’s meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore haven’t given much cause for confidence. The main subject of the convention was set to be the sex abuse crisis, which has roiled the church anew since this summer’s revelations concerning Pennsylvania and disgraced Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The bishops had planned to vote on “concrete measures to respond to the abuse crisis,” but Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the conference president, was informed the night before the meeting that the Vatican had decreed there would be no such vote.

Instead, the Vatican directed American bishops to await the worldwide meeting of church leaders set for February in Rome. Why? Some have speculated it saw “canonical problems” in the text; others have suggested that the proposals themselves were somehow deficient. If the trouble with the bishops’ resolutions were obvious and objective, they certainly didn’t seem so to several U.S. bishops, who continued agitating for the reforms even after the ruling was handed down.
Maybe they realized that the effect of the sudden intervention was to instantaneously deflate a moment that some lay Catholics had dared look forward to. “Don’t stagnate [the reform process], or slow it down,” Francesco Cesareo, chairman of the National Review Board monitoring bishops’ progress on the sex abuse crisis, warned, adding that, if the process were to be dragged out and delayed, “I fear for the future of our church.”
Fear is as rational a response as any at this point. While some American bishops seethed over the abrupt defanging of their meeting, others defended the actions of their colleagues over the past decades and bristled at the notion of creating so much as a third-party reporting mechanism for bishops suspected of abuse. Still, at least the Americans were addressing the problem itself, rightly or wrongly. The Vatican has remained airily removed since the eruption of disturbing revelations over the summer, with Rome’s ambassador to the United States, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, taking time after DiNardo’s announcement to warn bishops against “a temptation on the part of some to relinquish responsibility for reform to others from ourselves, as if we were no longer capable of reforming or trusting ourselves.”

With Rome at odds with U.S. bishops over whether and when to address the crisis concretely, strong trust within the institution was already strained. But what has been inflicted on the trust of ordinary Catholics by this bizarre episode is worse.
Since the exposure of the sex abuse crisis in Boston in 2002, the church has promised to enact real, actionable reforms to not only halt but also resolve the sex abuse crisis — and some of those efforts have been indisputably successful. But 2002 still did its damage, and what Catholics got by on day to day was their own faith that the church to which they entrust themselves was working diligently to bring sexual abuse to a stop and to root out and expel those responsible for aiding and abetting sexual exploitation. What this summer showed us was that prelates responsible for the protection of abusive priests — such as Cardinal Donald Wuerl — were still in positions of high renown, and that at least one — McCarrick — had been allowed to enjoy stations of rank despite a long pattern of well-known, credible allegations of sexual abuse. It wasn’t just that such actions were terrible that left Catholics reeling; it was also that the church had promised everything was being done to stop those exact offenses from happening again.
The wind-up and collapse of this convention of bishops feel similar, and they’re dispiriting for the same reasons. Asking people for their trust is asking them to put their hearts on the line — to suspend cynicism and doubt and suspicion and a thousand other justified, well-earned barriers to faith, and to just believe. This is an exhaustible capacity. It has been drawn upon constantly since 2002, and now, again, the lay faithful are being asked to simply trust that, come a few months from now, things will finally be set aright — for real this time.
It’s a lot of hope to demand of a community immersed in the darkness of this crisis, with little to be encouraged by in the political feuds and obscure backbiting of the clergy. “Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light,” John Milton wrote in “Paradise Lost.” If some of the lay faithful don’t make it through as the scandal grinds on, it will have been their shepherds who abandoned them along the way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cathol... (show quote)

When they consciously chose to ignore the problem they definitely have I lost respect for them. I would never trust a child in their care never!.

Unfortunately it looks like this is a much ado about nothing once again. I simply hope they are congregations see what is going on and shoes to walk away on their own. It being better choice is Flabbergasting do you think they could support such a thing. It also leaves me wondering just how much they do complain about this issue to their bishops?

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Your ignorance is showing Justass.

Justsss Loc: Wisconsin

Bad Bob wrote:

Your ignorance is showing Justass.

BLAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA

Kazudy

Bad Bob wrote:

He is out numbered 100,000 to one, in scientist. Show YOUR picture, I want to see a bonafide fool. That be TU!

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Kazudy wrote:

He is out numbered 100,000 to one, in scientist. Show YOUR picture, I want to see a bonafide fool. That be TU!

Kazudy

Bad Bob wrote:

That little piggy came back from Russia to tick you off by kicking the crap of Hillary's rear end, and you can't get over it. Poor big fat loser bad bobito.

peg w

The priest sex abuse scandal is as bad as the Reformation to the Catholic Church. If they want to exist in the future the will have to clean up their act

tbutkovich

The Mockery Of Jesus Christ!

In the four crucifixion narratives, we see the unthinkable! We see man, the creation, laughing in sinister derision at his Creator, the Son of God! We ask, “Who in his right mind could do such a thing as this?”

The text is plain: Man not only crucified Jesus, but he also castigated Him with venomous mockery! He made sport of the hands that would soon be nailed-pierced to save him from eternal punishment for sin. He spat upon and slapped the face of Jesus, the face that reflected the highest love for him.

Jesus was beaten with fists, blindfolded and taunted, and hit with a reed, a crude imitation of a scepter. Heartless scorn was poured upon the Savior in a steady stream! As preparations were made to brutalize His body, those in charge of Him sought to terrorize His spirit. His personality, position, character, and purpose were derided. Those He would die to save belittled His divine intentions, His holy sacrifice, and His altruistic love.

They mocked His kingship, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” In the midst of the Roman trial, Pilate offered Barabbas and Jesus to the crowd and asked them to choose one to be released. With a frenzied cry, they chanted, “Release for us Barabbas!” (Luke 23:18). Their choice declared Jesus to be worse than a criminal, worse than an insurrectionist and murderer.

The scene that took place after the trial, after Pilate had announced his verdict, must have caused heaven to weep and the earth to tremble. Matthew described its heart-rending details: "And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they knelt down before Him and mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” They spat on Him, and took the reed and began to beat Him on the head." (Matthew 27:29, 30).

At the cross, the chief priests, elders, and scribes joined in the mockery. They said, “He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him” (Matthew 27:42b).

They mocked His power, saying, “Let Him save Himself.” During His earthly ministry, Jesus had publicly demonstrated His miraculous power. The people had seen it, acknowledged it, and understood the implications of it. Even Nicodemus, the Jewish ruler, said, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). His miracles were obvious, credible, and unmistakable. Even His enemies acknowledged their authenticity.

Sweeping aside this demonstrated truth of His ministry, the sightseers at the foot of the cross wagged their heads and said, “You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross” (Matthew 27:40). The rulers of the Jews added to this scorn and said, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One” (Luke 23:35). The soldiers raised their voices in mockery to the suffering Christ. Coming near to Him, they offered Him vinegar to drink, and said, “If You are the King of the Jews Save Yourself! (Luke 23:27)

Of the people in Jerusalem, perhaps His apostles, disciples, and a few others were the only ones who would understand why Jesus was allowing Himself to be crucified. The rulers, in their ignorance, cried for Him to come down from the cross. Their jabbing challenge for Him to save Himself was the favorite jeer at the foot of the cross. Matthew said, “In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking Him and saying, ‘He saved others; He cannot save Himself’” (Matthew 27:41, 42a). They did not understand that if Jesus saved Himself there would be no salvation for the human race.

They mocked His deity, saying, “For He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Caiaphas commanded Jesus, “. . . You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63b). Jesus answered, “You have said it yourself” (Matthew 26:64). He not only claimed to be God’s Son, but He had fully demonstrated it throughout His ministry. How did Caiaphas react to this affirmation? Read his response and blush with shame that human beings could treat the Son of God in such a fashion: Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!” Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?” (Matthew 26:65–68). The religious rulers and the scribes had charged Jesus with blasphemy because of His testimony to His deity. Our hearts break as we realize that religious people, the people who had publicly avowed that they were looking for the Messiah, the Son of God, had Jesus crucified! He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him (John 1:11).

They mocked His morality, saying, “He trusts in God.” At the cross, these religious leaders taunted Him. Some shouted, “He trusts in God; let God rescue Him now, if He delights in Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (Matthew 27:43). Many of those at the cross declared that Jesus had been rejected not only by man but also by God. They argued that His sin had found Him out. “This Man,” they said, “is supposed to be One who walks with God. Why doesn’t God bring Him down from the cross? Can’t we all see that even His God has forsaken Him?”

Yes, Jesus was mocked! His kingship, power, deity, and morality were derided! Let us ponder this fact. However, we must not leave the mockery of Christ without personalizing it. With hearts bowed down with sorrow, let us ask, “What do we learn from the mockery of Jesus?”

First we see that mockery is cruel and cutting. These people wanted to hurt Jesus, and they did. Jesus handled it superbly; but it hurt Him, even as He was hurt by the nails that were driven through His hands and feet. To mock others is to hurt them deliberately.

Second, we see that mockery is an evil instrument. The mockery that was heaped upon Jesus served a vicious and vile purpose. It was intended to make the true Christ into a false Christ. The Jews did not want the Christ that God had sent. He did not fit the mold they had envisioned. The true Christ did not conform to their plans. It was necessary, therefore, for them to change Him, at least in their minds, in order to crucify Him and still live with their consciences. Crucifixion was for criminals and the worst of men, but Jesus was neither. He was the perfect Son of God. What could they do with Him? They maligned His character and reduced Him to a despicable personage. They could not allow the crucifixion of Jesus to stand as the horrible deed that it was. They tried to lend it respect and turn it into a service to society by claiming that they were removing a wicked person from the earth.

Third, we see that mockery can grow out of envy. We are told that it was “because of envy they had handed Him over” (Matthew 27:18). Envy has been depicted as a green-eyed monster that feeds upon its prey. It has been said that envy does more damage to the vessel in which it is stored than to the object on which it is poured. Instead of lifting up good and holy character, jealousy and envy diminish such traits. They do not defend it; they destroy it.

Next, we see how to handle mockery. Jesus committed it to God. Peter wrote, “And while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Peter 2:23). Those who mocked Jesus could not destroy Him. Instead, as a diamond seems to shine more brightly against a dark background, Jesus’ character was more visibly seen. As we observe the railings and acid words being cast at Jesus, we see deity and perfect holiness against the background of the blackest and most corrupt thinking that human hearts can do.

Fifth, we should see that ignoring what He has done for us can hurt Jesus as much as the mockery that He faced during His crucifixion. When Jesus came to Golgotha they hanged Him on a tree, They drove great nails through hands and feet, and made a Calvary; They crowned Him with a crown of thorns, red were His wounds and deep, For those were crude and cruel days, and human flesh was cheap. When Jesus came to [Searcy]1 we simply passed Him by, We never hurt a hair of Him, we only let Him die;

For men had grown more tender, and they would not give Him pain, We only just passed down the street, and left Him in the rain. Still Jesus cried, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do,” And still it rained the wintry rain that drenched Him through and through; The crowds went home and left the streets without a soul to see, And Jesus crouched against a wall and cried for Calvary.2 Jesus, the Son of God, came. Not only did His own reject Him, but they also mocked Him and crucified Him.

We would never think of mocking Jesus; but let us make sure also that we do not ignore Him. What do we do with Jesus? The Christian cries out for all the earth to hear, “Magnify Him, for He is the Son of God!”

There are those living today that continue to mock him and scoff him. May God have mercy on their souls! I pray that they have a change of heart and come to realize that Christ came for their salvation and, in spite of his power and the power of God, he went through this for all humanity. If you missed this message while alive on earth, you are a lost soul.

Justsss Loc: Wisconsin

tbutkovich, Thank you for your stand !

tbutkovich

Bad Bob wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-catholic-church-is-embroiled-in-a-hell-of-its-own-making/2018/11/14/07871f66-e837-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.5bc8e8cd21d2&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

In ancient Rome, the gates of hell were always open — a wise rendering of the inferno. “The gates of hell are open night and day; smooth the descent, and easy is the way,” the poet Virgil’s oracle tells his hero Aeneas, “But to return, and view the cheerful skies — in this the task and mighty labor lies.” For most, the effort of escape was too extreme — though an exemplary soul, such as Aeneas, could sometimes make it back to the land of the living if they possessed appropriate courage and willpower.
How little the Eternal City changes. Contemporary Rome now finds itself embroiled in a hell much of its own making, and its gates are wide-open — if anyone has the moral fortitude to simply walk out.
The events at this week’s meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore haven’t given much cause for confidence. The main subject of the convention was set to be the sex abuse crisis, which has roiled the church anew since this summer’s revelations concerning Pennsylvania and disgraced Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The bishops had planned to vote on “concrete measures to respond to the abuse crisis,” but Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the conference president, was informed the night before the meeting that the Vatican had decreed there would be no such vote.

Instead, the Vatican directed American bishops to await the worldwide meeting of church leaders set for February in Rome. Why? Some have speculated it saw “canonical problems” in the text; others have suggested that the proposals themselves were somehow deficient. If the trouble with the bishops’ resolutions were obvious and objective, they certainly didn’t seem so to several U.S. bishops, who continued agitating for the reforms even after the ruling was handed down.
Maybe they realized that the effect of the sudden intervention was to instantaneously deflate a moment that some lay Catholics had dared look forward to. “Don’t stagnate [the reform process], or slow it down,” Francesco Cesareo, chairman of the National Review Board monitoring bishops’ progress on the sex abuse crisis, warned, adding that, if the process were to be dragged out and delayed, “I fear for the future of our church.”
Fear is as rational a response as any at this point. While some American bishops seethed over the abrupt defanging of their meeting, others defended the actions of their colleagues over the past decades and bristled at the notion of creating so much as a third-party reporting mechanism for bishops suspected of abuse. Still, at least the Americans were addressing the problem itself, rightly or wrongly. The Vatican has remained airily removed since the eruption of disturbing revelations over the summer, with Rome’s ambassador to the United States, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, taking time after DiNardo’s announcement to warn bishops against “a temptation on the part of some to relinquish responsibility for reform to others from ourselves, as if we were no longer capable of reforming or trusting ourselves.”

With Rome at odds with U.S. bishops over whether and when to address the crisis concretely, strong trust within the institution was already strained. But what has been inflicted on the trust of ordinary Catholics by this bizarre episode is worse.
Since the exposure of the sex abuse crisis in Boston in 2002, the church has promised to enact real, actionable reforms to not only halt but also resolve the sex abuse crisis — and some of those efforts have been indisputably successful. But 2002 still did its damage, and what Catholics got by on day to day was their own faith that the church to which they entrust themselves was working diligently to bring sexual abuse to a stop and to root out and expel those responsible for aiding and abetting sexual exploitation. What this summer showed us was that prelates responsible for the protection of abusive priests — such as Cardinal Donald Wuerl — were still in positions of high renown, and that at least one — McCarrick — had been allowed to enjoy stations of rank despite a long pattern of well-known, credible allegations of sexual abuse. It wasn’t just that such actions were terrible that left Catholics reeling; it was also that the church had promised everything was being done to stop those exact offenses from happening again.
The wind-up and collapse of this convention of bishops feel similar, and they’re dispiriting for the same reasons. Asking people for their trust is asking them to put their hearts on the line — to suspend cynicism and doubt and suspicion and a thousand other justified, well-earned barriers to faith, and to just believe. This is an exhaustible capacity. It has been drawn upon constantly since 2002, and now, again, the lay faithful are being asked to simply trust that, come a few months from now, things will finally be set aright — for real this time.
It’s a lot of hope to demand of a community immersed in the darkness of this crisis, with little to be encouraged by in the political feuds and obscure backbiting of the clergy. “Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light,” John Milton wrote in “Paradise Lost.” If some of the lay faithful don’t make it through as the scandal grinds on, it will have been their shepherds who abandoned them along the way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cathol... (show quote)

The Catholic Church is under assault by the Communists and the FreeMasons, the liberals and the progressives. Take the time to read the link below:

https://sensusfidelium.us/freemasonry-communism-homosexuality-the-infiltration-of-the-church-the-holy-face/

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

tbutkovich wrote:

The Mockery Of Jesus Christ! br br In the four cr... (show quote)