Message from @MKSmash
Discord ID: 764859504344563743
not the online 'sources'
The in-book reference is at the bottom left corner.
@Kaladin I overreacted, my apologies. I misunderstood what you said for an attack on the Catholic Church. The church has certainly had a bad light put upon it, and I'm sad that there were so many priests doing these things. I take solace in the fact that most are not this way, but I pray that those who do can change.
@MKSmash Sorry to have to tell you this, but the Catholic Church has not had a perversion problem only just in the past few decades. It doesn't go back just decades, even to the 1960s like Pope Benedict tried to allege--no, it goes back *centuries*. Martin Luther the Reformer commented on it, saying, "Through the papists Satan so defiled it that in his little book on the celibacy of priests Cyprian wrote, ‘If you hear a woman speak, flee from her as if she were a hissing snake.’ That’s the way it is. When one is afraid of whores one must fall into sodomite depravity, as almost happened to St. Jerome." He was saying the very problem of requiring celibacy tends to push them into sodomy. He was not saying that as one from outside the Catholic system, but as one who was a trained Catholic priest who abhorred what they were doing, that being one of the many problems he protested against. Even further than that, it has been shown that the second Council of Tours (the year 567) publicly admitted there was hardly a cleric anywhere without his wife or mistress. That shows even how early there were problems with sexual morality in Catholicism, even before they had their first actual pope in 606. Those are just a couple quick examples I have at hand.
Pedophilia among these clergy is just another consequence of the unbiblical requirement of Catholicism of priests to be celibate (only being required since the year 1139 from the 2nd Lateran Council, thus not its entire history). Just for the fact that pedophilia is so prevalent among Catholic clergy should lead you to question why. Check out this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases . That is repugnant, absolutely objectionable, reprehensible, and anyone with any ounce of decency and morality should be appalled by all that and therefore reject Catholicism! Just like with Biden sniffing children and appearing to be a pedophile should be one deal breaker to not vote for him, the institutional prevalence of pedophilia in Catholicism should drive one to reject Catholicism.
Regarding this issue specifically, it all goes back to their requirement for them to be celibate. Such a practice is something they inherited from paganism through religious syncretism--it's not in the Bible. Pastors/bishops and deacons were required to be married (1 Tim. 3:2,11-12, Titus 1:6), and the Apostle Paul advocated marriage to help people avoid fornication and falling into sexual problems (1 Cor. 7:1-2,9). No where is it commanded for church leaders to be celibate. Thus, the core issue here is their celibacy. It is good this pedophilia issue has been coming to light to make the Catholic Church pay for its sickening abuses and wicked sins. The Lord Jesus Christ had strong things to say about those that would harm children: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Mt. 18:6)
@Kaladin Catholicism is not Christianity. Even many Catholics will acknowledge this, understanding that it is something separate than what the Bible declares, adding many, many other things to it, or denying many things in it, contradicting it, basically establishing a completely separate religion. Thus, your earlier comment saying that Christians are deplorable, is disingenuous. If you were referring to Catholics only, then you ought to know the difference and say so. Now, if you were focusing on Christians otherwise, as separate from Catholicism and saying they are deplorable, you should know where you're at as that there are a lot of Christians on here. If, like with Catholicism, you are attacking Christian denominations at large, give some proofs of what you are talking about. But, as has been said even on here, if sexual abuse occurs among people who profess to be Christians, it is not a matter of if their religion is wrong for it soundly and strongly condemns all immorality, but the problem is in the individual's choice to not live for God faithfully and uprightly.
There's this weird idea amongst people that if you engage in sodomy, then you're not breaking chastity or losing virginity.
I know of a girl back in high school who paraded herself as a virgin, but she was a huge sodomite. People can really derange themselves to avoid their own guilt.
in the 21st century, people make the conscious effort to be dumb and I think that's why so many are just so batshit crazy.
Liberalism has praised people to break morals, but the more they break morals the more they have to dumb themselves down to never see their transgressions.
Pedophilia is an outgrowth of a person giving themselves to living immorally, as having no care for the moral ethics and principles that should guide people, more specifically, the Ten Commandments and other Bible commands. When people deny God it leads them into all sorts of debauchery. Ps. 53:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." The second part is connected to the first part--they deny God *so that* they may do abominable works. Romans chapter 1 shows a degeneracy (a path if you will) of those that turn their back on the one true God and reject Him, leading into sodomy and a plethora of other sins.
And the Government acts as a substitute for people's need for religion and spirituality.
Hence, why the Dems are so bent on wanting to catch the LGBTOINFKSNO+ people.
Big government to take care of the lost, lonely and outcast.
U guys, r missing the point... shedding a light to crimes the clergy committed and putting an end to it is commendable. We have to give credit to where credit is due to the catholics. We should aslo "say something if u see something" in our own denominations.
It's like defunding the police thing, why should the actions of a few bad apples demolish the good the majority do.
Clean house.
100% agree.
There's no reason to do away with religious order because one asshole.
@DannyNC1 a few things. You say "as pedophilia is reason enough not to vote for biden". Let's not forget that the same argument has been applied to trump, and that he has had sexual abuse cases as well.
Now, it can logicly follow that if priests must be celibate that, as human beings, they still desire sex and seek that in repulsive ways. As to the wikipedia article, 1) let's not forget it's wikipedia, and 2) it is no reason to deny the Catholic Church. This is the same reasoning liberals apply to all policer officers being bad and racist. Additionally, as a Catholic, we don't rely on just the Bible, we rely on tradition and current papal teaching as well. The Bible also doesn't say "don't support trans rights" or " be pro-life".
Also, what is your historical source that the papacy began in 606, and how does it follow that celibacy leads to sexual perversion? Otherwise, anyone not in a sexual relationship would be tempted toward sodomy.
@MKSmash I did not make the argument about Biden's perceptible predilection toward minors being reason enough, though it certainly it--I was simply repeating what others have said on here. There are a whole lot more reasons to reject Biden and the horrible policies that he espouses, that he would ruin the economy, the country, so many liberties we have, etc., etc. Pedophilia from him is just one of the big signs that there's a major problem with him. As for President Trump, yes, he's been very immoral. The Dems tried to use that to stifle his election last time, but Hillary was not much better, being at least an enabler to Bill, and also being on the Epstein lists she is thus potentially a pedophile herself. Give me clean, moral, upright Christian man who is likely to win the presidential nomination and bring a strong, moral nation that will try to honor God, and then you may have a point.
@MKSmash Paragraph 2 -- To brush off anything simply because it is on Wikipedia is superficial and ignorant. I don't advocate for them, especially since they are a irreparably leftist site, but use some discernment here. Many of those things, if not all, can be found from other sources, and many things are cited, showing where things are potentially documented. I double down on it that the pervasive pedophilia scandals in Catholicism are absolutely enough to reject the whole organization, especially given the Lord's charge in Mt. 18:6 as I cited. The Catholic system harbors these pedophiles, even moving them to other dioceses when they are stigmatized. It is a deprave, wicked system, and may the Lord God open your eyes to it since you are apparently oblivious of it, or permissible somehow.
Your principle of you rely on tradition is unsound. Tradition absolutely does not NO EQUAL footing with the Bible. Nor does papal teaching. Check the leftist dogma of the current Pope which flies in the face of the Bible. For one, he heavily advocates like a good leftist for 'protecting climate change'. That contradicts God's pretty take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward the Earth: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." (2 Pet. 3:10). Who should I follow, God who does not care to preserve the Earth since He will burn it up, or the Pope who so strongly advocates for global conservation? Global conservation is another tool for communism.
Transgenderism is a social engineering bunch of garbage and perversion. No one has the right to mutilate themselves: Lev. 19:28 give some principles for that, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD." Also, Lev. 21:5 (et al.), "They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh." There are no such thing as 'trans rights.'
The Bible is absolutely pro-life. It should be evident that God counts the life of the unborn as much as a life of those that are born. Exo. 21:22-23, "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life," The "so that her fruit depart from her" is premature live birth. Otherwise, that is saying that the man that harms the pregnant woman and if the unborn baby dies, that man would get the death penalty. That shows God is absolutely pro-life for the unborn, counting them as having the same value as those that are born.
Yeh... Transgenderism is nothing but garbage and hi-jacked sciences made into some weird shit.
As for the year 606, that is when Emperor Phocas by his authority declared and established the Roman Bishop Boniface III as the 'general head and supreme ruler of the whole church.' He had a beef with the Greek arm and turned on them in preference of Rome. Up to that point all they had at Rome were bishops or overseers for the first three centuries, and then after Constantine to 606 only archbishops and patriarchs.
Yup, and the "i was born this way" and "10 percent" garbage being rammed down our throats by the left is cringeworthy. Transgenderism (including the lgbtq+) is an inclination, just like alcoholics and chocoholics. Why should an inclination get more rights above what we normies get. Everyone gets the same rights to get screwed over fair and square. Lol
Celibacy is an issue for it puts that particular person in an unsafe position. The Lord God created mankind with natural urges to have a mate and for procreation. That goes before the fall into sin of Adam and Eve. If a person can withhold themselves from those desires and concentrate on the Lord, great, and that is entirely commendable. But, it is exceptionally rare!! And, worse, it ought not be required by clergy when God requires completely otherwise. Having these natural desires puts a man who ought be concentrated on the Lord under undue stress if he can't satisfy them. That's why Paul said 1 Cor. 7:9, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Marriage is intended to be a safeguard from God from falling into sexual perversion. Thus, celibacy leads to fornication--many popes were fathered by other popes--or sodomy, or pedophilia. So, many problems come from it.
It is a cunning invention of the Devil to keep Catholic clergy bound to the Catholic system, and be basically like slaves to it.
@DannyNC1 what I meant with Wikipedia is that I wouldn't cite it as a main or first source, simply because it can be changed. It's good for getting information about something to start out with, but not to use as definitive fact. The church would "harbor" pedophiles in the sense that there are pedophilic clergymen unbeknownst to higher powers. I am not permissive in any way. As to tradition, it almost has equal footing with the bible. The church wrote the bible, the bible didn't write the church. The Bible is all that we need, but that requires interpretation. That's where Papal teaching comes in. Protecting climate change, which I don't believe to be a big problem. Is still not "leftist". He's simply saying we should defend God's creation.
I was defending transgenderism or saying that trans rights is a thing, it is garbage. I wouldn't say that the passage you quoted means the Bible is pro-life, I would say it means that forced premature birth is wrong.
Ah, so in 606 the Emperor established the Pope. However, the church rejects the secular appointment and invest of power in the church. Before that, the first Pope was Peter and we can trace back all the popes since him.
Priests should be withholding themselves from desires and concentrate on the Lord, no matter how difficult it is. It doesn't matter how rare it is, it's the right thing to do. We can't blame the just laws of the system for the wrongdoings of the people who chose to do them.
Lol, did someone say catholics aren't christians? What does that make us. We got the bible from the catholics, it was them getting thrown to the lions for defending the faith so we can bitch about it in 2020. They brought us what we have today. We showed up fifteen hundred years later.
> Lol, did someone say catholics aren't christians? What does that make us. We got the bible from the catholics, it was them getting thrown to the lions for defending the faith so we can bitch about it in 2020. They brought us what we have today. We showed up fifteen hundred years later.
Thank you!
Jesus didn't leave us a king james bible. Them catholics had to compile it for us.
Woah, what's happening here....
@MKSmash I have other things to do than to keep up with this long drawn out conversation. Catholicism CANNOT and DOES NOT go back to the Apostle Peter. It is a fabrication of many, though early, writers to allege Peter was in Rome. Even if he was in Rome, the church at Rome was not founded by him (it existed before Paul wrote the book of Romans, and Peter was in other places at the time, like Jerusalem, Caesarea, Samaria, and Babylon). You are not reading Matt. 16:18 very well which is NOT promising the Apostle Peter the authority of the Church to be vested in him. If so, why did Paul say otherwise in Eph. 2:20, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"? Paul was saying it is built on all the apostles and prophets, not on one sole apostle, i.e. Peter. Peter was no higher in authority over any other apostles. Paul even rebuked him in Gal. 2:11, withstanding him. If Peter was higher than Paul, why is there no rebuke from Peter to Paul? Instead, Peter commended Paul (2 Pet. 3:15).
Also, you still don't acknowledge that the requirement of celibacy is not in the Bible, but something extrabiblical--I provided you where they got it, from paganism. Thus, it is antithetical to Christian ministry, especially when there are different provisions and commands in the Bible. Traditions and papal teaching are unsound, and especially not on equal footing with the Bible, the word of God.
You say they were required to become celibate. Can you cite where you got this information from?
@qwerty_😎 @MKSmash Catholics did not give us the Bible. Please do your research. For one, Catholicism is not the church that is the same one found in the 1st century New Testament kind. It has morphed into something else entirely. It can only really be traced back basically to when Constantine approved it, i.e. the 300s, which is what I would call proto-Catholicism since it changed still further. Though there was a church in Rome from the first century, they corrupted over time, and they were a shell of what they should have been Biblically from the beginning of Christianity. They got the sponsorship of Constantine and then touted themselves as 'the real Church,' and their tired claim of going back to Peter is wrong as well as unproveable. I find the history of Catholicism dark and repugnant. They still have to answer for the murders of 50 million people during the Dark Ages they branded as heretics, something they recently have glossed over as 'not that bad.' Sickening!
@MKSmash I already did--although that was for clerics specifically, the 2nd Lateran Council of 1139. There were various leaders that advocated it, even as early as the 4th century, but that's not early enough since it does not come from the Bible. They were only mimicking paganism.
You ought to go read this article for more: https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/former-pope-benedict-writes-paper-blaming-sex-abuse-scandals-on-1960s-but-records-show-catholic-church-was-rotten-from-beginning/