markomalley

Actually, JJ, the best way is for certain males to keep certain parts of the male anatomy out of certain parts of other males' anatomy. That would eliminate about 95% of the cases of it. Then, if males would only place certain parts of the male anatomy in certain parts of only one female's anatomy and if females would allow only one male to place that part of the anatomy in their anatomy, that would eliminate about 99% of the remaining 5%. Then we only have those who pick it up from toilet seats. :asdf:

mstar, One thing I'll say, though, is 'tho I doubt that I'd ever convert to Orthodox Christianity, because of the issue of schism, I have learned a lot about the spirituality of Eastern Catholicism as a result (as both the Orthodox and the eastern Catholics of different rites share a lot of elements of the same spirituality). And there is a tremendous amount to learn from both. I am a bit constrained right now, as my daughter attends the parish school (and thus I am required to be an active parishoner to maintain the 'in parish' tuition rate), so I can only occasionally go to an Eastern Catholic liturgy, after she graduates, there is a distinct possibility that I may make my search significantly more serious. I don't know that I will ever actually switch rites, but it is something that is a possibility. (For those who may not be aware, the Latin (Roman) Church is only one of several distinct "Particular Churches" that form the Catholic (Universal) Church. It is, by far, the largest, but the others are there and are in full communion with the Holy Father and with each other. An interesting article in Crisis Magazine gives a thumbnail overview of these churches for those who might be curious) The point being that, although it would be doubtful that I would ever 'convert' to Celtic Christiantiy, there might be something to learn from their spirituality. So I'll keep my eyes open when I go to the bookstore...might see something interesting to read. Thanks, again.

In the Catholic Church, there are three types (or classes) or relics. I believe these classifications apply in the Orthodox churches, as well -- I know they venerate relics, as well, just not sure on the administrivia of it for them: First Class: a part of the body of a saint or an instrument of Christ's crucifixion Second Class: something touched or used by a saint Third Class: an object that has come in contact with a first class relic Let me give you the scriptural basis for this: Act 5:15-16 so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed. We can see here that even Peter passing by healed people. Act 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. Of course, we all know about the woman with the issue of blood touching the hem of the Lord's clothing. 2Ki 13:20-21 So Eli'sha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Eli'sha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Eli'sha, he revived, and stood on his feet. So we can see that God was able to use even the bones of Eli'sha to work a miracle...no prayer involved, just the contact with the bones. Jos 24:32 The bones of Joseph which the people of Israel brought up from Egypt were buried at Shechem, in the portion of ground which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money; it became an inheritance of the descendants of Joseph. That seems to be an extraordinary amount of veneration for the relics of a dead person. Then we have inantimate objects. Think about what God ordered Israel to place inside the tabernacle. I know that there is symbology involved there, but the fact is that the manna, Aaron's rod, and the ten commandments were physical objects. 2Ki 2:12-14 And Eli'sha saw it and he cried, "My father, my father! the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!" And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two pieces. And he took up the mantle of Eli'jah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. Then he took the mantle of Eli'jah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, "Where is the LORD, the God of Eli'jah?" And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Eli'sha went over. Eli'sha obviously saw some significance in putting on Elijah's mantle. Using the mantle to strike the water...what's with that? And so on. God often uses things to manifest his power (clothes, bones, mantle, water, oil, Aaron's rod, etc.) So that is the scriptural background on relics. There, honestly, isn't a proof-text that I can cite. The use of things is a practice that has come down to us from Judaism and was shown as well in Acts and was practiced by Christians since the beginning. Unfortunately, like with many things in our beliefs, relics can be used and abused horribly. One thing that I find personally offensive is when I see relics being bought and sold (a rather common practice on ebay). That is the sin of Simony. Another thing is when the relic is invested with voodoo-like power in the mind of somebody. That smacks of idolatry. But there is a scriptural basis for the veneration of relics as a rememberence of the person. And there is a scriptural basis for God using physical things, including relics, for working His power. BTW, I think the issue with God getting pi$$ed at Israel worshiping THINGS but not having a problem with the tabernacle (or otherwise as I've pointed out above) can be illustrated by this modern example. You know that in any Catholic Church there is a crucifix and there are usually statues. We venerate the crucifix. But we don't think that the corpus on the crucifix IS Christ, rather it represents Christ crucified, whom we worship and adore. We venerate the statuary, not that the statuary IS the saint, but that it is a representation of the saint... When God showed His wrath, Israel was WORSHIPPING the Golden Calf...like the Golden Calf was something special and worthy of worship itself. I think that's the difference. Hope the above helps.

Satori, Your comments are in italics. I've never heard of Jack Chick either. Not surprised by that. But the philosophy espoused by Jack Chick resounds through any post you touch that deals with Catholicism. Is that how you deal with it O'Malley? The truth, I mean. When you don't like it. Put the label on it. The label as prophylactic, preventing your mind from conceiving its fertile message, and bearing fruit? Hey, in that context it might be a sin. Better add it to this Sunday's mea culpas and see. I call it the way I see it. When I see black helicopters flying around, whether they be the black helicopters put up by the fertile imaginations of the militia movement that espoused Timothy McVeigh, the black helicopters put up by the anti-Bush crowd, the black helicopters put up by the anti-Freemason crowd, the black helicopters put up by the anti-Catholic crowd, they are still black helicopters...and they exist in the mind of the person spewing the garbage. What did we say in TWI? The memory fades... Something about the Adversary maybe. Or about "world wisdom" which we knew wasn't spiritual, but merely "sense knowledge." The speaker was "tripped out," or "from the pit." See above. The end result was the same - shutting down the dialogue, hanging the "out to lunch" sign in the window until the other person shrugged and went away. That's what cults do. You may have thick skin, but what about your skull? Even moreso, that needs to be exceedingly thick, if it is to block out every self-evident refutation of the world's biggest cult. And so it is. You even brag about it, and rightfully so. Now is that your objection? That Catholicism is religion and you oppose religion (particularly Catholicism)? Or do you oppose Catholicism specifically and have no problems with other religions? Because if you oppose religion in general and Catholicism in particular (as the epitome of religion), then I respectfully withdraw the above comments and officially apologize. (A characteristic of Jack Chick "Christianity" is that Christianity Good...Catholicism Bad...) However, pending hearing a response from you on that, I will continue, conditionally, as if your vitriol is aimed specifically at the Catholic Church and is not simply using the Catholic Church as the personification of religion in general... There is nothing over-the-top "Jack Chick-ish" about pointing to the obvious. Even the RC church has been debating whether condoms prevent AIDS transmission, although to be deliberating over the obvious in 2006 shows their contempt for human life persists unabated. And why should the church care about those lives? They're only an amalgam of molecules, pushed together like HTML code on the internet. Transigent. Temporary. Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. Although - according to the Post article, they may even be coming around on the AIDS thing, some day. But, as they occasionally do, the Post got it wrong. Please note this Zenit article, posted a few days after the Italian Paper La Rebubblica published the original interview which caused the media whirlwind. On June 6th, the Vatican issued a re-iteration of its long-held stance on such subjects as birth control, condom use, in vitro fertilization, etc. Problem is, Satori, that there is one way to prevent the transmission of AIDS. And you as well as I know exactly what that one way is. As to contempt for human life, that comment is beneath comment so you'll pardon me if I just don't sink to your level and address it. As for contraception-ban-engendered starvation, why would you compel impoverished people to bring children they can't hope to feed into the world? What demented soul conceived of that doctrine? Teaches that doctrine? Enforces that doctrine? Defends that doctrine? Real sickos, that's who. They know what they're doing. You wiil, of course, acknowledge that all of Christianity prohibited contraception before the Anglicans changed their minds at the Lambeth conference of 1930 (Resolution 15). Population control is a good thing. The muzzies over in Europe like population control, since Europe will be a Muslim-majority continent within 50 years or so, since the stupid Christian Europeans are contracepting themselves into extinction. In fact France is paying women a bonus of $1,200 to have a baby. And Russia is paying women $9,500 if they have a second child. You will, of course, be able to show me a time when there wasn't starving children in Africa and in South Asia? And, of course, you will explain how many majority-Catholic countries there are in Africa and South Asia that have those emergency starvation issues because of overpopulation? (Hint: most are muzzie). And, of course, you will explain how the Vatican (that does not have a vote at the UN) has been able to block the efforts of UNICEF and other UN agencies...that all have very vigorous programs for population control. You will explain how this position impacts ANYTHING whatsoever? We wonder about Vatican opulence, in direct contradiction to everything Christ seemed to stand for, or its army of black-frocked bachelors and burqa-draped bachelorettes over-seeing the spiritual lives of families and children. (Which among today's priesthood would Jesus have chosen as disciples? If any, not many.) You know, I heard an interview about that very subject many months ago. And, frankly, there is, periodically, a lot of dicsussion of that within certain circles of the Church, as well as you pointing your finger at the Church. Before I address that, though, I'd like to take you to Northeast DC, to the Basillica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. An absolutely BEAUTIFUL building. If you go to DC, I encourage you to visit it sometime. (Click on the link to see a virtual tour of the building). Do you know how it was funded? From donations (including some from me). Now there are literally millions of dollars of treasure in that building, alone. The Church could sell the building and do a fire sale on all the contents of the building to feed the poor of DC. But I didn't donate the money I donated to them for them to sell the building to feed the poor. I would feel quite betrayed if they did so. I DO donate a lot of money and donate a lot of time to care for the poor. And I would be quite upset to find that the money I donated to the poor was used to build a church. In my parish, we have beautiful things, as well (nothing like what's at the Shrine). All of them provided by donation. Should they be sold off? What about the wishes of the donors who gave the money to get those beautiful things? Now, the Vatican. I am confident that there are literally BILLIONS of dollars of treasure in the Vatican. They COULD sell it off. And they could give ALL of the money to Caritas for distribution to the poor in Africa. They really and truly could. Would that solve world hunger? What long term good is it? The British could sell off all of their treasure in the British Museum and use the money for social programs. That would likely help people for a short time and then they'd be in the same straits they were in to begin with. The Turks could do so with their Ottoman museum, the Egyptians with their museum, the Russians with their museums, and the Americans with their museums. Would wealth be redistributed? Yes (never knew you to be a socialist Satori). But would it solve world hunger? Yeah, right. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the treasure was always righteously acquired. St. Peter's Basillica was funded in large part through the sale of indulgences, a practice that was a grievous sin. And one that was condemned by the Council of Trent (and never repeated). Does that mean the St. Peter's Basillica should be ripped down? Should it be sold and reparations paid to those whose money was taken? How do you propose to do that? (Of course, that same logic, applied to the United States, says that we should return all of the land taken from the Aboriginal tribes in this country should be returned to them, as well) The RC church long ago became a carnival, a monstrous parody of the body of Christ. And you as a Christian can see no alternative? Your opinion. One which, at least the "evidence" you've supplied above, is clearly not supported by fact. As I said before, the reason I am Catholic is doctrinal. There is plenty wrong with the Catholic Church. But your Jack Chick responses haven't even hit one point of what's really wrong with it. (I'll give you a hint: it's called heterodoxy) Repeat after me, Mark, and this post will go away: "Jack Chick, Jack Chick, Jack Chick, Jack Chick..." OK. Jack Chick Jack Chick Jack Chick Nope, your post is still here. Along with your black-helicopter, Council on Foreign Relations, Mind-Control chip implanted in the head of special operations soldiers, Bush blew up the WTC, illuminadi impregnated conspiracy theories. In other words, Jack Chick Christianity. Do it enough and you'll never have to think about jack sh... From you, of all people Satori, I am shocked that you have consistently displayed this tiny-minded attitude. From your earlier posts in 'tacks, I have always given you far more credit for having a sharp mind and a keen intellect. You usually have displayed a great ability for critical thought. I have no earthly idea why you have this chink in your intellectual armor. I am NOT trying to convert you nor am I trying to convert anybody else. And if you choose to disagree with the doctrines of the Church, that's your business. Again, I really don't care one way or the other. But the stuff you come out with is straight from the Alberto Rivera series of comics produced by Jack Chick. Seriously, it is. And the reason why I'm shocked that YOU, of all people, spew this stuff is that it is usually spewed by fundamentalist types who have turned off their brains and believe such hogwash like the King James Version of the Bible was the original that was delivered to the Apostles...along with the red lettering. And so on.. But I guess everybody's got their foibles. Yup. Straight from a Jack Chick comic book found in a men's room of a greasy spoon.

Well, in order to intelligently answer you, I had to do some research, as I really wasn't familiar with Celtic Christianity. They make some interesting claims in all honesty. Some that I hadn't heard of before. The most interesting site was this one: http://www.the-celtic-church-in-scotland.org/ If the claims pan out, then it would establish their origins from the apostolic period. Unfortunately, their history page cites a lot of names but do not provide a lot of other data to check the source. For example, the history page says: Tertullian (A.D. 155 – 222) of the Church in North Africa wrote as follows: “the extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms, have received the religion of Christ.” It doesn't say in which of Tertullian's writings this statement appears. Tertullian was a fairly prolific writer. And an automated search of key words in this phrase against the databases at both ccel.org and newadvent.org don't show it. It also says, Eusebius, the Church Historian (A.D. 260 – 340) wrote, “The Apostles passed beyond the ocean to the Isles called the Britannic Isles.” But when I look at Eusebius' Church History, the only use of the word "isle" is: 6. "Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and treasured up in memory. For when, after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit. - Book III 11. But neither in the reputed second or third epistle of John, though they are very short, does the name John appear; but there is written the anonymous phrase, 'the elder.' But this author did not consider it sufficient to give his name once and to proceed with his work; but he takes it up again: 'I, John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and in the patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.' And toward the close he speaks thus: 'Blessed is he that keeps the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things. - Book VII This same site says that they participated in the early councils of the Church. In fact, they say, And at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. the Celtic Church was again well represented, whereas the Roman church did not have a single bishop in attendance. Again, this data is contradicted: Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope. (All of the above would be considered "Roman" bishops (with the exception of the two priests representing the pope). If they participated in the councils, then they obviously were aware of the rest of the Christian Church and participated and were subject to its development. You can see from the quote, above, that they claim to have been there (although I see no independent verification of that). In fact, all the websites of that group that I've seen have the Nicene Creed. Their claims to pre-date Augustine's mission to Britain are undoubtedly valid. However, it should be pointed out that St. Columba, whom they venerate, was raised in the Irish Church, founded by St Patrick. St. Columba was known for spreading Christianity to Scotland...not St. Augustine. In fact, there is a legend that King Lucius petitioned Pope Eleutherus to be baptized. (According to Wikipedia, Unfortunately, Lucius is a non-existent King of Britain invented through confusion. The Catalogus Felicianus mentions the famous letter from 'Lucio Britannio rege' to Pope Eleutherius. This letter was in reality from the historical Lucius Aelius Septimius Megas Abgarus IX, King of Britium in Edessa.) Their claims that the person who brought Christianity to the British Isles was Joseph of Arimathea is interesting. There are legends of this -- and I have no way to verify them. There is, likewise, a legend that St. Paul ordained Aristobulus to go pave a way to preach the Gospel in the British Isles. But once again there is no documentation. Just legend. But if you think about it, Gloucester comes from the area that spun the tale of King Arthur and the Round Table. Here is an interesting link on this: http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/avalon-history.html Bottom line is that I think claims that they are a pre-Nicene church is contradicted by their own history page. There is, in fact, a Celtic Rite, and there's nothing to say they don't worship in that rite. Any claims of apostolicity are HIGHLY suspect (they might, in fact, have some claim on apostolicity through St. Columba...so I don't discount it entirely). Their claims of independence from Rome are undoubtedly true (but the Celtic Church was reconciled to Rome in 644 AD at Whitby Abbey). What it sounds to me is like it's a group like the Old Catholics, but considerably smaller in size. But, mstar, I appreciate the challenge. Rather than spending an evening bickering back and forth with people, I had to actually exercise my brain tonight. That was a lot of fun. I had never heard of the Celtic Church prior to tonight. It was a lot of fun looking into it! Thanks! Frankly, if the clergy in question is not Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, or Armenian then it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other. The response was made in response to her attack. I learned how Google does its associations and its web links. Everybody should know after the political tactic of "google-bombing" was developed. I don't see it because I don't allow the blasted things on my computer.

It is evil, and believe me with three aunts that were sisters of charity and years of teaching I think I've seen plenty. They have ruined many lives, they are oppressive to their people, don't even get me started with how they treat the nuns, who in turn treat people the same. And priests how many thousands have been destroyed by them. These are not opinions they are facts. That is the Catholic Religions legacy. And I wonder how you could attend a mass and profess belief in one holy catholic church knowing that they lied to you about the trinity. It seems hypocritical to me to stand and publicly profess belief and support of a doctrine that you privately think is a bunch of lies. A pro Catholic post is often met with the same resistance . I have had 12 years of Catholic education, also all of my 3 aunts were Sisters of Charity I am full aware of the meanings behind their rituals. That is exactly why I have nothing to do with their church. Rosaries,indulgences and holy cards and scapulars and a line of crazy Popes who did things that are so atrocious that they should invent a new class of sin just for them. Not to mention that none of it has any Biblical basis. Catholic Church History speaks for itself, and it ain't pretty. These sicko's make the Way look like the Micky Mouse Club.... Nope, I have no reason to lump you in that group...no reason at all. My apologies...

Linda, There is one other thing that I don't believe I made clear above. I do not support the Catholic hierarchy. I am actually of the belief that over half the bishops in this country are completely apostate. I believe that the majority of parishes in this country teach and practice grave error. I think that the majority of Catholics have been taught heresy from their youth. So why in the world am I a Catholic? Because I have no alternative. I was raised in an essentially agnostic household growing up and so was never really catechized like many ex-Catholics were. As a teen in high school, I started going to Mass from time to time. I explored around a lot of Prostant churches up through the time of my early 20s. I then fell into TWI while I was stationed in Germany. I left a few years later...not because I doctrinally had significant issues with them, but becase of how absolutely wierd it was starting to get in 1989. I tried a couple of offshoots but they were just plain strange. I tried a few Protestant churches again in the mid 90s, but the stupid little TWI JCNG practice caused me to get really agitated whenever I was in one of their church services. I then recognized that I needed to break out the books and study the subject myself, because I realized that I could never feel at home in a church as long as I held to TWI doctrine. So I needed to decide if the TWI beliefs were correct or not. And so I studied. And I came to find out that TWI was wrong; the fundamental Nicene Christian beliefs are fully defensible in scripture. But as I was doing these studies, I also found that the Catholic doctrines were also defensible in scripture. What shocked me was when I found there was a scriptural basis for the Catholic devotion to relics! And so the more I studied, the more I realized that I had no alternative but to go back to the Catholic Church. I share this, not because I want to get into a doctrinal dicussion (I'll be happy to do so in the appropriate forum, as I said before), but because I want you to understand that the reason why I, personally, am a Catholic is not because I support the hierarchy, because I don't. But I see no alternative. If schism was not scripturally wrong, I would seriously consider joining an Orthodox church (because doctrinally they hold to all of the critical beliefs), but to do so is an offense against the unity of the body of Christ. But it's not that I support the hierarchy or any of their abuses. Not hardly.

The quote in context (within a response to Satori) was: Oh Satori, I don't know about anybody else, but I was absolutely confident that several people would step in and positively go "Jack Chick" on me. And, you know what? That's OK. If I was worried about it, I wouldn't have posted it. In fact, if I was worried about it, I would have kept my religious beliefs to myself and never made them public on this board. But you know what? Your opinion of my beliefs are totally irrelevant. Excathedra's opinion of my religious beliefs are totally irrelevant. White Dove's opinions of my religious beliefs are totally irrelevant. If you were a real person they would still be irrelevant, but they are all the more so irrelevant since you are nothing more than a bunch of HTML code pushed from a server to my client. And I am nothing more than a bunch of HTML pushed in your direction. But go ahead and say what you're going to say. You might hurt the feelings of some closet Catholics (who you all have intimidated into keeping their beliefs private), but you certainly are not capable of hurting me by what you say...no matter what it is. Although it violates board rules, if you want to make it personal even, feel free. I've got pretty thick skin. (I won't report you to the mods...can't speak for anybody else) Since you quoted them (without the hyperlink to the original post on the first page so that a person could check the content), I thought it appropriate to put the quote in context. Otherwise, I think I've said all I need to say in earlier posts. God Bless!

Editorial comment: When people decide to write within the quotes, it makes it very difficult to carry on an extended conversation, as the software doesn't support automatically bringing in quote within quote. So this will not be as easy as it should be, for mechanical reasons: You said: Sorry, but you asked, and here's my answer: None. But boring and unfulfilling as it was, the UCC never tried to control my choice to use birth control or the foods I ate on which days, and the UCC didn't have an "infallible" Pope at its head. I have much less reason for anger, it would seem. Also, the UCC didn't forbid its ministers to marry, contrary to what the Bible instructs. It also apparently didn't attract so many pedophiles and (worse) cover up for them after they'd been caught. First, the topic is not specific arguments with the Catholic Church. Second, you do realize that the Catholic Church is hardly the only church that does not allow ordained clergy to marry. In fact, I challenge you to show me a scripture that says that where a member of clergy IS ALLOWED to marry. (Yes, I know there are sections of scripture that talk about bishops and deacons being married to one wife, etc., but that is talking about their state prior to their ordination. Where does it say that a member of the clergy, once he has been ordained, is allowed to take a wife???). Oh, and, by the way, you are, of course, aware, that there are many married Catholic priests. And that ALL Permanent Deacons in the Catholic Church are married or widowers? Third, the UCC allows female clergy, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps, since you are citing the Bible as your authority, you'd care to cite where this is permitted (I won't bother looking up the citation where St. Paul forbids women speaking in the church, we all know that one) (By the way, how does that 2X4 feel stuck in your eye?) Fourth, as I've said before, I ain't defending the Catholic Church on the pedophile issue. The leadership, particularly in this country, messed up bad. You can look up my comments on any of the pedophile priest threads in the past to see what I've said before on it. Fifth, Papal Infallibility is one of the most misunderstood concepts out there, both within and outside of the Church. It would take a thread on its own to discuss it. If you or anybody else want to do so, please start the appropriate thread in the Doctrinal basement and I'll be happy to explain/defend/argue it. And, no I didn't ask. For the record. One person's defame is another person's expose. Hmmmm, does this remind you of anything? A twi innie would consider much of the content of GS defamation, while the majority here consider it exposing twi. Good point. And if this was an ex-Catholic board, vice an ex-TWI board, that would be entirely appropriate. And if somebody started a general discussion thread about pedophile priests or some other such scandal, that would be appropriate. And if somebody started a doctrinal discussion thread about some doctrine believed by Catholics (whether it was in the form of a Catholic sharing a belief or a non-Catholic trying to debunk a belief), it would be appropriate. But, it seems that there are a couple of posters here who feel morally compelled to make nasty, snide comments whenever something non-negative is said about the Catholic Church or some leader in that Church. For example, if somebody mentioned that JPII was against the Iraq war, one of those posters would feel compelled to make some comment (something like, I guess he took a break from p**king young choir boys). The most inappropriate ones I saw was on a memorial thread to JPII. Again, if this was an ex-Catholic board, that would be one thing. But it's not. If that kind of thing is what you call "expose" -- so be it. It's what I call "defame" -- and I'll stick with my wording, thank you very much. Hey, it's Pawtucket's board and his rules. If I'm here, I implicitly agree to those rules. Then you said: And just so I'm perfectly clear, I have nothing whatsoever against individual Roman Catholics and respect their right to worship as they choose. Just like I have nothing against individuals who still feel twi is the place for them. It's the heirarchy I disdain, in both organizations, not the individual members. All well and good. And I have never noticed you being one of the ones about whom I'm speaking, so don't get me wrong. And I don't want to pick a fight with you, because I don't think that you and I have one.

Think about how much hurt has been expressed in so many threads on this board. If people didn't believe, they couldn't have gotten so mentally and emotionally invested. And had people not been so mentally and emotionally invested, they wouldn't have been so hurt when they were let down. So while I don't doubt that a sizable percentage of people didn't believe, I doubt that many members of that sizable percentage have even ever heard of the Greasespot, much less are those who would post here.

T-Bone, you are obviously a Dilbert fan!!!

But, Linda, think about it... ...how many ex-UCC'ers do you hear making impassioned remarks about the evilness of the UCC? ...how many ex-UMC'ers do you hear making impassioned remarks about the evilness of the UMC? ...how many ex-anything but Catholic do you hear making impassioned remarks about the evilness of their former church? And, as I said in the beginning of the thread, If you don't care whether or not the Church considers you to be a Catholic or not, you can stop reading and go onto the next thread. If you don't like the fact that the Church still considers you to be a Catholic, then I can give you an overview on how to fix it. I realize that 95% of people who go elsewhere or just don't go anymore really couldn't care less. And most of those people...the vast majority, in fact, don't ever say anything one way or the other. If asked, they might say, "Yeah, I used to be Catholic, but it was boring. Yeah I used to be Catholic, but I thought their belief on ___(fill in the blank)___ was crazy. Yeah, I used to be Catholic, but..." and that's about it. But there are a small minority of people in the world, including some who post here, who are lapsed Catholics (they don't practice anymore but are still "on the books," as it were) who take every opportunity possible to defame the Catholic Church. They take every opportunity possible to announce to the board, here, that they are ex Catholics and that, based on their experience, they personally know how eeevvviiilll the Catholic Church is. I thought that those people, a very small percentage of ex Catholics, would get some personal satisfaction at being able to tell the Catholic Church to stick their beliefs up their a$$es. In other words, to make official what they so vociferously proclaim in an unofficial manner at every possible opportunity. I thought that might give them some satisfaction. But, of course, it takes no courage whatsoever to proclaim the evilness of the Catholic Church on an anonymous message board, particularly one that is made up of people who were once in a religious movement that advanced that type of belief. It would take a little courage to do so in person. So I guess I can understand why nobody would want to do so. But, since this is in the "open" forum, accessible by anybody, maybe somebody will read this and do it without announcing having done so. If it helps their psyche, I hope it helps. (BTW, for the record, I did send TWI a letter years ago renouncing any association with them and asking them to please stop sending any more mailings to me...in case anybody is wondering) Having said that, I can understand why it wouldn't matter (or even make sense) to you one way or the other.

No problem... My only thought in starting this thread was that there are a few people who are so disgusted with the Catholic Church that it would psychologically concern them that the Catholic Church still considered them Catholic. I was attempting to provide them a mechanism by which they could formally separate themselves from the Church. Somebody wants to do so, great. Somebody doesn't want to do so, that's fine too. When it starts descending into that eviiiiiiillllll global Catholic Cabal (where the Catholics, Freemasons, and Communists are working together to take over the world), I have to start laughing and point it out. And with your comments and Satori's comments, it looked like the thread was going in that direction. But, darn it, some of those Jack Chick cartoons are FUNNY! Thanks for the backup, Abi. And, as I said to Satori, I know full well what will happen if I post anything non-negative about the Catholic Church on GSC...there will be trolls coming out from all the woodwork. That's fine. If I couldn't handle it then none of you would ever know that I was Catholic.

Excath, I was going to let it drop, but you really don't want me to, do you? You know, as well as I do, that this is a part of the Rite of Baptism. "Celebrant: You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith...Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking? Parents: We do." And then later in the rite you are asked to do the threefold profession of your faith: 95, Next the celebrant asks for the threefold profession of faith from the parents and godparents: Celebrant: Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth? Parents and godparents: I do. Celebrant: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father? Parents and godparents: I do. Celebrant: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting? Parents and godparents: I do. 96. The celebrant and the congregation give their assent to this profession of faith: Celebrant: This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church. We are proud to profess it, in Christ Jesus our Lord. All: Amen. Like I said, excath, I don't want to go there, but... Now I don't know WashingtonWeather's background and I sure know that there are a lot of people who have never seen a Catholic baptism (outisde of the Godfather) and might not know that. And, trust me, I know full well the influence of parents on children. No, don't trust me, I'll give you an example: At the wake of my dear, departed first wife, I saw something I thought I'd never see: the sight of two Way Corps grads praying a rosary before my late wife's body. Yup, her two sisters (both Corps) were kneeling there and counting beads. Reverently, too, by the way. Conservatively dressed and very pretty. If I could have gotten a picture for it, I could have used it for a full color trifold brochure of the Sodality! My reaction at the time was outrage (I was still in TWI at the time). But, out of respect for the family, I didn't make a big deal one way or the other of it in person...but it shocked me. (See, I, as the husband, made the decision that the father, a staunch daily Mass, family rosary every night, kind of guy, could direct whatever he wanted on this matter...as an RC, the arrangements mattered a lot to him. But as a good little TWIer, it meant nothing to me one way or the other) I am certain that her sisters were probably just respecting their father's wishes, but they sure looked pious when kneeling there saying their Hail Mary's. Using that example (as well as others I've seen in my life...none quite so dramatic), I can full well understand the kind of pressure your parents must have put on you to have your child baptized as a Catholic. I hope, for your sake, that they didn't force him to go to CCD, take his first communion, and, isn't he getting to be of the age to be confirmed now? If they are forcing that upon him against your will, I really do feel sorry for you as it must be difficult on you. My intent in posting what I initially did toward you was, in understand what, as I quoted above, is in the rite and knowing your deep feelings of animosity toward the Catholic Church, it must have been very, very difficult not to scream, "H3LL NO I WON'T RAISE MY KID IN THIS DISGUSTING RELIGION." "H3LL NO I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!" and, rather, meekly say "I DO" to all the questions. I'm sort of a smart a$$, so I said it in a smart a$$ fashion, but that's life. I hope you now understand why I said what I said. If not, oh well...I guess I'm just an a$$hole.

And I'm sure they have every confession I've ever made transcribed and stored, fully indexed, of course, in their master computer below the Vatican. This is getting funny. I may have to start breaking out some of my old classic Jack Chick cartoons next! Let's see...should we bring out the one where the RC's are responsible for Hitler and Communism or should we bring out the one where the RC's are responsible for Islam or should we bring out the one where the RC's have the carcasses of aborted fetuses in a secret tunnel that goes between a monastery and a convent. Which one first????? Hmmmmm... I love RC conspiracy threads. They are almost as much fun as the black helicopter Bush is the devil conspiracy threads!!! Goodie!!!

Oh Satori, I don't know about anybody else, but I was absolutely confident that several people would step in and positively go "Jack Chick" on me. And, you know what? That's OK. If I was worried about it, I wouldn't have posted it. In fact, if I was worried about it, I would have kept my religious beliefs to myself and never made them public on this board. But you know what? Your opinion of my beliefs are totally irrelevant. Excathedra's opinion of my religious beliefs are totally irrelevant. White Dove's opinions of my religious beliefs are totally irrelevant. If you were a real person they would still be irrelevant, but they are all the more so irrelevant since you are nothing more than a bunch of HTML code pushed from a server to my client. And I am nothing more than a bunch of HTML pushed in your direction. But go ahead and say what you're going to say. You might hurt the feelings of some closet Catholics (who you all have intimidated into keeping their beliefs private), but you certainly are not capable of hurting me by what you say...no matter what it is. Although it violates board rules, if you want to make it personal even, feel free. I've got pretty thick skin. (I won't report you to the mods...can't speak for anybody else)

For being such a so called religious follower - you sure are not very nice and don't exhibit anything I ever knew as Christ like. As excathedra very politely made a request of me, I will not continue along these lines in public. Although I will make one statement which might help clear up matters... ... in a traditional Catholic infant baptism, the parents (or Catholic parent in a mixed marriage) must promise to raise the child as a Catholic. As for your opinion of me, well, you know exactly what you can do with that, now don't you?

Gee...why in the world did you bother??? (go to a pre-baptism meeting for your baby, that is) I hope you didn't suffer permanent damage when you choked on the words when you had to promise to raise your child in the Catholic faith!

Sushi, Those aren't about Michigan, they're about Minnesnota. Yeah, he got a couple of places wrong. The coldest place is International Falls. Everybody KNOWS down south is Iowa. And he forgot the Lutefisk jokes ... but otherwise ...

I knew that was coming from you Satori...

I don't know if 'lapsed' is an official term or not. But it's something I've seen/heard used for a long time in regards to people who have been away from the sacraments for years...like those who regularly attend a Protestant group or those who just don't go to church anymore. The belief has always been that once you're a Catholic you're always a Catholic....even if you are excommunicated. When you are baptized, your name is recorded in a baptismal registry and from that point forward.... 'Retribution' room?? Maybe 'Reconcilliation' room...the Sacrament of Confession is also known (nowadays) as the Sacrament of Reconcilliation and most modern churches have spot where you can go in and do it face to face versus the old fashioned way. (Me I prefer the old fashioned confessional) As far as the K of C, I used to be pretty active, but don't have time anymore to go to the meetings. I still do some of the fundraisers and work with them on the charitable acts (distribution of food, etc.), but don't have time for the meetings. But the way it works is councils are the local level, then districts, then states, then the 'supreme' council. The fourth degree is organized a bit different: assemblies. I think it's a worthy organization...they do a lot of good for a lot of people. I didn't figure that you'd be one who was interested one way or another in doing this. I know there are a few (by far the minority) former Catholics who are very vociferous in their opposition to the Catholic Church. I figure that they'd be interested in making their separation 'offiicial.'

A Bartow County couple will go before a magistrate judge today to see if they will be arrested for allegedly stalking a Kennesaw police officer by installing cameras to track neighborhood speeders. Lee and Teresa Sipple spent $1,200 mounting three video cameras and a radar speed unit outside their home, which is at the bottom of a hill. They have said they did so in hopes of convincing neighbors to slow down to create a safe environment for their son. The Sipples allegedly caught Kennesaw police officer Richard Perrone speeding up to 17 mph over the speed limit. Perrone alerted Bartow authorities, who in turn visited the Sipples' home to tell them Perrone intended to press charges against them for stalking. Source: The Daily Tribune Likely running late to his morning briefing. (You know, the one at Krispy Kreme??)

I know there are a lot of you out there. There must have been a number of requests in recent years to formally be stricken from the roles of the Catholic Church. The Church has just published guidelines on this process. The bottom line is that, while you may consider yourself to be an ex-Catholic, but the Church will consider you to be a Catholic (albeit a "lapsed" Catholic) until you formally 'defect' from the Catholic Church. The practical difference, of course, is totally inconsequential. But I know some of the most virulent anti-Catholics out there are lapsed Catholics...and the fact that the Church still considers such a person a Catholic might be rather upsetting to that person. If you don't care whether or not the Church considers you to be a Catholic or not, you can stop reading and go onto the next thread. If you don't like the fact that the Church still considers you to be a Catholic, then I can give you an overview on how to fix it. First, the actual document where I get this information is here. It is, however, written in typical Vatican Curia fashion...very complex and nuanced. There are three steps involved: a) the internal decision to leave the Catholic Church; b) the realization and external manifestation of that decision; and c) the reception of that decision by the competent ecclesiastical authority. I know that, if you're reading this thread, that you've done step "a." Step "b" means that you need to write it down. The referenced document says: 2. The substance of the act of the will must be the rupture of those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments, and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church. This means that the formal act of defection must have more than a juridical-administrative character (the removal of one’s name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences), but be configured as a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church: it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism. Plain-English translation of this: you need to give a reason where you formally and officially declare yourself to be schismatic, a heretic, or an apostate and provide enough detail that the person receiving the document cannot interpret it otherwise (Being ex-TWI, it would be just as easy as anything for you to formally renounce the dogma of the Trinity, renounce all of the sacraments, renounce the efficacy of your baptism, reject the authority of the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and so on and so forth). But it is IMPORTANT to list a reason to do so...not to attack the person you are delivering the note to, but to make sure that there are no questions. You would also do well in such a letter to identify yourself very clearly. The date and place you were born. Your parents. The date and parish and diocese of baptism. Date and place you were confirmed, etc. I would make the letter look something like this (changing the names etc.): (return address) (date) Father John Doe Pastor, Saint Sylvester of the Catacombs 123 South North Street Main Street, NY 02343 Dear Father Doe, I, ____(fill in your name)___, born on ______ __, 19___ in Tuscoloosa, Alabama, of _____ and ____, baptized at St. ______ Parish, in the (Arch)diocese of _____ on ____(date)___, formally pronounce my actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, my defection from the Catholic Church. I am a(n) (apostate, schsmatic, or heretic, or all three) for the following reasons: - (each of the rejections should clearly show where you reject Church dogma in a given area) - - - Further, I believe that I am correct in the above matters and that the Catholic Church has taught/practiced error. I have held to the above beliefs for many years and have throroughly rejected any possibility of returning to the Catholic Church. My opposition is firm enough that I can no longer tolerate the Catholic Church considering me a member. Therefore, I wish that the baptismal register be annotated with the following: defectio ab Ecclesia catholica actu formali in accordance with Canon 535 Sect. 2. I recognize the implications of this declaration. I make this declaration freely and with a clear conscience. Respectfully, ____(sign your name)_____ You need to present some letter that looks something like the above to: - The pastor of the parish where you were baptised (first preference) - The pastor of the local parish where you live right now - The bishop of the diocese where you live right now The document states that: It is required, moreover, that the act be manifested by the interested party in written form, before the competent authority of the Catholic Church: the Ordinary or proper pastor, who is uniquely qualified to make the judgment concerning the existence or non-existence of the act of the will as described above in n. 2. The ordinary is the bishop. The proper pastor is the pastor where you live. (The pastor of the parish where you were baptized would also kind of be qualified as your baptismal record is kept there) Very important: DO NOT give it to the Church secretary. Do not just hand it to any priest. Do not give it to an auxillary bishop. It MUST be presented to a parish pastor or the "ordinary" (the head bishop of the diocese). Next, you need to get this pastor or this bishop to sign for it. When he reads it, he will likely want to ask some questions to make sure that you know what you're doing. As long as you stay focused, that shouldn't be an issue. Just be "nice," proper, and professional and that interview will be done. If you think this is a lot of hassle, well, consider this: if you got totally disgusted with the USA, you could leave any time. But the USA will always consider you to be an American until you show yourself to the local embassy. There you will have to renounce your citizenship formally, answer some questions, and satisfy the ambassador/consul that you really want to leave. Only after they accept your decision will you lose your citizenship. I know the thead is long, but when I found out about this, I thought of a few people that might be interested.

Likeaneagle, I am glad you started this topic. Until people started discussing it, I had completely forgotten what the "great principle" was. Not that I care either...but I'm glad that my TWI experience is fading away enough that I am starting to forget some of their flaked-out beliefs. And that's a good thing.

Sort of a corrollary to the Rape thread, isn't it? The funny thing is that this law could be applied if the couple were married...which, in the state of Florida, with parental permission, they could be...