Mel not the worst sinner in Hollywood
#21
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

yeah mel in thongs oh my
LOL

strictcatholicgirl i used your bias to show u that by posting that u find some have such faith in mel betrays a bias
it does
whether you posted allot or not isnt the question
whats this faith you speak of?
Reply
#22

That's because liberals are the hypocrites. They don't believe in confession, redemption or the fallen nature of man.  They criticize the Church for confession and then criticize the people in the Church for needing confession. They beat up on people for being pious and saying they are in need of redemption and then accuse them of being hypocrites when that need of redemption becomes manifest. 

They accuse Gibson of being phoney in his religion when any actual interviews he's given, he talks about his own sinfulness.  When accused of being "an addict" to religion, he said it's it's a desperate struggle just to hold onto his religion. 

Somehow his use of his own hand to nail the hand of Our Lord to the Cross in the film and not putting the subtitles of the blood-libel is evidence of anti-semitism. 

As far as building his own Church goes, do you have a problem with that intrinsically or do you have a problem that he didn't get the permission of Cardinal Mahony or whoever is the local ordinary there?
[/quote]

Liberals are the biggest hypocrites of them all.  This is really a remarkable achievement when you realize they deny objective standards.  Take their attitude toward divorce.  For years they criticized the Church for denying divorced Catholics annulment and remarriage within the Church.   Then the Church relaxed its standards, whether evidentiary or otherwise, and they took a completely different tack.  Now annulments were simply "Catholic divorce" and as worthy of criticism and derision as the previous hard stance.  You can't win with these cretins.    

Reply
#23
u can win with them. but not with words that takes bullets
just sayin
Reply
#24
(07-18-2010, 01:37 PM)anamchara Wrote: Liberals are the biggest hypocrites of them all.  This is really a remarkable achievement when you realize they deny objective standards.  Take their attitude toward divorce.  For years they criticized the Church for denying divorced Catholics annulment and remarriage within the Church.   Then the Church relaxed its standards, whether evidentiary or otherwise, and they took a completely different tack.  Now annulments were simply "Catholic divorce" and as worthy of criticism and derision as the previous hard stance.  You can't win with these cretins.    

Why shouldn't they be hypocrites? In their world there is no right or wrong, just liberal and not-liberal.  Since liberal can change to mean what they take it to mean they can't be hypocrites, as such, just people who changed their minds.  That is the advantage of mutable truth.  Only people who claim there is an absolute truth can be guilty of hypocrisy.  Particularly Christians whose God, Jesus, specifically condemned hypocrisy or the moral guardians of society.  The annulments thing is hypocritical, because IN REALITY the modern Catholic Church is simply divorcing people.  Let's stop kidding ourselves.  The idea that 95% of Catholic marriages are "null" and never took place is preposterous.  I even know stories of two practicing Traditionalist Catholics, meeting as practicing Catholics, who married went to traditionalist Churces, had 3 children together, then got an annulment and remarried.  15 years ago St. Mary's, Kansas had dozens of such annulled marriages, it was a sort of private embarassing joke amongst the SSPX clergy there.  Obviously while one cannot judge ANY of the situations invidually, taken as a whole there must be something "wrong" if only a tiny number of marriages were ever valid.  Likewise if the mean number of children per Traditional Catholic Family drops from say 6 to 3 over a 50 year period, then one can reasonably infer that either those people are using positive contraceptive practices or they are not having sex at all, or they are getting married very late compared to the generations before them or they are using NFP willy-nilly.  Now to use NFP for good reasons is one thing, but they cannot ALL have good reasons.  Economic conditions now are better than the were in the 1950s.  The families or 8, 9 and 10 children are actually pretty rare.  Take a look around your church and work out the average family size.  Abstaining from sex altogether may be legitimate in certain circumstances, where both parties agree to it.  But do any of you really believe that it is a positive thing that 100s of Catholic couples are abstaining from sex in order to keep the number of children they have down to a "manageable" number.

Personally I think sex is important to a relationship and I think abstaining in a marriage is something only to be undertaken with GREAT consideration as normally speaking someone is going to miss having sex.

Now to me, the annulements situation is a tad hypocritical.  It would be more honest just to admit that these people are in all but name only getting divorced and remarried.

Likewise it does look a tad hypocritical (or more accurately inconsistent) to a liberal when the Church attacks homosexuality from a moral law perspective, but then allows (no, actually encourages by its admissions policies) their seminaries and monastries to fill up with homosexuals and allows all manner of homosexual activity and pornography. And then when the people governing that Church do absolutely nothing about child abuse for YEARS and there is clear systemic cover-up at all levels, (Read the Rite of Sodomy by Randy Engels), it is easy to see why the liberals attack the moralizing of that same religion over homosexuals who are at least consenting adults.

If Paedophilia and Pedarasty and Predatory Homosexuality are so bad that they are sins that cry out to Heaven for Vengenace, then how did the Church ever see fit to cover up those crimes for years when they happened in its ranks.  Is scandal really that bad a sin that the institution need to cover up child abuse?  This wasn't an insolated error, this was a generational, systemic near universal problem.

A bad liberal is one who is attacking liberalism.  If you truly can't win with these cretins then I suggest we try a different style of play, change the rules of the game so to speak.  You are certainly right that we are not winning.  For "Cretins" they have their man in the White House, they control the levers of power in the world as well as the Church as far as the visible human side of the Church is called.

Many Traditionalists appear to live in a fantasy land that we are some sort of powerful militant group who will take over the world.  Actually we are marginalised to the point of near extinction.  Again I went to Mass on Sunday and there were a grand total of 15 people in the Church.  Frankly I don't suppose that the local Anglican Church is any less full.

If we don't walk it like we talk it then our children are going to look at our lives and point out the inconsistencies I have touched on above and slide into the liberal mindset.  That is why I believe we have to be far tougher on ourselves and our own people than we are on liberals.
Reply
#25
That sound like common from a man who himself is a hypocate
no offence ggreg
but really for me I don't give a damn if 15 or 500 r in church when I'm in church
maybe some small weird sect of trads want to conquer the world lol
the ones I know are havin a hard time with themselves and r focused on themselves
which brings us back to Mel
to fall isn't a hypocrate. U r confused or ignoring poltical ideeology ie liberalism wichita Dan be hanged at a whim with the true faith which can't frther u are confusing the faith which is true and unchanging wih a man me a man who fell, but has not lost his faith
having struggled greatly in my life with my faith I undertand and know you can be a catholic and still be balling your eyes out at confession because your wee piece o shit and failed Christ and your self
that's not a hypocrate
anyhoo
your. Kung pao catholic ao by all means go conquer the worldid I'd rather  keep at tryin to conquer myself
Reply
#26
(07-19-2010, 04:26 AM)ggreg Wrote: Obviously while one cannot judge ANY of the situations invidually, taken as a whole there must be something "wrong" if only a tiny number of marriages were ever valid.

It looks to me like the Church is trying to handle a bad situation by bending the rules rather than breaking them.  The clergy got way too casual about letting Catholics marry non-Catholics, stopped preaching about the purpose of marriage, and moved pre-marriage counseling into a classroom activity (which I haven't experienced, but if the web pages I find about it are any indication, it focuses more on the wedding than the marriage).  So a couple generations of Catholics got married for the wrong reasons --- didn't even know what the right ones are --- and now the Church has to deal with that.  Were most marriages invalid?  Quite possibly, if having the wrong intention prevents validity.  Does it make the Church look hypocritical, to be declaring so many more marriages null than in the past?  Absolutely, but I'm not sure that means it's incorrect.

I got married at about 20, in a Methodist church without any dispensation or blessing from a priest.  I was pretty well lapsed by that time, and I'd never been taught that was an issue anyway, so I didn't ask.  None of my Catholic family, all of whom came to the wedding, expressed any reservation about it, or even said, "So, did you ask a priest about getting your marriage blessed by the Church?"  So when I got my annulment, the tribunal stamped it and sent it back to me the same day they received it.  Open-and-shut case: Catholic got married outside the Church without permission: invalid.  It makes perfect sense, but to a non-Catholic, it looks like I got rewarded for doing it wrong back then (never mind the state of mortal sin I lived in all those years).

Then there are the situations where someone was married years ago, got divorced, and now they're remarried and have children with a new spouse.  If the Church says, "Sorry, no annulment for you," is the couple supposed to break up and leave the children without a two-parent home?  I think there are a lot of situations like that where strict adherence to the rules would do further harm, so maybe they fudge a little.  I wouldn't want the job.
Reply
#27
Praying for you, Mr. Gibson.

Thanks for your artistry.
Reply
#28
(07-19-2010, 10:17 AM)Mhoram Wrote:
(07-19-2010, 04:26 AM)ggreg Wrote: Obviously while one cannot judge ANY of the situations invidually, taken as a whole there must be something "wrong" if only a tiny number of marriages were ever valid.

It looks to me like the Church is trying to handle a bad situation by bending the rules rather than breaking them.  The clergy got way too casual about letting Catholics marry non-Catholics, stopped preaching about the purpose of marriage, and moved pre-marriage counseling into a classroom activity (which I haven't experienced, but if the web pages I find about it are any indication, it focuses more on the wedding than the marriage).  So a couple generations of Catholics got married for the wrong reasons --- didn't even know what the right ones are --- and now the Church has to deal with that.  Were most marriages invalid?  Quite possibly, if having the wrong intention prevents validity.  Does it make the Church look hypocritical, to be declaring so many more marriages null than in the past?  Absolutely, but I'm not sure that means it's incorrect.

I got married at about 20, in a Methodist church without any dispensation or blessing from a priest.  I was pretty well lapsed by that time, and I'd never been taught that was an issue anyway, so I didn't ask.  None of my Catholic family, all of whom came to the wedding, expressed any reservation about it, or even said, "So, did you ask a priest about getting your marriage blessed by the Church?"  So when I got my annulment, the tribunal stamped it and sent it back to me the same day they received it.  Open-and-shut case: Catholic got married outside the Church without permission: invalid.  It makes perfect sense, but to a non-Catholic, it looks like I got rewarded for doing it wrong back then (never mind the state of mortal sin I lived in all those years).

Then there are the situations where someone was married years ago, got divorced, and now they're remarried and have children with a new spouse.  If the Church says, "Sorry, no annulment for you," is the couple supposed to break up and leave the children without a two-parent home?  I think there are a lot of situations like that where strict adherence to the rules would do further harm, so maybe they fudge a little.  I wouldn't want the job.

I know this is off topic, but I want to respond. My daughter (never before married) moved in with her boyfriend 15 years ago (he was previously married Catholic but only stayed with the woman for six weeks). He and my daughter have three children (ages 14, 12, and 10) and have since had a civil ceremony. Now they are coming back to their Faith and want their marriage convalidated (blessed by a priest?). He is pursuing an annulment. I understand and agree with the Church cracking down on annulments. But if my daughter and son-in-law are denied an annulment, what then? Do they break up their family after 15 years? Those three children adore their daddy and they need him under the same roof. I'm sure hoping and praying that annulment goes through. You betcha.
Reply
#29
(07-19-2010, 10:48 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: I know this is off topic, but I want to respond. My daughter (never before married) moved in with her boyfriend 15 years ago (he was previously married Catholic but only stayed with the woman for six weeks). He and my daughter have three children (ages 14, 12, and 10) and have since had a civil ceremony. Now they are coming back to their Faith and want their marriage convalidated (blessed by a priest?). He is pursuing an annulment. I understand and agree with the Church cracking down on annulments. But if my daughter and son-in-law are denied an annulment, what then? Do they break up their family after 15 years? Those three children adore their daddy and they need him under the same roof. I'm sure hoping and praying that annulment goes through. You betcha.

I understand your concern for your family as mother and a grandmother. However, it seems to me that the merits for getting that annulment do not depend on the welfare of the children born of this (second) marriage. What remains to be seen is if your son-in-law was indeed married to his previous wife. I don't know the details but if the Church is faithful to her doctrine as she should, this won't be easy.

I'm hoping it all turns out well for you and for your family. Nevertheless, this story shows us how our mistakes and our sins can affect other people's lives.
Reply
#30
SCG and Vetus Ordo.

I'm not saying some annulments aren't without justification.  I am not saying I am not sympathetic to the plight of other people.  I specifically did not give examples because it is impossible to say who should get an annulment and who should not.  That is for the Church to decide and if not them nobody.

What I am saying is that a world where 95% of annulments go through is clearly nuts and really the same thing as Catholic Divorce.  Common sense suggests that at least a higher proportion of those people are validly married.  A lot more than 1 in 20 or whatever the figure is.

How for example can you account for annulment of two previously unmarried practicing Catholics, who married in the Catholic Church around their late 20s, who both went to the SSPX for 8 years, had 3 children, then divorced after 8 years and got an annulment and have since remarried and still go along to the old mass.  This is a real example, I know both couples now and I knew the couple of the first "marriage".

It's pointless however dealing with things on a case by case basis as we are not qualified to judge.  However, in a world where the vast majority of marriages are null then there seems no point in getting married at all for a second time, as the chances are that will be "invalid" too.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)