markomalley

Normally, no. But in the case of this scandal, I would like to see it opened up. I think, if everybody were to consent, that would be the way to go...because of how public the scandal became. On the other hand, I wouldn't want it to become a lynching. Either for the accused (particularly if the accusations are not factual) or the victims. Think about a (secular) rape trial. The classic defense is for the defense to destroy the accuser's reputation. I'm not sure that if there were public ecclesiastic trials that the defense lawyer would not try to do the same thing. OTOH, what I'd really like to see is as ecclesiastic trial for a couple of bishops (Bernard Law, Roger Mahony, for a couple of examples). And THOSE I'd definitely like to see done publicly.

think hyperlinks. think metatags.

The Rev. William J. Dowd, a popular Bergen County priest who was accused in 2002 of sexual misconduct with minors, has been cleared by church officials in Rome. The decision means the 67-year-old Dowd can wear clerical garb, celebrate Mass and represent himself as a Catholic priest for the first time in more than five years. But he won't be reassigned to St. Luke's in Ho-Ho-Kus, where he had been pastor and where some parishioners had rallied to his defense. *snip* He still has a strong following at St. Luke's, where parishioners once rallied outside the archdiocesan headquarters on his behalf. The archdiocese installed a new pastor there after Dowd was placed on administrative leave. Some parishioners applauded and wept with joy when news of the decision was read during Masses this weekend. "The tissues came out and you could see the tears," said Gloria Kane of Waldwick. "We would've stood up and applauded, but that may have seemed disrespectful." *snip* Through it all, a group of parishioners at St. Luke's continued to back Dowd and to express frustration at how long the process was taking. Parishioners such as Joe Colavita of Waldwick continued to stay in touch with Dowd long after his removal. "I knew him as a person and as a man, not just as a parish priest," Colavita said. "He became a personal friend, someone who knew my wife and my children. "Knowing him as well as I did, I just found the accusations hard to believe." Source: North Jersey Media I post this here, not because I want to cause anybody any pain, but I understand that there are a few clergy sex abuse victims here (from what I understand, not just excathedra's family members) and somebody might have some first hand knowledge of some abuse committed by this guy. So I'm curious, does anybody know, first hand, of his actually abusing anybody?

Maybe if Paw banned me, you wouldn't have to deal with that kind of ad on the board Of course, excath keeps bringing up the word "Catholic" so it probably wouldn't matter.

Agreed with the above. I made my statement sort-of on reflex. There are a lot of ex-twi people who still buy into the construct that they don't need to act in accord with James (because it's not written to us, but to the Jews). Thus mitigating the uncomfortable scripture verses that are contained in there, including the definition and application of the "law of liberty" throughout that epistle.

How do you figure it's not addressed to the body of Christ? Yes, I know how to read (Jas 1:1). It could be addressed (specifically) toward Christian churches made of of former Jews in the diaspora. It could be addressed to the new Israel in its diaspora from the New Jerusalem. I ask because to unconverted Jews, the identification of oneself as the slave (servant) of Jesus Christ would hardly be the way to identify oneself (if the author wished to be read). And, according to St. Paul, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If something is written toward formerly Jewish Christians, there is no reason why it would not also apply to formerly gentile Christians. Just something to consider.

One of those nice KJV things... ἀνήρ can be defined (Thayer's) as follows: 1. with reference to sex 1. of a male 2. of a husband 3. of a betrothed or future husband 2. with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy 3. any male 4. used generically of a group of both men and women In fact, in multiple places it is generically used of an adult man. Jesus is referred to as an ἀνήρ in multiple places. Dan Brown notwithstanding, I don't see any record where he was married at all. Looking elsewhere (Matt 1:18, Luke 1:27), though, we see that Mary was espoused to Joseph (μνηστεύομαι in the Greek, meaning to woo, court, seek in marriage; pass. become engaged, be betrothed + dat. ).

The word ὁμολογήσῃς is the 2nd person aorist active singular subjunctive of ὁμολογέω LIkewise, the word πιστεύσῃς is the 2nd person aorist active singular subjunctive of πιστεύω The question is whether it is the inceptive aorist, cumulative aorist, or punctiliar aorist...and I'm not that good with Greek to know the answer to that one...

Betrothal was sufficient...as she was still his responsibility. Honestly, I don't know if the rule of adultery applied to the betrothed or only to those who have consumated marriage. But fornicating females weren't treated too well, either... And in all honesty, that's all any of the saints do, be they Saint Joseph, Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Saint Anthony, Saint Maximillian, or any of them. They had to endure and show that they had the 'right stuff.'

Actually the ark of the covenant sub-topic is pertinent to the "holy thing" topic, when one looks at this from a typology point of view. Joseph's character was critical for the protection of Mary...whose womb carried the Word Incarnate, the High Priest forever, the Bread of Life. Had she, an unmarried woman, have been unaccompanied when pregnant, she'd have been instantly stoned as an adultress. Had she been found pregnant by a husband of lesser character or lesser holiness than Joseph, he'd have put her out as an adultress and she'd have been scorned.

One other thing you could add was the Vicster's dispensational view of scripture (allowing him to ignore what he didn't like) cause him to completely disregard the application of the Prodigal Son. Because the answer to Penguin's question is in that story.

Good question. And not one for which I can adequately respond. I think one valid similarity is the team approach taken by both. Military members are always part of a team, which is part of a larger team, and so on. Members normally go through very arduous tasks...and an implicit objective of accomplishing those tasks is to build a sense of team identity. Cohesiveness is stressed in this environment, even through the use of uniforms and grooming standards. However, the individual is not really destroyed in the process, as what happens in a cult. Although the initial indoctrination into the military is said to "tear down the recruit and then recreate him in the likeness of...", that is somewhat over-exaggerated (at least in my mind). The individual's basic personality remains; individuality remains; what is torn down are the undisciplined parts of the mind that, in most cases, would cause the recruit to fail in his subsequent skill training. I think, particularly from what I hear from many who were more deeply involved than I was, that this cohesiveness is achieved in a cult through the destruction of the individual's self-esteem (that self-esteem not being re-built through the training process). No offense taken. That was the paradigm that VeePee (as well as other cult leaders) chose to use (of course, it's somewhat ironic that he loved the "Marine" vision for the WC, but he (to the best of my understanding) never spent five minutes wearing a uniform (USMC or otherwise). In fact, does my memory serve correctly that he was in his undergraduate divinity school during WWII? (A deferrment?) Geee...shucks... Seriously, that may well be true (I really don't know one way or the other). Perhaps, even had I been involved more deeply than I was, I would not have fallen victim to those same influences. All I know is that I wasn't, I didn't, and I won't ever have to find out whatif...and I thank my God for that!

Consider this: Romans 10:9 says because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. What does that actually say? Let us first look at the logical construction of that verse: There are three parts to that verse... The first part is "if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord" (Let's call that phrase "A") The second part is "believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead" (Let's call that phrase "B") The third part is "you will be saved" (Let's call that phrase "C") If we use the above shortcuts for the phrases, we can come up with a construction that says: IF A AND B THEN C The operator "AND" means that the variables on either side of the "AND" operator must be true in order for the whole to be true. In other words, both A and B must be true for C to be true. Having said that: - Does it say anywhere that C remains to be true if either A or B cease to be true? I don't see that in there, do you? The rest of the "ticket to heaven" theology comes from making certain expressions synonymous that aren't, in fact, synonyms. For example, does "saved" equal "incorruptible seed?" VeePee says it does, but does it really? So as a result, he has to somehow start doing contortions around perfectly obvious scriptures to make it work. For example, Galatians 5:21 says, in part, those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Perfectly obvious the meaning there, right? How does he work around that obvious phrase? He says that it's really talking about broken fellowship, not sin. He does that in multiple places...I'm sure you see it when you think about it (that way of thinking became so ingrained in us that we must actually think about it, though). Getting rid of false synonyms taught by VeePee is a key to regaining your freedom!

Belle, I am very glad that you started this thread...as I am very thankful for all threads like this one. I sympathize with so many of you who completely lost yourselves to the demon ruling TWI. It makes me eternally grateful to God that I was in the military during the time I was in TWI...as it simply was not possible to go over the deep end. I remember being envious of those people who could go out WOW and for those people who could go into the Corps and so on. I wanted to do both so badly...but couldn't, as I was in the service. Had I been able to do so...well, I shudder at what could have/ would have happened to my life. For me, because I was constrained with the amount of involvement I could support, leaving TWI was simply a matter of saying "this is getting too weird" and disappearing off the face of the earth (coincident with a military permanent change of station move). Losing the TWI theology and the TWI mindset was a lot more difficult and took many more years. But, ultimately, it was a matter of making a decision and following through. But I can imagine it would have been far more difficult had I been as deeply involved as I wanted to be (but was constrained from pursuing). Those who were deeply involved and more thoroughly inculturated I realize had a far more difficult path...one that I eminently respect and sympathize with, particularly after reading many of these posts. My prayers are with those people that their minds and hearts may eventually be truly healed from the wound left by the lies of TWI.

Very good! Manna-bread of life, bread from heaven--right? the bread that kept God's people alive in the desert, right? Tables of the covenant: the Word of God Aaron's rod: symbol of God's choice of Aaron...and the House of Levi...to be the priests of the covenant...and (Num 18:1) that Aaron and his sons shall bear iniquity in connection with the sanctuary; and you and your sons with you shall bear iniquity in connection with your priesthood.. And, of course, the symbol of the budding, blooming, and bearing fruit also had a meaning (not revealed in the moment, though). Can you think of a person to whom those three symbols, above, allude? (Think Heb 9:9) Read the above... ...a little less silly yet?

Gee...and I thought the Ark of the Covenant was the Virgin Mary. Before you laugh too loud, please go back to the OT and identify what 3 items were contained in the ark...

WTF????????????????

But, but, but... I thought that you had Faux News blocked on your television!

Absolutely. Here's a prime example of a life-altering mistake: I was involved with TWI for a few years.

You have a point. By the way, I read that book by Allan Bloom YEARS ago...tremendous work!

You know T-Bone, I wonder if he has the same IP address as our old friend Mike?

(highlighting above is mine) Jean, That is something that really ticks me off with TWI (and some former TWI) people...when you add something to scripture. τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν στήκετε οὖν καὶ μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε I don't see anywhere in the above that has (the law of Moses) written in it. So why do you insert it? Shoot, the context of the verse is not even talking about the Mosaic law, it's talking about circumcision...in light of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael (who all pre-dated Moses by a year or two). Frankly, as to the subject of the "law of liberty," the phrase is used exactly twice in the Bible. James 1:25 and 2:12. If you check the context of those two verses out, it doesn't say what (as I recall) we were taught in TWI. It talks about the importance of the corporal works of mercy (see Jas 2:2 - 2:6, 2:16, etc.), and, in essence, the need to obey all of the decalogue (see Jas 2:10). Galatians talks in large part about the same points...the importance of interior conversion, as opposed to mere exterior compliance (spirit vs. mere flesh). But neither give authority to Christians to go and do whatever they want. Nowhere are we relieved of requirement to act in accord with the decalogue. In fact, we have to live toward our neighbors with a higher standard. In this regard, I love James 2:13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment. When I read this, I remember all those times that we were told not to feed the poor, but just give them the Word. I thank God for His mercy toward me, for all those times when I was in TWI and I could have helped somebody... Sorry if I sound harsh, but it's just something that irks me when I see it happen. The venom is aimed at the general habit...not at you as a person. So please don't take it like I'm yelling at you. I'm not. I'm yelling at the habit (which all of us have been guilty of).

WW/Jean, I am glad that Heb 7:3 (He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life,)is not an issue for you. Back in the dim, dark days when I was a TWI't, this was one of the verses that caused some issues for me...and that I glossed over as part of my mental assent to their theology. (It sort of fell into the same category as Col 2:9. Still trying to figure out how I was able to let VeePee & Co convince me that theotes meant "head God" versus "Godhead" -- or that how the difference still didn't point in the same direction...but I digress) (BTW, I am not accusing either of you of being TWI't's, just that those years were the times that I assented to the Arian view of the Godhead advocated by TWI, vice the Trinitarian view)

Say all you want. Whatever. Have a nice day.

Wearword, While you are entitled to your beliefs, I think you will find yourself in the distinct minority around these parts. Since you addressed my post, if you'd actually like to deal with the issues that I brought up in that post or the issues that were brought up the threads that were referenced, then all well and good. If not, please don't expect me to engage in an argument about VeePee. I don't see it as being worthy of discussion. Again, not that I do not believe that you're entitled to believe as you will...