Blueskye2

But it’s a “clarification” that makes a Trinitarian cringe. ?? Because it implies God is divided into three parts that are united. Trinitarian doctrine is that God is not divided into three parts that are united by a substance. God is one substance, or nature, not united by substance or nature. 

At the death of President Hinckley, I mentioned to LDS acquaintance that my parish prayed for his soul at Mass. I thought it was a nice thing to do but the LDS person was somewhat taken aback, and asked why would we pray for him with the assumption that his soul needed the help of our prayers. 
It’s the assumptions that get under people’s skin. 
People who are deeply committed to a religion, might view doing something that implies the deceased person’s religious commitment was for naught, as saying something very personal about the deceased and their own deeply held beliefs. 

At the death of President Hinckley, I mentioned to LDS acquaintance that my parish prayed for his soul at Mass. I thought it was a nice thing to do but the LDS person was somewhat taken aback, and asked why would we pray for him with the assumption that his soul needed the help of our prayers. 
It’s the assumptions that get under people’s skin. 
People who are deeply committed to a religion, might view doing something that implies the deceased person’s religious commitment was for naught, as saying something very personal about the deceased and their own deeply held beliefs. 

By the Cross, someone who is seeking forgiveness, already has the ultimate evidence that their sins are already forgiven.  What the priest gives is absolution, which is a declaration that the penitent’s sins are forgiven. A priest cannot say, the Cross was ineffective for you, and you are not forgiven.
As I think you probably know, each Catholic Sacrament has a form, a substance and graces. The substance, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is the contrition of the penitent.  A priest makes a judgement as to whether or not the substance (contrition) is there. That’s it, the presence of contrition is the only judgement the priest is making. He will not offer absolution without contrition. It would be like asking a priest to baptize someone without water. Just isn’t possible because water is the substance for the Sacrament of Baptism.
An absurd example of contrition being absent, would be in a a movie, where someone commits adultery over and over and goes to confession between each tryst.  In real life, absolution would not be given as it would be obvious to a priest there is no contrition. 
Absolution assures us of the forgiveness that God has already gifted to a contrite penitent...the Sacraments are for our benefit, not for God’s.

Temple theology in Catholicism clearly points to the liturgy of the Eucharist, where Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus naming himself the new temple, that would be raised in three days. 
The Eucharist is, absolutely, for Catholics, at same level of sacredness and importance as the LDS temple is for LDS. 
We are not sealed to each other.  We (the baptized) are sealed to Jesus Christ. It is in our communion with Him, in Him, and through Him, that we are made one body. All of us, as St. Paul wrote, the living stones of God’s temple.

By the Cross, someone who is seeking forgiveness, already has the ultimate evidence that their sins are already forgiven.  What the priest gives is absolution, which is a declaration that the penitent’s sins are forgiven. A priest cannot say, the Cross was ineffective for you, and you are not forgiven.
As I think you probably know, each Catholic Sacrament has a form, a substance and graces. The substance, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is the contrition of the penitent.  A priest makes a judgement as to whether or not the substance (contrition) is there. That’s it, the presence of contrition is the only judgement the priest is making. He will not offer absolution without contrition. It would be like asking a priest to baptize someone without water. Just isn’t possible because water is the substance for the Sacrament of Baptism.
An absurd example of contrition being absent, would be in a a movie, where someone commits adultery over and over and goes to confession between each tryst.  In real life, absolution would not be given as it would be obvious to a priest there is no contrition. 
Absolution assures us of the forgiveness that God has already gifted to a contrite penitent...the Sacraments are for our benefit, not for God’s.

Temple theology in Catholicism clearly points to the liturgy of the Eucharist, where Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus naming himself the new temple, that would be raised in three days. 
The Eucharist is, absolutely, for Catholics, at same level of sacredness and importance as the LDS temple is for LDS. 
We are not sealed to each other.  We (the baptized) are sealed to Jesus Christ. It is in our communion with Him, in Him, and through Him, that we are made one body. All of us, as St. Paul wrote, the living stones of God’s temple.

Temple theology in Catholicism clearly points to the liturgy of the Eucharist, where Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus naming himself the new temple, that would be raised in three days. 
The Eucharist is, absolutely, for Catholics, at same level of sacredness and importance as the LDS temple is for LDS. 
We are not sealed to each other.  We (the baptized) are sealed to Jesus Christ. It is in our communion with Him, in Him, and through Him, that we are made one body. All of us, as St. Paul wrote, the living stones of God’s temple.

I've always felt that the priest standing in for Christ and offering those beautiful words of absolution are meant as an assurance to me, the penitent.
It is Jesus Himself that says, "I absolve you from your sin", through the priest.  It is for our benefit, our peace of mind that Our Lord offers us the gift of the Sacrament of Confession.  

Like I said, both faiths view confession as being important, but in different ways.
For LDS, we renew our baptismal promises/covenants with the Lord each week when we partake of the Lord's Supper.  That's a weekly cleansing and recommitment for us.  Going to the bishop to confess a sin is like going to the doctor with a broken leg: you're there because something went wrong, you set an appointment, your consulting the doctor on how to make it better and keep t from happening again.  

Good analogy! The Sacrament is one of healing. Many Saints are said to have gone to daily confession. I have no idea how often most Catholics go to confession. No one tracks or reports.
Confession isn’t like in the movies, where you just show up and a priest pops into the confessional. I don’t even know how that could work, since a priest isn’t hanging around the confessional all day waiting for a penitent to show up. Confessional times are set. My parish is every Saturday from 4-4:45. People line up outside the confessional, and it doesn’t take long per person.
But yes, confessing our sins is an important part of being Catholic. It’s a sign of our faith.

For a Catholic, Jesus is our great High Priest. A Catholic priest acts in the person of Christ. It is Christ who forgives us of our sins, not the priest. John 20:19-23.

Arius was excommunicated in the West for his heresy. He went east and found a Bishop (Eusebius) who supported him.  This same Bishop was a confidant of Constantine. Long story made short, Nicaea was attended almost entirely by Bishops from the East.  The Pope sent a legate to represent the West, who had already declared Arius a heretic. 
The Bishops in the East declared, nearly unanimously,  Arianism a heresy. The Bishop who supported Arius, the confidant of Constantine, sided with Arius. When Constantine consented to baptism, on his death bed, it was this same Arian Bishop, that baptized him.
Alexander , a Bishop in the East, and Athanasia who was a deacon at the time, are who put forward homoousia, as the explanation for existing Christian doctrine. The entire Church, East and West profess the Nicaean-Constantinople Creed. There is no division on this doctrine...except for the filioque...
...The Great Schism, that you allude to, happened nearly 700 years later. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the filioque, are the two major points that caused the schism c.1000AD. (And a large dose of ego on both sides, if you ask me.)
The filioque...
i believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The church split over the part in bold.  The East says, “who proceeds from the Father”. The Pope saying, essentially, I have primacy and you should listen to me. The Patriarch of Constantinople saying, no you don’t. To which, the Pope excommunicated the Patriarch and the Patriarch responded with an excommunication of the Pope! 

I can only go by my conservative family, who I referenced, all who think non-white immigrants are lawless enemies and white immigrants should be treated like pilgrims.
You should understand, that some in my family have racist tendencies.  None went to Northwest U.

It’s a two way street.  Plenty of conservative Christians bash on liberal, libtards, etc. who are in fact their fellow Christians. Always an implication that a real Christian is conservative. A good friend of mine, very conservative, very Catholic, once called liberal Christians “feral”. He was quoting a conservative Catholic news article.  I pointed out that wasn’t a charitable Christian view of others, and he agreed, but it chilled our friendship considerably. Hard to be friends with someone who views you and your ilk as feral.
The real kicker in this is, that both he and I agreedthat a Catholic can’t really follow either Republicans or Democrats in lock step with either’s agenda. That voting is a process of selecting the best (morally speaking) out of the not quite exactly what I’m looking for bunch.
I have very liberal friends and family, where I am the conservative, mainly because I don’t support abortion, to a level that conservatives generally do not venture.  Then I have very conservative friends and family who are Trump supporters, listen to Alex Jones and quote Breitbart, and I am the liberal. Mainly because I think immigrants are not the enemy.
That isn’t to say I’m some kind of perfect model of can’t we all just get along. I have my own biases, for sure, that I am aware of and would like to be more charitable myself.
The only way to manage any kind of relationship is to just not talk about religion or politics, especially with friends, family and coworkers.

Sure; my NeverTrump blinders are the reason I think people who elected one sex predator for the sake of political expediency are about to elect another.  :rolleyes:

It’s a two way street.  Plenty of conservative Christians bash on liberal, libtards, etc. who are in fact their fellow Christians. Always an implication that a real Christian is conservative. A good friend of mine, very conservative, very Catholic, once called liberal Christians “feral”. He was quoting a conservative Catholic news article.  I pointed out that wasn’t a charitable Christian view of others, and he agreed, but it chilled our friendship considerably. Hard to be friends with someone who views you and your ilk as feral.
The real kicker in this is, that both he and I agreedthat a Catholic can’t really follow either Republicans or Democrats in lock step with either’s agenda. That voting is a process of selecting the best (morally speaking) out of the not quite exactly what I’m looking for bunch.
I have very liberal friends and family, where I am the conservative, mainly because I don’t support abortion, to a level that conservatives generally do not venture.  Then I have very conservative friends and family who are Trump supporters, listen to Alex Jones and quote Breitbart, and I am the liberal. Mainly because I think immigrants are not the enemy.
That isn’t to say I’m some kind of perfect model of can’t we all just get along. I have my own biases, for sure, that I am aware of and would like to be more charitable myself.
The only way to manage any kind of relationship is to just not talk about religion or politics, especially with friends, family and coworkers.

@JoCa, I am managing a case right now where a female juvenile in rehab fled from her group home, traveled 150 miles to the nearest urban center, and was induced into having sex with a complete stranger; in about a three-day period.  Don’t presume to hector me about how long it would have taken to woo Corfman in one breath, and then talk about what an incorrigible tramp she was in the next breath—you can’t have it both ways.  Behaviorally challenged kids often make the best victims, since they generally have fewer supports (like a protective father) and are less likely to be believed if/when they do come forward.  I suggest you take some time watching interviews of sex offenders outlining how they chose their victims; I suspect you’d find it both enlightening and chilling.
Moreover, Breitbart doesn’t tell *you* what any divorce attorney knows:  that even in a “sole custody” scenario, the kid is still shuttling back and forth between parents’ homes on weekends for visitation/parent time.  So Moore wasn’t even confined to a twelve-day window; Breitbart’s just building straw men.
(By the way, remember when conservatives thought it was just *awful* that Barack Obama, in a state-level campaign, had obtained and released a political opponent’s private divorce records?  Good times, that . . .) 
Moore couldn’t categorically deny having dated sixteen-year-olds in his Hannity interview.  His own wife, per Moore’s own writings, was fifteen when he first “noticed” her.  Our good buddy Royboy likes ‘em young; there’s just no getting around that.  The question here is whether, having gone as low as sixteen and being attracted to girls as young as fifteen; his dropping one more rung down the ladder is completely outside the realm of possibility.
I’m sorry you dislike being put under the same sort of scrutiny that you apply to Corfman.  But the fact is, from all of our perspectives, you are a random guy on the internet:  no more deserving of deference than Corfman is, and maybe less so given a) your false assertion that Corfman’s accusations were anonymous (see below); b) your claim to have done a “lot of research” underlying the assertion above; and c) your wild claims about how rape victims are *supposed* to act which fly in the face of everything most of us have seen in media and our various life experiences, which include the things I’ve seen professionally and the experiences related by another member of this forum who claims to have actually BEEN a rape victim.
I’ve been blunt with you, yes; but I think overall I’ve treated you far more charitably than you’ve treated Corfman.
 

Have you looked into having the drug offense expunged? If it is eligible for expungement, it would be worth the time and money, as that is going to stick to you like glue and affect volunteering for your kids activities, employment, even housing, until you die.

Have you looked into having the drug offense expunged? If it is eligible for expungement, it would be worth the time and money, as that is going to stick to you like glue and affect volunteering for your kids activities, employment, even housing, until you die.

One other thing:  it’s pretty rich for someone who was fully on board with Trump’s accusing Rafael Cruz of complicity in the Kennedy assassination, to suddenly get all concerned about the possibility of the Republican party bench being eviscerated by untrue, politically-rooted attacks on personal character.  
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Couple of thoughts after reading through ththe thread.
1) I work in the entertainment biz. Some men in powerful positions have a strong temptation to use that power to do whatever they want. Most often, they think themselves so awesome that women want to give them everything. And many women do, so they think all women are theirs for the taking. Trump’s Billy Bush recording is a prime example of this behavior.
2) It’s some weird kind of psychological thing that I’ve witnessed, but wouldn’t know how to explain, that for some of these types of men, a woman who sends clear signals of not interested, just means that all that needs to be done is push them past their limits, and then all in the world will be ok because it provides some kind of weird evidence that all women are irresistably attracted. It’s a power play. I think Franken’s a forced French kiss and photo of real or acted out assault fits this behavior. 
3) In the case of a 30 something man being attracted to teenage girls, gosh, that’s not such a rare thing. Acting on it, was wrong 40 years ago and is wrong today. I know, I was a teen 40 years ago and there is no way on God’s green earth my parents would have let me “date” a 30 year old. Every parent of a daughter I know, says, “hell no”. Trying to shrug it off as ok and normal, just adds to the creep factor. It’s just another kind of power play, against teens in this case.
4) An otherwise good man, doing any of these things, is not a big shocker.  Most people are good people, most wrong doing is good people making bad choices. Like the time this really good guy I worked with for several years, turned out to be a bank robber, Really, not making it up, good husband, father, active LDS, robbing banks because he thought it the only way out of a large debt. Super bad choice
5) Nothing surprises me any more.