Some answers to RC's questions about Catholicism


sorabji.com: The Stalking Post: Some answers to RC's questions about Catholicism
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By
Rhiannon on Sunday, October 1, 2000 - 04:22 pm:

    In the What do you want to do today? confess thread, RC asked several questions about certain Catholic practices/teachings and their basis in the Bible. I haven't been able to find the answers to all of them (I've been busy), but here is what I've found so far:


    1) Canonization -- the process of canonization is mentioned nowhere in the Bible. Its basis is in Sacred Tradition, which is supported by the verse in which Jesus says "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20) -- this is why tradition is sacred, because it grows out of the practices of the blessed. This Sunday's _Philadelphia Inquirer_ magazine insert is devoted to the canonization of St. Katherine Drexel (who was from Philadelphia). There is an article titled "How Sainthood Is Determined" (by Faye Flam). Excerpts:

    "In the early years of the Roman Catholic Church, sainthood was a matter of popular acclamation....But with no controls, the list [of saints] grew disorderly. And there was the problem of making saints out of figures from pagan mythology and legends...The Church decreed that the process must be regulated, and it gave bishops the responsibility of examining the holiness of a person's life, including any alleged miracles...Eventually, the pontiff [i.e., the pope] became involved as a way of both adding prestige to the process and controlling it. Historians agree that the first papal canonization occurred in 993....Popes Urban VIII and Benedict XIV in the 17th and 18th centuries, respectively, spelled out the procedures that were ultimately codified in the Code of Canon Law in 1917. [Pope John Paul II, in 1983, changed the procedure, eliminating the Devil's Advocate and reducing the number of miracles needed from two to one]...[In the cases of medical miracles, t]he procedure is this: Two of the five physicians [picked by the Vatican to form the Consulta Medica] review a given case. If either one deems the case inexplicable to modern science, it goes on to be reviewed by the rest of the Consulta...The Consulta does not determine whether the case is miraculous -- only that it can't be explained by science."

    In the case of St. Katherine Drexel, one of the miracles attributed to her involves the case of a boy who partially lost his hearing due to an ear infection that ate away two of the three bones in his right ear, and then, after praying to Mother Katherine Drexel, his hearing returned and so did the bones in his ear.



    2) Confession -- Only God can forgive sins ("Who can forgive sins but God alone?" -- Mark 2:7). However, by virtue of his divine authority, he gives this power to men to exercise in his name (John 20:21-23 -- 'Jesus said to them, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." When he said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."')

    And again, Matthew 16:19 -- Jesus says to Simon Peter, the father of the Church, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." We see in these lines how it is that priests are endowed the power of absolution.

    Now, you only *need* to go to confession when you are in a state of mortal sin. Venial sins can be absolved in many different ways, such as receiving communion with a spirit of contrition. Mortal sin must be confessed because it is so serious that you need the power of the priest's prayer to cleanse yourself.

    When the priest says something like, "By the power granted to me by the Holy Catholic Church, I absolve you of these and all your sins," *this* is the absolution. Your penance (e.g., saying 5 Hail Maries for the sake of the dead) does nothing to get rid of the sin, because it has already been gotten rid of. Now, "absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover full spiritual health by doing something to make amends for the sin: he must 'make satisfaction for' or 'expiate' his sins. This satisfaction is also called penance...It can consiste of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, [and] sacrifices....Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once and for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, 'provided we suffer with him' [see Romans 3:25, 8:17; 1 John 2:1-2]" (taken from _the Catechism of the Catholic Church_, p. 362-363).

    So, again, doing penance does not absolve you of your sins.

    Confession is also useful, because not only does it cleanse us of our sins and relieve our consciences of their burdens, but, as St. Francis de Sales says in his _Introduction to the Devout Life_: "You will also practice [through confession] the virtues of humility, obedience, simplicity, and charity. In the single act of confession, you will exercise more virtues than in any other act whatsoever" (p. 112).




    3) Idolatry/veneration of the saints and the Virgin Mary -- (from the Catechism, p. 516-517): "[In the Old Testament], God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbollicaly toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim (cf. Numbers 21:4-9; 1 Kings 6:23-28, 7:23-26). Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons -- of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints....The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates the image venerates the person portayed in it [cites various documents: St. Basil's "De Spiritu Sancto" and the writings of the Councils of Nicaea, Trent, and the Second Vatican Council]. The honor paid to sacred images is a respectful veneration, not the adoration due to God alone."

    Which brings me to the saints and the Blessed Mother. They are not worshipped, they are revered. There's more than a semantic difference. We ask the saints and Mary for their intercession, but in no sense do we elevate them to an equal position with God or claim that they are divine.

    Here is an example fo a prayer to a saint so you can see the language used:

    "Lord, our God, you graciously chose St. Dymphna as patroness of those afflicted with mental and nervous disorders. She is thus an inspiration and a symbol of charity to the thousands who ask her intercession. Please grant, Lord, through the prayers of this pure youthful martyr, relief and consolation to all suffering such trials, and especiallly those for whom we pray. [Here mention those for whom you wish to pray.] We beg you, Lord, to hear the prayers of St. Dymphna on our behalf. Grant all those for whom we pray patience in their sufferings and resignation to your divine will. Please fill them with hope, and grant them the relief and cure they so much desire. We ask this through Christ our Lord who suffered agony in the garden. Amen."

    You can see that St. Dymphna, in this case, is a mediary between us and God. We don't ask her to perform any cures or anything herself.




    4) The celibacy of priests -- (from the Catechism, p. 395) "All ordained ministers of the Latin Church [as opposed to Eastern Orthodox], with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate 'for the sake of the kingdom of heaven' (Matthew 19:12). Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to 'the affairs of the Lord' (1 Cor. 7:32), they give themselves entirely to God...Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart, celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God."


    5) Purgatory -- Purgatory is actually made reference to several times in the New Testament.

    1 Cor. 3:15 -- "If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire."

    1 Peter 1:7 -- "So that the genuineness of your faith -- being more precious than gold that, though perishable, is tested by fire -- may be found to result in praise and glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed."

    Purgatory is also made reference to in the Old Testament: 2 Maccabees 12:46 -- "Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin." (If there were no purgatory and only heaven and hell, there would be no need to pray for the dead, since they had already reached their final destination.)

    Purgatory is necessary to repay the injury which our sins have causes Jesus Christ. It's like if you break someone's window, you can say you're sorry and they can forgive you, but the window is still broken. Purgatory fixes the window.




    I have to leave now, but if you're still interested in the other questions, just ask (here or by email).






By Hal on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 10:07 am:

    Holy Shit!!! ( Literaly )

    I'm a Panthiest and it works for me, if people ask me questions about Religion I awnser with one simple quote.

    "Belive in the ideal, not the idol."

    Rhi, I am impressed though, I don't have the time to do what you just did.


By semillama on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 01:00 pm:

    Hal, when you say you are a pantheist, which pantheon do you believe in?


By Nate on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 02:03 pm:

    "Pantheism is the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe. The cognate doctrine of panentheism asserts that God includes the universe as a part though not the whole of his being. "


By Hal on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 05:19 pm:

    Thank you Nate. Fuck finally another person in the world who knows how to use a websters dictionary.


By Nate on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 05:23 pm:

    nate: not just an ass.


By Cat on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 05:34 pm:

    Nate: not just an ass, a real pain in the ass too.


By Cat on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 05:35 pm:

    (sorry, couldn't help it...it's my new skirt with its flirty flounce...it's making me very very silly)


By Nate on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 06:02 pm:

    you looking for ass sex?


By Cat on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 06:20 pm:

    Give me your credit card number first. And make it a valid one this time, bastardface.


By Nate on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 08:59 pm:

    uh. bastardface?


By moonit on Monday, October 2, 2000 - 11:10 pm:

    fuckfeatures


By Tom on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 - 03:33 am:

    fuckfeatures? I was told today (by a girl I dated last year) that when I come, I make a face that looks like a chipmunk.

    Are guys allowed to call it an orgasm? or a climax? What's the proper term for getting off?


By Isolde on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 - 10:35 am:

    cumming.


By Hal on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 - 10:52 am:

    Bastardface? Thats a new one to me....


    And about making the face of a chipmunk when you climaxed... I just have one question...


    Chip or Dale?


By semillama on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 - 01:18 pm:

    Oh,I thought for some reason that if you were a pantheist,you worshiped a whole pantheon of gods/goddesses, like the Asartu folks or some of the other pagan groups.

    I like this definition.


By Hal on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 - 01:46 pm:

    Kinda nice way to look at the universe and also the aspect of a higher power intigrated into that universe at the same time...

    Isn't it?


By pez on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 - 03:59 pm:

    the FORCE, yo!

    (sorry. i wanted to say that)

    maybe that's what i am. i remember talking about what i believe with a person who was a die-hard christian. she's still a good friend, but i don't think she can understand. most people don't want to believe. everything has to be black or white. holy or hellish. forwards or backwards. savage or civilized.

    even old black-and-white photos have shades of gray.

    *steps down from the soapbox*


By Hal on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 - 04:58 pm:

    Nice Pez...

    Don't worry, I've almost had to use the "Force" metaphore once in a while when explaining Panthiesm to others...

    I kinda like the way it fits that too..


By moonit on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 - 05:13 pm:

    I used to have this um.friend (you know
    fuck-buddy) and he used to make the most
    idiotic faces.

    I managed to hold my laughter until he left.



By Isolde on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 - 05:23 pm:

    I know lots of people who make wierd faces.
    My friend Hans can make quite possibly the wierdest, though. Something about him reminds me of a big teddy bear, and then he makes this great face that I split my sides laughing about for weeks. He's a funny lad, is hans.


By R.C. on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 04:14 am:

    Hey there!

    Sorry it took me so long to get back to these parts/but I was busy working on
    this so I haven't had time to breathe or do laundry or much of anything except use up my sick days at work so I cd stay home/ write & rewrite and edit/& hope I hope I will get 'discovered' by Matt & Ben.

    Before anyone gets all excited about R.C.'s impending big break/be warned: I am sure my script will be rejected forthwith for not meeting the million-dollar-maximum-budget requirement. The submission specs were that yr script had to be no more than 130 pgs. long & able to he shot for a million bucks or less. So I guess I bent the rules by submitting a story I don't think you cd film for a million bucks. (Truthfully, I don't really know *how* you read a script and estimate what it will cost to film. I have no film budgeting experience. My screenplay had only had 1 small, brief special effect that cd easily be done using CGI/& I used lots of outdoor locations/which are cheaper than shooting on sets. But these days/a million doesn't go very far in Hollywood.)

    My thinking was that becuz HBO & Miramax are behind Project Greenlight/all kinds of folks will be reading these scripts/so I hadda take my shot. If by some freakish quik of fate someone with more than a million to spend calls me up to offer me a chance to direct my own film/I promise to cast all of you as extras. And hire Mark to perform on the soundtrack.
    ..................................................

    Now, to the matter at hand, namely Rhiannon's post.

    1) My understanding of 'sacred traditions' is not that they 'grow out of the practices of the blessed' but that they are commanded to us by God /or illustrated thru the actions of Christ. Like the 10 Commandments. Or water baptism. Or the directive in Romans 10:9-10: "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

    Paul said these words/not Christ. But my interpretation of them is that they mean just what the say -- i.e. if you are going to accept Christ/you must speak your confession aloud with your mouth & believe in your heart that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

    The Old Testament Jews had a long, complex tradition of animal sacrifices. So do many other faiths. But these were practices dictated to the Jews by God. Technically/there's nothing 'wrong' with them. (Altho' the whole business never really made much sense to me...)But since the death and resurrection of Chirst was the ultimate blood sacrifice/there is no more need for animal sacrifice. And it is not prescribed to believers in the New Testament. So it is no longer a 'sacred tradition'.

    <<In the early years of the Roman Catholic Church, sainthood was a matter of popular acclamation>>. The Roman Catholic Church shdn't be confused with the early Christian church that existed during the time Jesus was alive & continued to grow and spread immediately after his death and resurrection. The fact that Rome had the power to decide to officially 'canonize' people doesn't make it a biblical practice/or even a good idea. Its is merely something the papacy decided to do/in order to gain power over who became a popular 'religious figure'. And the Vatican is still all abt Power.

    <<In the case of St. Katherine Drexel, one of the miracles attributed to her involves the case of a boy who partially lost his hearing due to an ear infection that ate away two of the three bones in his right ear, and then, after praying to Mother Katherine Drexel, his hearing returned and so did the bones in his ear.>>

    But who restored his hearing & his bones -- God or Katherine Drexel? Isn't that the crux of the issue? If we ask God for help/if you pray to God in desperate circumstances to produce some effect that is beyond explaination in the physical world & God grants yr petition/it is *God* who deserves the glory/not the person who made the prayer!

    And the bible clearly & repeatedly states that Christians are not to have or worship any other gods. Prayer is an act of worship & faith -- you only pray to someone or thing you believe to have supernatural powers. Praying to a 'saint' is tantamount to elevating that person to the same stature as God. Sorry/but there are no two ways around this IMO. Prayers should only be made to God. Anything ti saints or images is idolatry/which is the biggest problem I have with Catholicism.

    2) The statement in Mark that God alone can forgive sins is pretty straightforward. It means what it says -- only God can forgive sins. Yr interpretation of "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" directly contradicts that statement in Mark. (This to me is a perfect example of how Catholicism twists the bible to justify it's own ends.)

    I've always felt that verse was meant to exhort the disciples to remember that they are obligated to forgive those who sin against them/& that those sins will be 'retained' on the *disciple's* record in heaven if they fail to forgive those who sin against them -- not that they have the power to offer divine absolution for sin itself. If such were the case/why wd Christ's death on the cross have been necessary? Jesus died as ransom for the sins we wd otherwise be condemned for. If the apostles/& by extension, priests, bishops, etc./have the power to forgive my sins/we wd have no motivation to confess our sins to God & ask His forgvieness. Someone else is handling that job.

    In addition/there is also the fact that God is omniscient & knows what we do wrong anyway. Confessing to a preist who has no idea how you really spent Sat. nite & whether you're coming completely clean or not wd seem to short-circuit the whole point of confession: i.e. that God knows what we did & will forgive us for it/but He expects us to come to Him repentfully & contritely/admit what we did wrong/apologize to Him directly/& try to do better tomorrow.

    Individuals may sin against one person or another/but *every* sin is an affront to God. Mortal/venial/cardinal etc. are distinctions the Catholic church has chosen to impose/again with no biblical basis. We can forgive those who sin against us/but only God can offer forgiveness for our sins & absolve us of the spiritual consequences those sins wd bring about.

    Re: Matthew 16:19 - going from 'binding & loosing' to forgiveness of sins is again a twisting of scriptuire to make it support Catholic doctrine. 'Binding & loosing' are biblical terms that are only & exclusively used in reference to Satan &/or evil spirits. Those terms have nothing to do with the power of asbolution -- that's just a Catholic rationalization.

    3) Refer to my earlier remarks re: graven images & idols. This is just more Catholic trickery IMO. <<..after praying to Mother Katherine Drexel, his hearing returned and so did the bones in his ear.>> You did not say "after respectfully venerating Mother Katherine Drexel" -- the boy prayed to her/rather than praying to the Lord directly. A Christian shd only pray to God. And Christ -- not church-created saints -- is the greatest & only intecessor Christians need.

    If God wanted Mary to be so highly 'revered'/ don't you think the Bible would have mentioned her more than the few times it does? Frankly/I think she got short-shrift as the mother of Christ. But even her virgin birth isn't regarded as a feather in her cap -- she was merely the vessle God choose/& gets no credit for having pulled off a miracle on her own. No miracles are attributed to Mary in teh bible -- she never even managed to cast out a demon or heal anyone.

    4) To your remarks re: the Catholic church's requirement of celibacy for it's priests/I can do no better than to quote Paul's own words directly:

    "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

    **forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth**

    For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 1 Timothy 4:1-5

    That's as plain a truth as you can ask for.


    I have always believed that remark was a prophecy which speaks specifically & directly to the future (i.e. present-day) Catholic church & it's twisting of biblical principals. Catholicism is the only one of the 3 major religions that requires it's priests to remain celibate for life. And thousands of them fail misreably at it/molesting young boys & girls &/or fathering children out of wedlock/because Satan has a field day with folks who play fast-&-loose with simple, unequivocal scripture. Deceiption & twisting God's word are his greatest tools for misleading people.


    Lemme me post this now/before it gets too long & the whole thing gets lost. Plus I really need to get to bed. And if you wd Rhi/pls.indulge me & hold off on yr comments til I can get back here & tomorrow nite & finish this.


    (To be cont'd.)


By R.C. on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 04:17 am:


By J on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 04:20 am:

    Hot damn!!! R.C. will be here tomorrow,I love that woman!!!! Heather is spending the night,I am trying to outlast her in the sleeping dept.,scared she's going to try to sneak her loser,junkie boyfriend in my house.


By semillama on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 02:05 pm:

    What's this - R.C. and J in the same spot? We definitely want pictures of that. or at least of the aftermath.


By R.C. on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 03:49 am:

    Hey Sem & J! S'nice to know I was missed. :)

    So Sem - have you dug up anything cool lately? You're a grad student now/yes? So don't you get to go to cool places like Mexico & Egypt & search for ruins & artifacts? Get thee a grant, my child! Or a job @ the Discovery Channel. They always seem to have all sorts of interesting young academic-types out in the mountains or valleys/digging up stuff for the benefit of us couch potatoes. Send 'em an email!
    -------------------------------------------------

    So anyway/there was I? Somewhere around #4...

    Rhi said:

    <<Which brings me to the saints and the Blessed Mother. They are not worshipped, they are revered. There's more than a semantic difference. We ask the saints and Mary for their intercession, but in no sense do we elevate them to an equal position with God or claim that they are divine.>>

    Beg to differ. If yr cat has kittens in the oven/you don't get to call them biscuits. Which is what the Catholic church does when it claims not to worship Mary & the saints.

    Here's a dictionary definition of worship:

    Worship: 1) The reverent love and allegiance accorded a deity, idol, or sacred object. 2) A set of ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed 3) Ardent, humble devotion 4) To love or pursue devotedly 5) To participate in religious rites of worship.

    And here is what the Catholic church beileves about Mary:

    <<...we ought to have a tender devotion to Mary and become her children by performing those works of devotion which will secure for us her protection and the grace of God. These are principally praying her Rosary, wearing her Scapulars, keeping her feasts, joining those sodalities erected in her honor, and having great zeal for souls.>> (THE MOTHER OF GOD AND HER GLORIOUS FEASTS, By Fr. H.O'Laverty - pg. 192)

    Nowhere in the bible does it say that reverence for Mary is necessary to secure God's grace! Only salvation thru Christ can give us access to divine grace.


    Icons/statues/pictures of the saints or the holy family or the disciples (all of which were made by artists who had never set eyes on any of these people) are idols -- plain & simple -- as defined by scripture. And making or praying to idols is strictly forbidden/according to what the bible says:

    "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." - Isaiah 42:8

    "Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure the likeness of male or female." - Deuteronomy 4:16

    "I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." - Deuteronomy 5:6-9

    How much more plain can God be about this?

    Re: Moses & the bronze serpent - If you look at the verse in it's full context/it's obvious that #1. God instructed Moses to make this image as a 1-time deal #2. the serpent was NEVER worshipped or prayed to:

    "Then they journeyed from Mount Hor by the Way of the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and the soul of the people became very discouraged on the way. And the people spoke against God and against Moses: "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and our soul loathes this worthless bread.

    So the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord that He take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.
    - Numbers 21: 4-9

    Poisonous snakes were sent among the Jews in the wilderness as a punishment from God because of their lack of faith. When they repented & asked for forgiveness/God told Moses to make the bronze serpent as a healing tool -- not an icon -- in order to cure those who has been bitten but had not yet died. And you hear no more abt the bronze serpent in any other context.


    The verses in I Kings re: the cherubim, included in the temple/again, nowhere does it say these figures were to be prayed to or worshipped.


By R.C. on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 04:12 am:

    Re: The oracle

    In these verses in I Kings/the term 'oracle ' is used to denote the most holy place in the temple. No one worshipped or prayed to the oracle. The instructions given by God in terms of how to build His temple did not tell the Hebrews to make images of men & women or to kneel before them & pray to them/which is what millions of Catholics do every day before statues of Mary/Jesus & the saints.

    There is no need for middle-men or intecessors btwn God & humankind. Christ came to earth in human form/lived in the flesh/died on the cross & rose again as our one-&-only saviour & redeemer. The Bible makes that crystal clear in so many places:

    "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." - I Timothy 2:5-6

    "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, ye rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." - Romans 8:34

    My little children, these things write I unto you, that "ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only but also for the sins of the whole world."
    - I John 2:1-2

    The papacy has virtually usurped the place of Christ himself by creating an enormous bureaucracy of preists & teaching Catholics to believe one must go thru *them* in order to confess/& by convincing people that spiritual salvation is not possible w/out 'sacramental confession'. This is one of the most dangerous spiritual trangsgressions any church can incur. The bible makes it clear that the ONLY things necessary for salvation are to believe in yr heart that Jesus was the son of God/that he was crucified & resurrected as payment for our sins/to confess that you are a sinner/& to accept Christ as yr savior.


    The Catholic church goes so far as to say the priesthood & the practice of hearing confessions were 'instutited by divine law'/which is nonsense! It isn't metioned anywhere in the bible. Then, they threaten anyone who disagrees w/them with damnation:

    <<If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, 14th Session, Chapter III, Can. 6)


    Now, I ask you/what were the Councils of Nicaea/of Trent/& the Second Vatican Council other than groups of men -- human/fallible/mortal & sinful (becuz we're ALL sinful by nature) -- meeting to aggrandize their own ideas & institute them as canon?

    Why wd you rely on the conjecture of men when you can go to the bible & find out for yrself what God thinks & commands & expects in terms of how those who beileve in Him shd live in the world?


    The Old Testament concept of the priesthood/of holy men who lived apart from the rest of the world & focused on prayers & offering sacrifices for the sins of the people/was an idea that fell short of the glory God wanted for us. It was the 'letter of the law'. It killed rather than saving becuz it lacked divine grace.

    In Old Testament times/a Hebrew cd live his entire life following the myriad of Jewish laws to the letter/but if on the last day of his life he committed some sin & didn't manage to get hold of that dove or ram or lamb & get to the temple so the priest cd make that sacrifice/he wd die condemned. God realized that a more excellent law was necessary if we as humans were ever to be redeemed from our sinful state & reconciled w/God. So divine grace was offered/as a future promise/to the Hebrews of the redeemer who was to come -- i.e. Christ.

    My understanding of grace is that it is special consideration given to those who don't deserve or warrant it. Like when you're on line at the supermarket w/yr little hand basket with only 4 items/& it's late at nite/so there's only 1 register open. The person in front of you with half a shopping cart of groceries lets you go ahead of them so you can get out of there quickly/even though there's nothing so special abt you that you don't deserve to wait in line like any other schmuck. That is grace. In spiritual terms/it is God's willingness to erase our sins -- past & future -- & not hold us to the penalty for sin (which is ultimately death) if we will only believe in God & in his son Jesus Christ.

    When Christ came & died & rose again/the priesthood became obsolete. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for everyone's sins/so priests & sacrifices were no longer necessary. Yes/ shepherds are still needed/in the form of persons who lead churches in prayer & worship & offer guidance & edification. But they are not supposed to become spiritual bureaucrats who stand btwn us & God. And I personally believe you can worship the Lord & live according to God's rules w/out belonging to a church. But that's just my opinion.
    ---------------------------------------------
    5) Re: Purgatory

    The books of Macabees are not part of the Christian Bible. They are not indcluded in translation since the original King James Version was 1st published in 1611. The books of Macabees considered part of the Apocrypha and are not accepted as part of the Old Testament in any Christiam (vs. Catholic) bible. They may have historical value in terms of addressing what some people believed at that time. But you can't count them as gospel truth when they haven't stood the test of time as an accepted part of scripture.

    I don't see how the verses you quoted from 1 Corinthians & 1 Peter can be interpreted to refer to Purgatory.

    Examine the verse from 1 Corinth. in its full contect & tell me how the speaks to purgatory? :

    "1. And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.
    2. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;

    3. for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?

    4. For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?

    5. Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?

    6. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.

    7. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

    8. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

    9. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, you are God's building.

    10. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.

    **11. FOR NO OTHER FOUNDATION CAN ANYONE LAY THAN THAT WHICH IS LAID, WHICH IS JESUS CHRIST.**

    12. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,

    13. each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.

    14. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.

    15. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." - I Corinthians 3 1-15

    Verse 15 refers to the concept of salvation/that we are saved by faith/not by works. This speaks to our earthly accomplishments as Christians & whether they will measure up to God's standards (gold, silver, precious stones) and will endure as through fire (God's final judgement) or whether they will fall short (wood, hay, straw -- all of which will burn). But even if our WORKS do not survive the test of God's judgement ("if anyone's work is burned/he will suffer loss" - i.e. loss of status in God's eyes) but he himself will be saved (becuz our soul's salvation is based on FAITH/not accomplishments.)

    How do you get the concept of purgatory from that?
    Once we accept Christ/our salvation is complete --our sins -- past & future -- are removed from the record & we becomes psiritual sons & daughters of God.

    Salvation isn't a process/it's an event. Living a godly life is a process/but if someone accepts Christ in the middle of dinner at a friends' house/then walks out in the street/gets hits by a truck 5 min. later & dies/that person is still totally & completely saved thru God's grace. He isn't going to end up in some way-station for the not-yet-absolved.


By R.C. on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 04:31 am:

    And what say you re: the ridiculous business of annulments/which are not mentioned or authorized anywhere in the bible? How can anyone justify them as anything but a man-made loophole to allow Catholics to divorce w/out being regarded as divorced/so they can still claim to be faithful to the 'church'?

    ------------------------------------------------
    I think the folks around here know me well enuf to know that I'm not the sort to go around bashing anyone's religion. But Rhi/if you take the time to go online & read any basic King James verion of the bible/& compare it to the teachings of the Catholic church/if you read the entire chapter surrounding any of the versus that the Catholic church quotes in order to justify it's practices/you can't help seeing that they just don't jive w/scripture. If you're really abt loving God & following God's precepts/yr own intelligence will show you that the traditions of men shd be cast aside when they don't concur w/the teachings of scripture. Otherwise/you're getting caught up in human doctrines & precepts/many of which directly contradict God's word. And when you hand to stand before God & account for yr life & beliefs/how will you justify that?


By Nate on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 11:40 am:

    you know, R.C., judism has an assload of arguments about why christianity as a whole is invalid. right down to the simple point that the messiah is not supposed to be the son of god or anything close. the messiah is just supposed to be a millitary leader who will unite the jews and return them to the holy land and ressurect the temple.

    there is a lot of contradiction within the protestant bible, which i'm sure you have a set of explanations for.

    there is contradiction between the bible and the catechism of the catholic church, which spidey has explanations for.

    david koresh had far more followers than jesus did in his life time.


By patrick on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 12:41 pm:

    this whole topic is a tiring assload...no offense RC wish you stick around some of the baffoonery that goes on as well...


By semillama on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 12:58 pm:

    Yeah, R.C. Tell
    us what you had for breakfast already.

    The most interesting thing about R.C.'s argument is that she casts doubt on the early church authorities, yet accepts the bible they laid out. They're the ones who decided what is scripture and what isn't, not God. Another interesting thing in the argument is the underlying idea that God is not infallible, that life is a work in progress, and is not going along according to some set plan.


By Rhiannon on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 09:54 am:

    R.C., I apologize for not replying sooner -- I wasn't aware that you had responded.

    I'm not really sure *how* I should reply, because I'm not interested in getting into a "you're wrong and I'm right" argument. You asked me to provide the scriptural basis for certain Catholic practices, and I did (not all of them, I know...I didn't have the time, and I don't have the resources with me now).

    To be honest, I don't care whether you agree with Catholic interpretation of Scripture or not. Of course you don't...if you did, you'd be a Catholic. Neither am I interested in persuading you that the Catholic interpretation is right. I think it's right, but if you and others don't, you're perfectly entitled to your own interpretations. Because that's what they are...interpretations of often-ambiguous writings.

    I do disagree with your contention that Catholicism skews interpretations of the Bible to serve its own ends. I would say it's the other way around: the interpretation leads to the revelation of the ends.

    Also, when I mentioned Sacred Tradition...that refers to the practices of the early Christian church (and, according to *our* tradition, Catholic Church...because the only other churches/traditions in existence at that time were the so-called heretical sects, such as Arianism and Jansenism, none of which -- to my knowledge -- exist in the same form today.), not to anything carried over from the Old Testament.

    I say this in order to clarify what I said earlier.

    After that, I'll say no more to "correct" you. If you question the righteousness of my beliefs and practices, that's your business. It's not my place to challenge that except to say that I know I try to be as good a person as I can and love as much as I can, and I do this by the means I know and have evaluated to be correct. (And let me state for the record that I'm very much aware that I don't always try very hard, and I often fail to be loving at all.) So when it comes to justifying my life and my beliefs in front of God on the day of judgment...He knows my heart and knows my motivations and intentions, and so if, by some chance, the methods I employed to become the person I think He wants me to be were incorrect, I trust that He'll have mercy on my error.



    If you're still interested in contesting the Catholic teachings we discussed, let me know: my roommate is more knowledgable than I, and she often likes a good argument. If you wish, I could show her what you've written and she could respond.


By Rhiannon on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 11:39 am:

    Clarification: Right now, I see that the bit about me trying to be good and yet failing wasn't very clear. The first part sounds like I always try to be good, and then I go and say I don't always try. What I meant to say is that it's my intention to try as hard as I can (because I know that's what I should do) and yet I so often fail. Same with the love part.

    I did't mean to sound like I think I'm so good or anything. Honestly. I'm sorry if that's the way it came out.


By R.C. on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 12:21 pm:

    Discussions of God & religion are always 'tiring' to those with no faith in God or interest in the topic. But Rhi & I care abt this subject. I've scrolled thru endless discussions of rock bands that went on for months & never jumped in just to tell everyone whow 'tired' their subject matter was to me. If we're boring you, Patrick, there are lots of other places to play around here.

    I had leftover roast chicken for breakfast, Sem. Six had some too.

    But Mom's birthday is tomorrow & mine is a week later. So my Da is taking us out to the Madfish Grill for dinner. I'm gonna order every single lobster dish on the menu! And 2 desserts!

    Rhi: If yr roommate wants to jump in/bring it on! As I said/I'm not looking to bash yr faith/just to illustrate that there seem to be more places where Catholic doctrine contradicts scriptures than where it dovetails with it.

    And Nate/Koresh had a few hundred followers/ Christ had thousands in his lifetime. Rememebr the story of feeding the 5000 who caem to hear him speak when all they had was a few fish & some loaves of bread?


By Antigone on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 10:54 pm:

    Maybe religion is more tiring than rock bands because there aren't guys in white shirts and black ties riding around your neighborhood on bicycles who will knock on your door and chat with you endlessly and earnestly about how your life will be completely changed if you listen to their rock band. Maybe it's because there aren't millions of people occupying the land of another people because it happens to be the ancient land given to them by their rock band. Maybe it's because it's practically unheard of for one person to kill another person because they prefer different rock bands.

    BTW, I fuckin' HATE Korn!


By semillama on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 10:02 am:

    My rock band can beat up your rock band.


By patrick on Thursday, November 2, 2000 - 03:13 pm:

    *sticking tongue out at RC and hopping on moped, speeding away*


By Basal ganglia on Thursday, November 2, 2000 - 10:55 pm:

    i'm rhiannon's roommate, and also a practicing roman catholic. since you welcome further discussion, i will attempt to address some of your arguments as clearly as possible. you seem to be very serious about your faith, as evinced by the work you put into your answers. i respect your sincere devotion to Christ and the love of the Word of God that is evident in the close attention you give to the Bible.

    first, on Mary and the Saints:

    you provide the following as evidence that Catholic practice constitutes 'worship' of the Mother of Jesus and the saints:

    "Here's a dictionary definition of worship:

    Worship: 1) The reverent love and allegiance accorded a deity, idol, or sacred object. 2) A set of ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed 3) Ardent, humble devotion 4) To love or pursue devotedly 5) To participate in religious rites of worship.

    And here is what the Catholic church beileves about Mary:

    <<...we ought to have a tender devotion to Mary and become her children by performing those works of devotion which will secure for us her protection and the grace of God. These are principally praying her Rosary, wearing her Scapulars, keeping her feasts, joining those sodalities erected in her honor, and having great zeal for souls.>> (THE MOTHER OF GOD AND HER GLORIOUS FEASTS, By Fr. H.O'Laverty - pg. 192)"

    ---There is one problem that surfaces immediately. the definition of 'worship' that you use, while the standard dictionary definition, is not a theological one. according to this definition (the one that you provide), one could be accused of worshipping one's spouse or one's children just as easily as Mary or the saints - "ardent, humble devotion," "to love or pursue devotedly." one's love for a spouse could easily be called ardent, and is all the more virtuous for being humble. people pursue causes devotedly, but i would hardly say this constitutes worship in the theological sense. what you've done is provide a bad definition - it's too general to be very useful.
    As theologian/philosopher Thomas Aquinas argued, only that which is the best is worthy of worship, and nothing less than that. Aquinas even argued against an ethical view known as Divine Command Theory, which states that the moral law is something above God that God enforces, since that would imply that there was something better than God, which is, of course, unacceptable. The reason why Aquinas argued against this is because only the best is worthy of worship, and only God can be the best.
    We make the distinction between necessity by grace and necessity by nature. Some things are necessary just by the very metaphysical essence of objects and events, others by the will of God, by God's choice (which is not constrained by anything). Now, Christ is necessary by nature for our salvation. There is no possible way we could have been saved after the Fall except thru Christ. However, God willed to send His Son to earth through a woman. He willed that Christ's Incarnation would involve a human mother, so that salvation, by God's will, became dependent on Mary answering "yes" to the angel Gabriel. Therefore, because she has such an important role in our salvation (necessary by grace), we honour Mary. Further, Christ, on the cross, gave Mary to us as a Mother, saying to John, "Behold, your mother." We believe that John represents all who wish to be beloved disciples of Jesus (so, I guess, all Christian believers). Because Jesus wills it, we try to love her and honour her as a mother. As for the Rosary, it is a prayer asking Mary to intercede for us to God. The words of the prayer, 'Hail Mary,' which constitutes the Rosary (besides the Our Father and Glory Be - prayers directly to God), are from Scripture - "Hail, full of grace" - the angel Gabriel, "Blessed are you among women" - Elizabeth, "Blessed is the fruit of your womb" - Elizabeth. Then we say "Holy Mary, mother of God" - Council at Ephesus (300), and, finally "pray for us sinners" - which is just asking for intercession and admitting that we are, as you noted, sinners. now, i admit that the part about "mother of God" is the controversial part, since it refers to a council and not *directly* to scripture. however, i will have more to say on that point when i address your comments on Scripture.

    on the following, you assert:
    "Why wd you rely on the conjecture of men when you can go to the bible & find out for yrself what God thinks & commands & expects in terms of how those who beileve in Him shd live in the world?"

    First it is important to note that there are some hidden assumptions underlying the point that you make here. (1) You assume a view of human knowledge that is by no means uncontroversial, and (2)You assume an interpretation of the Bible that is based on a particular historical trend, and not on what the Word of God itself contains.
    I will try to address (1), though it brings up a lot of thorny issues. By saying that the individual herself should go and consult the Bible to find out what God wants and not rely on the "conjecture of men," you imply that the tradition of interpretation and development of understanding of the Bible throughout intellectual/religious history is null and void. Is this the way inquiry proceeds in any domain of human knowledge? Hardly. Does any scholar ever directly approach any great work for interpretation as if no one had said anything about it before, disregarding all the criticism and commentary that have taken place through history, or does she not rather take account of what others (possibly more knowledgeable than herself) have said on the topic? Does one undertake inquiry into a particular subject in isolation, or rather as part of an intellectual community with a history? Would a beginner biologist proceed to go out and do experiments on his own, without any type of background training, without looking at what Mendel, Darwin, and other great scientists have said on the topic throughout history, without getting advisement from an expert trained in the field? That would be preposterous. Similarly, we cannot ignore what has been said throughout the years about the Word of God, the rich history of interpretation and application that has developed. To even think it is possible for the human intellect to transcend space and time and stand outside history (note: on its own), to view any subject matter from anything but a *particular* standpoint, is highly implausible. Why should anyone think this? Further, is there any reading of the Bible that does not involve interpretation? Interpretation is *always* involved, so it is best not to assume that one has the *true, unprejudiced, uncoloured* view of the text, as opposed to others. What could give anyone the presumption to think that his or her view is somehow the only unbiased one? In any domain of human knowledge, one who is learning the subject defers to the experts and learns the history. Why should the Bible be any different? What gives us reason to think it is different? This brings me to point (2). You say that we should go directly to the Bible to see how God thinks we should live. I agree. But somehow the clause "and only to the Bible" gets smuggled into your argument. Where in the Bible does it say that we only learn what God wants through reading the Bible? Nowhere. Then where does this idea originate? With Martin Luther - "Sola fide, sola scrittura." Jesus never said these words, nor does the Bible affirm them. Jesus says we should pray to our Father in secret, that we should keep His commandments, that we should believe in Him. He also instituted the Church. He breathed on His apostles and said that they were given the ability to forgive sins (John 20:22-23). Jesus even says that the whole truth is not given at once to the Apostles, but that they will learn it over time, through the Holy Spirit: "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth" (John 16:12-13). Jesus says to Peter, "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). How are these words to be interpreted? Is there a way around interpreting them?
    I was told of a woman who read the passage in which Jesus says to cut off one's arm or pluck out one's eye if it causes one to sin. She *interpreted* this passage literally and actually attempted to cut off her arm, since she thought it caused her to sin. The woman was put away when they found her applying a chainsaw to her arm. This is an extreme case, but it illustrates the point forcefully. Who is in the position to decide *on his or her own* the correct interpretation of Scripture? My guess is: no one. We have to treat it like any other domain in which we are seeking knowledge. We have to be humble enough to defer to the experts and to see ourselves as part of a tradition, as ensconced in a particular history.






By semillama on Friday, November 3, 2000 - 08:40 am:

    It's interesting to read your argument and see how many points could be used to undermine it as well as support it. If no one is in the correct position to interpret scripture, then that includes Roman Catholic priests. And you really don't want your religion to be treated "like any other domain in which we are seeking knowledge."

    I mean, if you really do that, then you have to seriously look at the fact that Jesus of Nazareth never actually wrote anything in the bible, that anything that Jesus supposedly said is actually someone else quoting him, and is a second-hand source at best. Thus, who's to say that much of what John and Peter said wasn't stuff they made up to support their power base in the early christian community? Then you have to take errors in translation into account. How many languages did it have to be translated from before we modern Americans could read it? 4? 5? Across 2000 years. If you every tried reading Chaucer in the original English, you would have a hard time deciphering it. What's to say what has been distorted throught the process over time? Remember that language contructs such as puns are easily lost in translation.

    I think that it's trouble to make ANY assumptions on what is meant in the bible without knowing something of the cultural background of the region it originated in and the people who wrote it. Who's to say the woman who cut off here arm because it had sinned against her WASN'T making the correct interpretation? Heck, according to what R.C. argues about idolatry, I didn't see where God made ANY distinction between graven images of deities and graven images (or art) in general, so maybe all art is against God?

    If we treat the bible like any other source of data, then we have to say that much of it is simply metaphor, borrowings from old myths, boosterism, and speculation, due to the data from other sources such as geology, history, and archaeology. Speaking as a historical archaeologist, I know very well how often the material evidence of an event or period will differ greatly from what was written about it.


By Basal ganglia on Saturday, November 4, 2000 - 03:00 pm:

    semillama-
    i'll try to address some of the ways you attempt to undermine my argument:

    (1) "If no one is in the correct position to interpret scripture, then that includes Roman Catholic priests"

    note that i never said that *no one* is in the correct position to interpret scripture. i made two points: (a) we have to consult the experts, and (b)we cannot, in our own individual interpretation, cut ourselves off from the history and community of interpretation. the expert, i would think, is the one who knows the history, has been trained under an expert, and devotes his or her life to the task. i think that many (though not all) Roman catholic priests fit this description. i also made the point that it would be presumptuous for one to think that his or her view is the only unbiased one. that still holds, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying. here's a sort of analogy: most (if not all) of the words in our language are vague. that doesn't mean we should stop trying to communicate with them.

    (2)"you have to seriously look at the fact that Jesus of Nazareth never actually wrote anything in the bible, that anything that Jesus supposedly said is actually someone else quoting him, and is a second-hand source at best. Thus, who's to say that much of what John and Peter said wasn't stuff they made up to support their power base in the early christian community?"

    right. and who's to say that the authors of the textbooks you or anyone else uses don't have a political agenda? and who's to say that darwin's (or mendel's, or any other scientist's) results that he published aren't all fiction? who's to say that all the memories you have right now weren't implanted in your brain by aliens, and that you were, in fact, created only 5 minutes ago as part of an extra-terrestrial experiment? following Aristotle's advice, i'd say we should seek from a subject matter only the degree of certainty that the subject matter admits. you don't ask for demonstrative proofs from a historian, nor do you ask a mathematician to produce (material)evidence for her conclusions. i can't have certain knowledge that Jesus himself actually said anything that's written in the Bible, nor do my rational intuitions inform me that Peter and John were not behind some conspiracy. at the same time, i don't know that my parents are really my parents (though i suppose we could do some DNA testing), that the stuff i learn from any book isn't pure fabrication. most of what we take for knowledge depends on our trusting other people, sources, and the intellectual community. and if you look at it more closely, most of what we call knowledge is based on the testimony of others.




bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact