The Truth about the RCC

[Eliyahu]

The sex issue in churches is pretty wide. Surely the RCC has had a problem. They have faced up to it, as awful as it is, and have pretty much tried to make it right. Even though it has cost them millions of dollars. Could they have done better, yes. Could they have done worse? Yes, they could have done much, much worse! What they have done has taken great courage and fortitude. But the other side of the coin is that many Protestant denominations do not tabulate the problem as they are "Independent". In the county's around this area there have been at least 4-6 sexual misconduct cases in the last year or so. With a combination of Pastors and Youth Ministers, all were Baptist. But no ones tabulating or keeping count. I know of no Catholic indiscretions locally. It's my understanding that overall Catholic Priest have about a 2-3% rate of sexual misconduct. The latest survey on Protestants (that I've read - about a year ago) shows they have a rate of about 18% (if memory serves me right). But these surveys are blind and it is known that a substantial percentage will not answer truthfully, no matter how the survey is conducted. When this "known" percentage is added it soars to well over 30% have had affairs/sexual misconduct in their careers as Ministers (don't trust this as it's from memory). I personally believe this is very, very low. I suspect that 80-90% of Ministers have affairs during their lives as Pastors. I would not be surprised to find it near 100%. Sex is a human weakness not confined to Catholics or men in prison. I believe that if you look into it you would find that pornography is the number one problem with Baptist Ministers addressed in counseling sessions. Also
if you look at the percent of Catholic Priest that actually "penetrated" someone it is absolutely miniscule. Most were fondling cases. I don't wish to condone or justify any sexual misconduct but it's a red herring, or the pot calling the kettle black, to limit sex to Catholics. Remember, I don't agree with celibacy and could not choose it.

1. I hope you are not saying that Roman Catholic priests commit sexual misconduct at the rate of 2-3% while Protestant Ministers commit the sexual misconduct at the rate of 80-90%:laugh:

2. Most of the Protestant groups are corrupted quite a lot.

3. Baptists are different though many Baptists are becoming "Catholic" too.:wavey:

4. I hope you realized the difference between the Bible Teaching on the qualification and requirements for the Offices ( Elder, Overseer, Bishop) and the practice or policy of RCC demanding the Celibacy for their priests.
Roman Religion is different from Christian Religion on this issue again.

5. You may be working very hard to prove that the Bible teaching is useless as Bible says this:

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Are you saying the Bible is useless? I hope you are not!

 

[BobRyan]

You guys are going to get this thread shut down before we get to the heart of the matter... back to the OP

On the "Talking to the Dead" thread -- Eliyahu states this ...



#1. Why tell this inconvenient non-flattering truth about the history of RCC persecution during the dark ages?

#2. Why does the Bible point to it time after time in Dan 7 and Dan 8 and Rev 12 and Rev 13 and Rev 17 and ...?

#3. Why is it that when RC sources THEMSELVES point to these inconvenient facts regarding their own history - RC members feel it is best to trash their own RC sources??

What "Good" does it to do to cover this up??

On the other hand what "good" does it do to remind Catholics and non-Catholics of that sad history during the dark ages?

Is it "relevant" today for church that STILL claims to have been infallible during those days and STILL refuses to actually say that killing those it opposed "was wrong"???

What OTHER Christian church today takes that position???

IF the basis for rationalizing and justifying its "killing of others" is a series of bad doctrinal positions (some of which are outlined in Lateran IV in terms of EXTERMINATING those it opposes) then is it ALSO justified to take a hard look at how such erroneous doctrines were created? Or is it better to just ignore all that history AND ignore the fact that the RCC today does not feel it needs to own up to it as a mistake??


(Oops! But that would mean admitting to fallability)

Why can't the RC members address the issue of the "Apology" for the crimes against humanity committed by the RCC in the dark ages??

Why is that topic so difficult for them?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

I was talking to the alive in the meantime! This thread is talking to the living.
Another thread is for the Dead!

 

[BobRyan]

True - but the OP here is about the facts of the dark ages and trying to come to a point of common ground.

Surely no CURRENT RCC member would want to return to those old dark ages days of the church. And surely ALL can clearly see that it was error to torture the saints. So in that case why not admit it?

Is the problem "still" that the RCC has to be "infallible" even while tormenting the saints in the dark ages?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mes228]

Infalibility

Bob, from memory I believe that the Pope must speak in "Ex-cathreda" mode to be "infallible". I also think this has been done (according to different sources) either nine or 13 times in the history of RCC. Really a very small number of times. I really am not Catholic nor a Catholic sympathizer but feel if the RCC is going to get bashed it should be accurate info. or it accomplishes little. Much of what has been posted in this thread is simply mis-information, half truths, that has been oft repeated until Protestants take it as gospel. accusations taken from Protestant "propaganda" (for lack of a better word).

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Bob, from memory I believe that the Pope must speak in "Ex-cathreda" mode to be "infallible". I also think this has been done (according to different sources) either nine or 13 times in the history of RCC. Really a very small number of times. I really am not Catholic nor a Catholic sympathizer but feel if the

mes228, you're correct in regards to Papal Infallibility. I would also add that fundamentalist confuse what the difference is between 'infallible' and 'impeccable'. They often believe that the Pope is 'sinless' and whenever he speaks its 'infallible'. This even comes from those who 'claim' to have been Catholic, which is really hard to believe, since I can find nothing in the catechism that supports their claims.

They don't understand that Ex Cathedra (latin for ‘from the seat’) is actually a Jewish concept, by the teaching authority of Moses, who took his seat (Exodus 18:13, 15-16). They also fail to understand that only is the Pope Infallibly when he speaks, again Ex Cathedra in regard to faith and morals. Christ promised His Church that He would send the Holy Spirit and He will lead them into all truth and that Christ would be with His Church until the end of the world. This is one way Christ protects His Church from teaching error.

Also a lot goes into the process when a Pope speaks Ex Cahthedra a lot of players are involved, the whole College of Cardinals are involved, searching through Scripture, Church Tradition, and above all praying. The Pope just doesn’t wake up one morning and decides to speak Ex Cathedra.

Finally, when I’m asked as question concerning faith and morals, I can rely upon a teaching authority and answer the question confidently. As a Protestant, just one of many thousands of competing sects, I couldn’t answer confidently, b/c what I believed to be correct teaching, another sect may disagree with me, even though we both appealed to scripture as our final authority, but oddly came to different conclusions.

RCC is going to get bashed it should be accurate info. or it accomplishes little. Much of what has been posted in this thread is simply mis-information, half truths, that has been oft repeated until Protestants take it as gospel. accusations taken from Protestant "propaganda" (for lack of a better word).

A number of things played and is still playing in my decision to reconcile with the Church, but one was a Critical Thinking Class I took in college a few years ago, which so happened to coincide with me just discovering the Early Church Fathers. As a fundamentalist, I was very anti-Catholic and what I was discovering in the ECF’s just didn’t jive with what I have been and was being taught as a Baptist. So as a project I wrote a paper detailing what I believed about the Catholic faith and then I had to write a second paper using non-biased sources. It was then that I discovered that what I was taught concerning Catholicism was false.

The Critical Think Class showed me that I was being told ‘what to think’ and not ‘how to think’. I also learned that when reading the New Testament, I needed to keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew talking mainly to Jews, so I needed to try and interpret the NT in a first Century Jewish context with a Hebrew mindset and not a 2007 mindset. Jesus often spoke using ‘cultural literacy’, meaning Christ spoke and acted in ways that the Jews of that time period would’ve understood and may be confusing for an American in 2007.

Blessings to you mes228
-

 

[DHK]

Bob, from memory I believe that the Pope must speak in "Ex-cathreda" mode to be "infallible". I also think this has been done (according to different sources) either nine or 13 times in the history of RCC. Really a very small number of times. I really am not Catholic nor a Catholic sympathizer but feel if the RCC is going to get bashed it should be accurate info. or it accomplishes little. Much of what has been posted in this thread is simply mis-information, half truths, that has been oft repeated until Protestants take it as gospel. accusations taken from Protestant "propaganda" (for lack of a better word).

That may be an accurate assessment about "ex cathedra."
But does it matter? Does that mean that everything else the Pope says is non-authoritative and can be considered as lies? Does Agnus disregard the words of the Pope when they are not spoken ex cathedra? Is he not still the head of the RCC? On the one hand he accuses a Baptist of using other sources such as commentaries, and then tells us that we have other sources than the Bible (which isn't really true). The Bible is our sole authority. But now comes the disclaimer that the Pope really isn't the RCC's authority unless he is speaking ex cathedra. Is this right Agnus? Is he your authority or not? Is what he speaks (ex cathedra or not) authoritative? If it is not authoritative why do you listen to him?

 

[Eliyahu]

Mes228 and Agnus,

Both of you are in a deep quagmire of the fallacy.

1. What kind of Magic Power is attached to the Cathedra and therefore the Bulls from Ex Cathedra become Infallible?

I hope you know that the attaching special magic power or believing in such is a kind of Idolatry.

2. If only the statements from Ex Cathedra are Infallible, why don't the popes make all the statements from Ex Cathedra to avoid any errors?
Why doesn't the Pope carry the Peter's Chair with him all the time?
Is it because he wants to enjoy making mistakes or errors?

3. When Pope Pius IX claimed the Papal Infallibility, did he declare it Ex Cathedra? Could you show me any article showing where he announced such Bull?
If he didn't announce the Bull of Papal Infallibility ex Cathedra, the Bull itself is falliable, right? Then the claiming Papal Infallibility was fallible, right?

4. What are the list of the Infallible Papal statements? Could you show us here? They may be often in Latin, but we can manage it. Show them here.


5. Some of the Infallible Papal Bulls were confirmed and they are:

Mary's Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary.

As for Mary's assumption, nobody has seen it but RCC claims. Even Apostle John who was supposed to take care of her and lived long enough( maybe even upto 100AD) to see her death or assumption never mentioned it in his epistles 1,2,3 or Revelation. Why did he omit it? Was it because the Assumption was not important?

As for Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bible says this:

" There is none righteous, no, not one" Rom 3:10

Was Mary an exeption ? Do you understand what " None, No, Not one" mean?
Was Bible wrong?

Why did Immaculate Mary say this?

My spirit has rejoiced in God, My Savior? ( Luke 1:47)

Don't sinners need a Savior? Wasn't Mary a sinner but redeemed by the Blood of Jesus? Didn't Mary need the Blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of her sins?

How come Mary could be born Immaculate?

Are those 2 theories still Infallible?


6. I hope you know that there were several Popes who disclaimed the Papal Infallibility. As far as I know they are :

There is a startling record of popes who disagreed with lone another. Adrian II declared civil marriages valid; Pius VII condemned them. Popes Vigilinus, Innocent III, Clement IV, Gregory XI, Adrian VI and Paul IV all disclaimed the attribute of infallibility.

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/RadioPI.html

7. These days, RCC limits the Papal Infallibility to Doctrine and Morals etc ex cathedra, because they are in the pinch and realize they are somehow ridiculous, in order to evade the responsibility for the Infallibility.
Could you show any statements attached to the Papal Infallibility before beginning of 20 century which limit the Infallibility only to Ex Cathedra ?

8. Can the notorious Pope like Alexander 6 who had many mistress and ran the Simony business and showed strong Nepotism make Infallibel Statements as long as He speaks out of Ex Cathedra?

9. You are claiming the Fallibility of the Popes in the normal life and in most of the life, but that they can become Infallible if they are seated in the peter's chair, which sounds quite fallible! In General you are claiming Papal Fallibility, right? Please be honest!

10. Where did you, Agnus, bring the limitation of " College of Cardinals" Is it your own definition? I may have to watch carefully over Agnus because he may become Next Pope liberalizing the Marriage of Priests from the celibacy, right?

As long as you are in RCC, you are standing on the sinking sand, which is a pity.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, from memory I believe that the Pope must speak in "Ex-cathreda" mode to be "infallible".

True and false.

True in that the RCC made that term up in the 19th century and tried to shield the many bogus Papal statements of history by saying "yes but the Pope did not say Mother May I so it does not count".

However they ALSO argue that while they make it up late in the history of the RCC it APPLIES to ALL the entire history and the PURPOSE is a claim from Matt 16 where Christ said "the Gates of hell shall not prevail".

They want to make the claim that in all of history the RCC ITSELF is infallible on all points of doctrine and morals -- if they allow that the RCC is in gross error but now and then it has a flawless Pope they completely destroy the argument they are seeking for the RCC.

Hint: If you are living in the dark ages and there are 2 or 3 rival Papal LINES (not just individuals but LINES with papal descent) HOW do you know that you are in the right army - and killing the right Catholics?

These are problems the Catholics had to face in the dark ages. And NOBODY was running around with a document saying "HEY MY Pope just spoke Ex Cathedra and yours did not so OUR SIDE must be right!". Rather ALL rival papal lines declared the OTHERS to be antichrist and spawn of the devil. (Luther was simply following a long standing Catholic tradition when HE started using some of those terms for the Popes)

I also think this has been done (according to different sources) either nine or 13 times in the history of RCC. Really a very small number of times.

The REASON there is no document for this as a 2000 year RC practice is that the term and practice was simply invented by the RCC in the 1900's for "Popes speaking Ex Cathedra".

I really am not Catholic nor a Catholic sympathizer but feel if the RCC is going to get bashed it should be accurate info. or it accomplishes little.

There is agrement there.

The question I am asking goes to the heart of the issue - the RCC CAN NOT officially claim to have been in error in IT's OWN Catholic Canon law (Lateran IV for example) calling for the EXTERMINATION of the saints that opposed it... AND STILL maintain it's claim to infallability.

IF they wanted to JUST give that right to "certain Popes" they COULD manage to find their way to giving such a public statement that disavows and appoligizes for Lateran IV and the like.

The fact is -- they are STUCK in a point where ALL THE WORLD sees that glaring error -- and crimes against humanity - and yet the RCC CAN NOT step back from it and say "we goofed".

This thread is simply aimed at highlighting that dilemma. It SHOULD be the most trivial thing of all for them to say "HEY we are sorry about what happened in the dark ages with our magesterium, our Canon Law was in error -- now let's move on"... They CAN NOT do it!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

If the Popes of RCC announced the Infallible Statements ex Cathedra only 13 times during the past 1700 years, it means that they announced Infallible Statements only once in 14 years.

Then, how many Bulls have been announced during the past 1700 years? Maybe thousands. Can they still claim the Papal Infallibility while the most of them were fallible?

I want to see the list of the Infallible Papal Statements!

When there were 3 popes in the history, the Infallible Pope must have been the one who possess the Peter's Chair! The chair makes the Pope Infallible!

Ex Cathedra was just a retreat from the ridiculous claim when they couldn't substantiate it.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

That may be an accurate assessment about "ex cathedra."
But does it matter? Does that mean that everything else the Pope says is non-authoritative and can be considered as lies? Does Agnus disregard the words of the Pope when they are not spoken ex cathedra?

Per Vatican II, when a pope doesn’t speak ex cathedra, loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincerest assent be given to decisions made by him.

So it’s my understanding that when a pope speaks on issues regarding a teaching on a moral issue, the Church respects it as a true teaching guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ and even thought the statement isn’t technically declared infallible and may later undergo further clarification. Take for instance the moral teachings on euthanasia and bioethics, which provide true guidance to the faithful, but probably will be clarified, although not changed, as the parameters of these issues evolve.

As I said before, I take comfort and finally can rejoice that there’s a magisterium that courageously teaches the truth, especially in a world where so many people think truth fluctuates or is simply a matter of personal whim…Sadly, I see this often played out in Protestantism.
-

 

[BobRyan]

Per Vatican II, when a pope doesn’t speak ex cathedra, loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincerest assent be given to decisions made by him.

So it’s my understanding that when a pope speaks on issues regarding a teaching on a moral issue, the Church respects it as a true teaching guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ

The Infallible in "morals and doctrine" claim made BASED on Matt 16 has to deal EXACTLY with that case or else the Popes are simply going to promote error over time and the RCC slips off its rails and into the ditch because "oops The Popes forgot to make an infallible statement while guiding the church to torture the saints and exterminate those with doctrinal differences".

Actions that are truely morally corrupt!

SO IF the Ex-Cathedra argument is construed to REMOVE all those the RCC today calls "WICKED POPES" in the line of Peter from having their own corrupt moral teachings affect the pure-Popes THEN all you have left is a few dozen good popes being unstained by all the bad ones but the RCC ITSELF is STILL driven into the ditch of mass murder, torture, inquisition, and every other form of abuse of doctrine and truth promoted by their wicked popes.

HOW does that solve the problem for the claims they WANT to make from Matt 16??

Take the statements in RC canon Law regarding "EXTERMINATION" of those who differ with the RCC on doctrine!

That "Magesterium" courageously proclaimed EXTERMINATION for those that differed with it --


INCLUDING fellow Catholics in RIVAL Papal armies!!


In Christ,

bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

SO IF the Ex-Cathedra argument is construed to REMOVE all those the RCC today calls "WICKED POPES" in the line of Peter from having their own corrupt moral teachings affect the pure-Popes THEN all you have left is a few dozen good popes being unstained by all the bad ones but the RCC ITSELF is STILL driven into the ditch of mass murder, torture, inquisition, and every other form of abuse of doctrine and truth promoted by their wicked popes.

Hi Bob, I understand that the only offensive tactic you have in your small, limited arsenal is the inquisition card. Again, I’m not going to defend this accusation you have against the Church, but I do know that SDA’s (and I have family members that are SDA) don’t know what honest research is or how to go about employing such methods. They rather have biased protestant and secular sources do all their homework and take that as the gospel truth and ignore the Churches side of the story. You’re not only disingenuous, but you’ll end up being deceived. So my challenge to you Bob is to get some good Church history books by Catholics and see their side of the story, after all, it’s only fair wouldn’t you say?

Now, in regard to corrupt popes, please keep in mind, that this Authority of the Church is invested in an office, not a person Bob. The authority of the office prevails even if the office holder fails; case-in-point former president Bill Clinton. Clinton was still Commander and Chief with more political authority than any other man. Yet you and I both know that Clinton himself failed to live up to that office, yet his signature is still the Law of the Land.

One last comment, the Catholic Church that I have found is the ONLY Church in HISTORY that has the reputation for caring for the poor. In many countries, today, the Church is the only source of medical and social care. The Church has always obeyed her Lord in this. Evangelicals have failed miserably, b/c they believe that getting saved is much more important than caring for the poor and the fact that they can never get together with other competing denominations to provide such service. Even James Dobson asked, “Where were the Protestants”, when the Church was in Cairo defending life!
-

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Bob, I understand that the only offensive tactic you have in your small, limited arsenal is the inquisition card.

I am impressed that you consider the slaughter and torture and "extermination" of millions of saints over centuries to be a "small card" presumably "to be ignored".

That statement alone is an elephant standing in your living room sir - for all to see.

Having swallowed that - it was just a short step to accepting prayers to the dead and worship at Mary's altars.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Agnus-dei

Again, I’m not going to defend this accusation you have against the Church

Now THERE is a well researched intellectually honest position for you to promote when glaring "inconvenient facts" are exposed about the RCC.

I am SURE that it going to fly on all non-RC discussion boards as a valid justification and defense of the inconvenient facts of history for which the RCC must answer.

Let me know how that works out for you.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

, but I do know that SDA’s (and I have family members that are SDA) don’t know what honest research is or how to go about employing such methods. They rather have biased protestant and secular sources do all their homework

Agnus - you simply are not reading these days if you are going to willingly climb out on THAT limb with ME.

Are you sure you don't want to THINK about that one - before I walk you to a place where YOU are going to attack ROMAN CATHOLIC sources for "admitting to too much"??

. So my challenge to you Bob is to get some good Church history books by Catholics and see their side of the story, after all, it’s only fair wouldn’t you say?

Been there.

done that.

AND I am willing to quote them for you - I am simply waiting for you to claim ANY FACT as true - that differs with what I have been saying.

So far you are pretty short on facts.

Feel free at any point to name one and to ask for the RC REFERENCE for it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Per Vatican II, when a pope doesn’t speak ex cathedra, loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincerest assent be given to decisions made by him.

So it’s my understanding that when a pope speaks on issues regarding a teaching on a moral issue, the Church respects it as a true teaching guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ and even thought the statement isn’t technically declared infallible and may later undergo further clarification. Take for instance the moral teachings on euthanasia and bioethics, which provide true guidance to the faithful, but probably will be clarified, although not changed, as the parameters of these issues evolve.

He can say what he wants about moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia, and then have the right to change his mind. That is not what bothers us.

The fact is: You claimed that the Popes have spoken only 13 times "ex cathedra" in past history. Now stick to doctrinal issues. I can name far more than 13 man-made doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that are heretical, some of them denying the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, the penalty of Christ dying on the cross for our sins, in fact even a denial of Christ dying on the cross for our sins. These doctrines that you believe have very seriuous implications. And if only 13 of them are infallible, then the rest of them can easily be challenged as being only man's opinion and subject to change at any time. So which ones are infallible

 

[BobRyan]

Now, in regard to corrupt popes, please keep in mind, that this Authority of the Church is invested in an office, not a person Bob. The authority of the office prevails even if the office holder fails; case-in-point former president Bill Clinton. Clinton was still Commander and Chief with more political authority than any other man. Yet you and I both know that Clinton himself failed to live up to that office, yet his signature is still the Law of the Land.

Let's take that example. IF MY claim is "The UNITED STATES NEVER made an error in its political or military decisions EVEN if at times it had bad Presidents" I would then have to ANSWER for the fact that Clinton gutted our military by half and that we have had to scramble to REBUILD what he tore down to face the modern threats to America.

It would be VERY hard to argue that his bad choices had NO EFFECT on the right or wrong actions of the Nation regarding all maters Political or Military.

By the same token - you can not claim for the RCC ITSELF an innerant postion on all matters of doctrine and morals IF the Popes are PROMOTING wicked morals and bad doctrine to the EXTENT that they have catholics killing catholics on behalf of rival PAPAL LINES and if they call for the EXTERMINATION of those who doctrinally differ EVEN in Canon Law (Lateran IV keeps coming to mind).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

One last comment, the Catholic Church that I have found is the ONLY Church in HISTORY that has the reputation for caring for the poor. In many countries, today, the Church is the only source of medical and social care. The Church has always obeyed her Lord in this.

I could have SWORN you just said you had relatives that were SDA!!

Surely they told you about ADRA and surely they informed you that the TWO larges world-wide educational and health system agencies in the world are the SDA church and the RCC.

How in the world do you get that "in the dark" view seeing only the work of the RCC????

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I am impressed that you consider the slaughter and torture and "extermination" of millions of saints over centuries to be a "small card" presumably "to be ignored".

I don’t know why I even bother answering Eliyahu or yourself. All Roman Catholic threads, regardless the topic, always seems to fall back to the “inquisition” when all else fails.

I don’t deny that the Catholic Church engaged in the “inquisition”, but “exterminated” millions as you claim is just absurd! Historians credit the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, with major changes in social structure. The “inquisition” is credit with few, precisely b/c the numbers are so few! And no one knows for sure the exact number, so it’s easy for you anti-Catholic likes to flippantly throw out millions.

Now, the pagans over the centuries, have murdered millions of Christians, which continues today. So I’d say you have your facts skewed.

I could have SWORN you just said you had relatives that were SDA!!

Surely they told you about ADRA and surely they informed you that the TWO larges world-wide educational and health system agencies in the world are the SDA church and the RCC.

It’s my wife’s aunt and uncle who are SDA and they’ve never enlighten me to that “little” known fact…is it a new organization, maybe 55 years old? LOL, the SDA has some “catching-up” to do, but it is good that they’re doing something, but they’re notorious for false witness and one that they’ll have to answer for one day.

Speaking of SDA and the other topic…”Talking to the Dead”. My wife’s grandmother passed away a little over a year ago. This past Easter we were visiting and they (the SDA’s) were there, encouraging the husband to “visit” her gravesite, b/c she was “all alone there” and to “keep her company, by talking with her”. Is this an SDA ritual or something?

It’s sad to see them. Especially the uncle, he’s miserable, whenever they’re around for family cookouts, he’s not allowed to eat any meat products…he has to sneak a quick bite of chicken whenever she’s not looking and he they speak of Ellen G. White like she’s some pope in her own right, but that’s the cultic life I guess.
-