Theoketos Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 President Obama was the only one to offer a prayer up for the soul of Sen. Kennedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 That's just crazy talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='Theoketos' date='31 August 2009 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1251730732' post='1958801'] President Obama was the only one to offer a prayer up for the soul of Sen. Kennedy. [/quote] Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamiller42 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' date='31 August 2009 - 01:51 AM' timestamp='1251697877' post='1958747'] Yeah, that's a level headed analysis. [/quote] You're welcome. Anytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='30 August 2009 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1251691059' post='1958703'] Hardly. Its done as a duet as the funeral procession leaves the church after the Final Commendation, our Masses are done strictly to GIRM standards. [/quote] Sorry, just sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='Theoketos' date='31 August 2009 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1251730732' post='1958801'] President Obama was the only one to offer a prayer up for the soul of Sen. Kennedy. [/quote] No way! Isn't praying for souls contrary to his beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='31 August 2009 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1251753855' post='1959001'] No way! Isn't praying [s]for souls[/s] contrary to his beliefs? [/quote] That's petty and argumentative of me to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='kamiller42' date='31 August 2009 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1251733690' post='1958830'] Anytime. [/quote] No thanks, I'm good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='31 August 2009 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1251753855' post='1959001'] No way! Isn't praying for souls contrary to his beliefs? [/quote] Which beliefs? His belief in being the anti Christ or his Islamic faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='31 August 2009 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1251753855' post='1959001'] No way! Isn't praying for souls contrary to his beliefs? [/quote] He's a good liar. And he also talks out of both sides of his mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='30 August 2009 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1251685601' post='1958655'] There's a difference between an elderly couple going about their business and a politician who spent the better part of the past 40 years working towards the legalization and acceptance of objective evils (i.e., abortion; homosexual marriage) that the Church prohibits. [/quote] so now there is acceptable amounts of scandel? is some scandel ok, but not others? by logic, should all people who could cause any scandel be refused a catholic funeral? again, that would mean that anyone unless they were 100% open about their life with everyone they knew could cause scandel. a couple who died without children could cause scandel because people might assume they used birth control. so just because the couple did not discuss all of their medical problems with everyone they knew, they should be refused a cahtolic funeral because they could cause scandel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 [quote name='kamiller42' date='29 August 2009 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1251592904' post='1958102'] Bending and breaking the rules for Teddy's funeral seems very appropriate. It was his life. The cherry on top of this farce is if the archdiocese accepts 30 pieces of silver from the Kennedys as a sign of gratitude. The "man" is dead, but the seeds of death and destruction he planted will last decades afterward. Grrr... [/quote] so now is the equvilant of judas and the archdiocese are the equivilant of the pharises who got jesus crucified? yeah, that makes sense, that very christian, comparing anyone to judas and the pharises who killed jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' date='31 August 2009 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1251768120' post='1959165'] so now there is acceptable amounts of scandal? is some scandal ok, but not others? by logic, should all people who could cause any scandal be refused a catholic funeral? again, that would mean that anyone unless they were 100% open about their life with everyone they knew could cause scandal. a couple who died without children could cause scandal because people might assume they used birth control. so just because the couple did not discuss all of their medical problems with everyone they knew, they should be refused a cahtolic funeral because they could cause scandal? [/quote] In short, yes, there are acceptable amounts of p[b]otential scandal[/b]. I have a girlfriend. Does this potentially cause scandal because some people might assume we've done unchaste things? Yes. We haven't though, and there's no reason to think so. Some people however, don't necessarily need a good reason, or any reason at all. The difference is in degree, to be sure, and Senator Kennedy actively participated in very, very grave scandal for his entire career. There is no ambiguity, there's no misunderstandings. He caused scandal. At the other end of the scale there's significant ambiguity, massive misunderstandings (potentially) and no verified facts. There is indeed a difference. Also you've been spelling scandal wrong in this thread. It bugged me, so I'm just saying. Don't take it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 (edited) [quote name='havok579257' date='31 August 2009 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1251768120' post='1959165'] so now there is acceptable amounts of scandel? is some scandel ok, but not others? by logic, should all people who could cause any scandel be refused a catholic funeral? again, that would mean that anyone unless they were 100% open about their life with everyone they knew could cause scandel. a couple who died without children could cause scandel because people might assume they used birth control. so just because the couple did not discuss all of their medical problems with everyone they knew, they should be refused a cahtolic funeral because they could cause scandel? [/quote] I'm dizzy. Edited September 1, 2009 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='31 August 2009 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1251768713' post='1959178'] I'm dizzy. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now