|
|
Post by Wasp on Oct 27, 2009 14:59:29 GMT
Lying hate filled bigoted bastard who has caused more problems than enough in the triangle area. More interested in representing drug dealing republican criminals instead of those who suffer because of them and as long as he can try and throw in the word Protestant or loyalist into everything that is wrong then he's a happy man. Piece of filth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Oct 27, 2009 20:14:13 GMT
Well he is in very good company then for someone who likes to intimidate, discriminate, inflame sectarian tensions, create sectarian tensions and supports the ethnic cleansing of the PUL community.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Oct 27, 2009 22:05:40 GMT
You do know he is a Protestant don't you? He was also a Unionist at one stage. Thought you'd be into the whole reaching out aspect of his character. First of all I do not care what religion he is even though he is now a catholic, secondly his wife took the Unionist out of him and if he acted as a Unionist councillor the way he behaves like a sf councillor then his political career would be short lived. Unfortunately many republicans seem to like the characteristics that leonard has so he will always have a political career. |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Oct 27, 2009 22:33:56 GMT
Not that it matters an iota but I've seen nothing to indicate Leonard is now Catholic except for claims that he has visited mass with his wife, which would not be at all surprising if she is Catholic but in no way proves he has converted. There are millions of Protestant/Catholic mixed marriages around the globe where people regularly attend each other's Church so unless someone can actual find concrete evidence of Leonard's conversion it's an unsubtantiated rumor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Oct 27, 2009 22:45:40 GMT
BA don't make me laugh, there are millions of people around the world who have converted from one faith to another with no links as proof. Your demands are both childish and ridiculous and you know it. His faith is irrelevant and is of no improtance but it is obviously of importance to setanta who apparently doesnt care about religion when he is the one who keeps bringing up leonards faith, not me. The fact of the matter is he is a catholic now and has been for quite a while but I do not see the importance of this, he is a piece of filth and it is not his religion that determines that it is his lying sectarian politics that makes him this, nothing else.
Now ba if you want to continue debating his religion then go ahead, if you want to make absurd and childish demands then go ahead but I would rather avoid such sillyness. Maybe I should ask you for concrete evidence of everysingle person who joined the catholic faith or left the catholic faith, if you cant then people joining/leaving is ,merely an unsubtantiated rumour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Oct 27, 2009 23:17:28 GMT
I never said people converted - where was that in my post. I said people visit EACH OTHER's Churches in a mixed marriage. There are a number of mixed marriages in my extended family,one of my aunts is married to an Anglican (High Anglican tradition) and she regularly attends mass with him in his Church as he does in hers as she is a devout Catholic. You know my wife is Eastern Orthodox, she attends mass with me and I have been to her Church, it doesn't mean in either situation someone has converted. Attending the Church of your marriage partner does not mean you desire to convert. I find my wife's Church fascinating and full of profound spirituality but I have no desire to become Eastern Orthodox. It may be difficult for you as you see visiting a Catholic Church as engaging in a pagan ritual, but many other non-Catholics do not and would have no qualms about attending a service in one with their husband or wife.
If his religion is not important to you why do you as well as Setanta comment on it? Certainly a phrase such as, 'I do not care what religion he is even though he is now a Catholic'. give some lie to the fact of you been indifferent to his faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Oct 28, 2009 15:10:47 GMT
Just to define terms - mixed marriage - from a Catholic point of view where one partner is Catholic and the other is not, in terms of what I understand of Leonard's marriage it would technically be like my own (matrimona mixta) where both parties are Christian, but one is non-Catholic. Interestingly while looking for a link to explain exactly how mixed marriages are regarded by the Catholic Church I found this:- www.nimma.org.uk/index.HTMThat site point out more than one in then marriages in NI are now between Christians of different Churches and that generally this means a Catholic partner and a non-Catholic partner. When you get married to a non-Catholic Christian you ask the Bishop for a dispensation, unless you are marrying someone like a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness it is generally granted fairly easily. In my case I was told it was a formality as my wife's Church was regarded as having valid sacraments and holy orders. I have seen no proof Mr. Leonard is a convert, merely what seems to be an assumption that the minute you enter a Catholic Church you are one. I'd suggest asking Mr. Leonard to settle the matter but I suspect if he replied that he had not converted it would be regarded as not fully truthful and if he answered yes he would be seen as a 'traitor'. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Oct 28, 2009 16:02:30 GMT
I brought up religion because WASP posted that Leonard is bigotted against Protestants, Unionists, Loyalists. Just pointing out that you cant be bigotted aginst what you are! You certainly can be bigoted to what you are, you are talking nonesense. Take the catholic brigade of the lvf in Lurgan are you saying those members wouldnt be bigoted against catholics because they themselves are catholic?? That aside BA the reason I added even though he is a catholic is because he is one. Secondly you are going on about mixed marriages, I know fine well many people attend the service of their partner yet have not become the same faith as their partner but you are completley missing the point. Leonard now is a catholic and if he was still a Protestant then I would hate him even more if that was possible. On top of that to address other points you made BA you do know that many who have joined another faith are still statistically catholics according to the rcc. I am not a full member of my church so statistically I belong to no church. There are many people who have left the catholic church and joined another church but are still counted as catholics in the eyes of the rcc because they did not excommunicate themselves which to me is utter nonesense. Check out the vineyard which has according to some senior members who I know personally reckon about 30 to 40% of their congreagation were catholics and of the many I personnally know I do not know a single one of them that wrote to the rcc to be excommunicated. Som while there are many who have left and joined another church there are also those who attend other services who have not left their church. |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Oct 28, 2009 17:25:05 GMT
You do not write to the Church to be excommunicated, that is misrepresentation of the procedure and of what excommunication means. Excommunication does not mean ex-Catholic. To formally leave the Church you have to write to the diocesan bishop and request to leave. The reason those who do not formally ask to leave are counted is because baptism is regarded as leaving an indelible mark on the soul, even for those who formally leave this remains true.
The point i am making is that nowhere have I seen any proof to convince me Leonard is now a Catholic, only he 'was seen in mass with the missus' and similar.
As usual I find this whole exchange bizarre as historically republicanism sprang largely from a Protestant background and from Protestant individuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Oct 28, 2009 20:59:27 GMT
It is a disgrace to have to write to anyone in any church for permission to leave and as far as the baptism leaving a mark on the soul which suggests entry into heaven then that is unbiblical and therefore untrue. Baptism is not essential for heaven and it is not a ticket for heaven either.
If someone starts going to any church regularly wouldnt you say that it is highly likely that this church is now this persons place of worship and therefore it would be highly likely that they have joined that church??
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Oct 28, 2009 21:22:41 GMT
In order - many Churches have a similar procedure and not just the Catholic Church, many Protestant mainstream denominations have similar systems if you formally leave. Baptism does not guarantee entry into heaven, no Catholic has any absolute gaurantee they will be going to heaven or hell. Baptism is biblical and, literal baptism with water is not however essential for entry to heaven, there I will agree you and it is also absolutely not a ticket to heaven nor should be regarded as such.
As to someone regularly attending that Church meaning they have joined that Church - I would say no that is superficial evidence at best. My wife attends my Church far more often than her own, given that superficial evidence you could assume she is Catholic -she is most definitely not but the number of Russian Orthodox Churches in London is vanishingly small and most are very far away.
There is a formal procedure to joining the Catholic Church that you must undergo to join it as a cathecumen. Billy Leonard may go to his wife's Church as she is his wife. Also, he may have no problems with regarding it as a valid Christian ceremony, you do I know WASP, but millions upon millions of Protestants do not have the same issues with the Catholic mass and regard it as a valid celebration of Christianity.
If he has converted he would have had to go through RCIA for a considerable period of time, he would have to make a first communion and a confirmation (not baptism as his baptism would be regarded as valid) if anyone happens to see Leonard receive the sacrament of Communion then you can assume he has
a) really converted - as it is absolutely forbidden for non-Catholics (with the exception of the Eastern Orthodox )to received the sacrament.
b)The priest has broken one of the major rules of his office by distributing the host to a non-Catholic
or
c)The priest gave it to Billy who received it under false pretences- as Mr. Leonard is a publically known figure in the north that seems an unlikely possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Oct 28, 2009 21:30:37 GMT
Please note I said any church and not just the catholic church.
Is infant baptism biblical??
Big difference and you are not comparing like with like here, there are many Protestant churchs near where Leonard lives so he is not attending mass because Protestant churchs are disapearing.
He may see it as perfectly valid and if he remained a Protestant then I would say he is a Prod who attends a catholic church which in itself highly unusual for any Protestant to regularly attend catholic services unless of course they are not a true Protestant in the first place.
The numbers game is an invalid point, it is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Oct 28, 2009 21:53:05 GMT
For me WASP the Catholic Church is PERFECTLY biblical in all it's doctrine. The actions of individual members of the Church, well that's another matter entirely of course as we can see from the behaviour of the Church in Ireland which has er, let the side down somewhat (to massively understate the issue) And yes infant baptism is biblical - if the Catholic doctrine on this makes you tear your heart out the the Eastern Orthodox sacrament of chrismation where baptism, communion and confirmation are all issued to a baby at once will make you spin on your head i think  Infant baptism occurs in the bible itself - if you like I'll pull the passage up where it happens. You are viewing Protestantism and Catholicism through the lens of Northern Ireland which warps the view of both. A Protestant attending mass in N.Ireland probably is highly unusual but in other areas of the world where mixed marriages are very, very common it's not at all unusual and no-one would regard a Protestant doing so as not a true Protestant. And I see absolutely nothing to prevent a Protestant joining us at mass and worshipping God. |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Oct 28, 2009 21:59:47 GMT
Of course Mr. Leonard's wife could attend a service with him as well to show mutual respect. Although I have no idea how devout a Catholic she is, for a devout Catholic that would not fulfill their weekly obligation and they'd have to attend mass as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Oct 28, 2009 23:11:51 GMT
Boy havent wee taken this thread way off topic. ;D
Ok to narrow things down a bit, I will name a few things on a new thread and you can tell me how it is perfectly biblical.
Show me one place in the bible where it says to baptize children??
Please if you can leave other churches out of it, the numbers game as I have already said is meaningless. Please pull out that passage but lets do it on another thread mate, please.
Definately not, the one thing I hate is in N.Ireland as soon as you debate religion you are automatically deemed a bigot who hates Protestants or Catholics etc. Absolute nonesense and N.I is all to often used as a scapegoat.
I dont think you will ever get proof of Protestants worldwide attending mass on a regular basis, you will find the rcc has done many things to try and prevent catholics joining say for example the charasmatic movement in S. America.
I see plenty wrong with anyone of anyfaith partaking in a mass to worship God.
|
|
Infant baptism occurs in the bible itself - if you like I'll pull the passage up where it happens.