Posted on 04/17/2015 12:12:16 PM PDT by RnMomof7
I’ve mentioned that Roman Catholicism is so onerous because it puts its hooks in you at various times in your life – from baptism as a child, to “first confession” and “first holy communion”, then Confirmation as an early teen, then marriage, baptism of your own children, etc. It’s a programmatic cycle.
There is another point at which Rome is prominent, and that is at death. As the “Baby Boom” generation continues to age and die, people will continue to be focused on this phase of life, either as people focused on the end of their own lives, or that of their aging parents.
Paul Moses, a journalism professor at Brooklyn College/CUNY”, has written a piece for the Wall Street Journal this morning entitled “A Liberal Catholic and Staying Put”, which puts this in view.
Beginning the article with some comments from the atheistic “Freedom From Religion Foundation”, which urged discontented, liberal-minded Catholics to “Summon your fortitude, and just go”, he rejects this notion with the following comments:
To me, these invitations reflect a shallow view of the Catholic Church that reduces its complex journey to the points where it intersects with the liberal social agenda. Pope Francis’ pastoral approach has shown a more merciful, less judgmental face of the church—one that always existed but needed to be more prominent in the public arena.
After my father died last year, I realized that my instinctive resistance to these “just go” arguments—from the atheists, the secularists, the orthodox, the heterodox or anyone else—runs deep. It began when I observed how impressively the church was there for me in a moment of need (emphasis added).
Early on the morning after he died, I went to my father's parish, St. Peter's in lower Manhattan, to find out what to do to bury him. I found one of the priests in the sacristy after the early Mass. The Rev. Alex Joseph took my hands in his, spoke a beautiful prayer, told me of his own father's death years earlier and added, "Our fathers are always with us." I was much moved.
We decided to have my father's funeral in the Staten Island parish where he had worshiped for 25 years … Bernard L. Moses, who died at 88, had loved Father Madigan’s homilies, and to hear [Father Madigan] speak at the funeral Mass was to understand why. My father had advanced up the ranks of the New York City Housing Authority to director of management. Citing his concern for tenants, Father Madigan used the traditional Catholic term “corporal work of mercy” to describe what my father did. It explained for me, in those difficult moments, why my father, who was well-schooled in Catholic social teachings, had passed up the opportunity for a more pleasant career in academia, or a more lucrative one managing private housing, to work in housing projects instead.
Few of us, I think, live daily on the edge of eternity in the conscious way that the Puritans did, and we lose out as a result. For the extraordinary vivacity, even hilarity (yes, hilarity; you will find it in the sources), with which the Puritans lived stemmed directly, I believe, from the unflinching, matter-of-fact realism with which they prepared themselves for death, so as always to be found, as it were, packed up and ready to go (emphasis added). Reckoning with death brought appreciation of each day’s continued life, and the knowledge that God would eventually decide, without consulting them, when their work on earth was done brought energy for the work itself while they were still being given time to get on with it (pg 14).
Though the four gospels have been regarded as canonical since Irenaeus in the 2nd century,[1] Harnack—like earlier German scholars—rejected the Gospel of John as without historical value regarding Jesus' life:
"In particular, the fourth Gospel, which does not emanate or profess to emanate from the apostle John, cannot be taken as an historical authority in the ordinary meaning of the word. The author of it acted with sovereign freedom, transposed events and put them in a strange light, drew up the discourses himself, and illustrated great thoughts by imaginary situations. Although, therefore, his work is not altogether devoid of a real, if scarcely recognisable, traditional element, it can hardly make any claim to be considered an authority for Jesus' history; only little of what he says can be accepted, and that little with caution. On the other hand, it is an authority of the first rank for answering the question, What vivid views of Jesus’ person, what kind of light and warmth, did the Gospel disengage?"[2][3
Harnack denied the possibility of miracles but argued that Jesus may well have performed acts of healing that seemed miraculous: "That the earth in its course stood still; that a she-ass spoke; that a storm was quieted by a word, we do not believe, and we shall never again believe; but that the lame walked, the blind saw, and the deaf heard will not be so summarily dismissed as an illusion."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Harnack#Theology
Then stop your pals from posting them. I enjoy looking at them. If you go to Italy, you’ll see the preserved tongues of saints on display.
As usual, you’re misreading what I wrote.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
A Catholic complaining about a “rigid” form of Chrisianity?
That is rich!!!!!!
They are not "more alive" than the born again believer. In the spiritual realm, the born again believer is just as alive as they are because we are all alive in Christ and you can't become more alive than that.
And look what happened when all those Catholic politicians got elected by Cathoilc constituents.
Our problems began when we LEFT that Protestant hertiage, not because of it.
Are you CAWW: Hello, Mcfly, Mcfly, Mcfly
And that was not the question I asked.
ealgeone:
First, you are reading into what you want to read into. Not trying to be flippant here, but I have to point out that I only cited Harnack as a Historian who is well versed in early Church history and as he correctly notes, no Church Father, Church Council, etc. ever denied veneration of relics and honoring dead saints. Second, while I did cite him as a historian, at no time in my post did I ever cite him in the context of theology nor do I share his theology
In summary, one can respect the scholarship of a Patristic Scholar while not agreeing with his theology. This is the context that I linked an article that cited Harnack. He was among the Protestant German Historical Critical scholars in terms of theology. I am well aware of that, nevertheless, that does not mean that his historical analysis of the subject at hand, i.e. veneration of relics and honoring deceased saints was wrong, because it is not.
Good day to you, you, as compared to some of your FR Protestant cohort always post in a respectful manner.
Are you Jesus?
Reason I posted him comments on John are to call into question his ability to properly understand church history.
If he can't agree that John is authentic it makes me call into question the remainder of his opinions.
See you around the board.
My, aren’t we touchy today!
Got a news flash for you, post in an open forum and it is fair game for any and all to reply.
There seems to be a lot of rigid stuff here. Care to visit Tebow Cure hospital with us? It might be a nice blessing.
Gamecock:
Well, I haven’t posted here in months. Most of the topics that show up here remind me of the movie ground hog day, the same stuff over and over again. This one, relics and honoring deceased saints is one that has not been posted about as much, or if it has, I just missed most of them since my time here since 2007.
With that said, the topic was veneration of relics and honoring dead saints. The discussion was between CAWW and myself and the question and discussion was about those and related topics [i.e. Resurrection of the dead]. Why all of a sudden these other folks decided to ping me with “not relevant points” to the what the original post was about is beyond me. However, it is, based on my time here, predictable. It is the pack of wolves mentality and the sniper type post mentality. One post quotes a passage from Matthew that is not relevant, the other one goes into a diatribe about Protestant Born again soteriorlogy.
None of those posts dealt with question of venerating relics and honoring deceased saints, nor did they address the question I posed to CAWW, which was “Did he/she believe in the Resurrection of the Dead”?
All I have heard is Crickets! and not relevant posts.
Amen. It is a disgusting practice.
That might aid the discussion a bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.