Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The anti-Catholicism of the "National Catholic Reporter"

Posted on 01/28/2004 12:46:44 PM PST by heyheyhey

In my opinion, the NCR (different from the National Catholic Register and from the Catholic World Report) appears to be classic type of a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is the most anti-Catholic weekly publication that I know, and yet it continues pretending to be "Catholic." The evidence of NCR's anti-Catholic and anti-Christian agenda is somewhat camouflaged, so let it be dug up and brought to daylight in this thread.

- Why, and who cares? Under normal circumstances I couldn't care less, but very many American priests and religious read the NCR, and it has poisonously influenced a generation or two of priests. When we see the sorry state of affairs in our Church we should know, for our own protection, where the devil dwells. Many screwy things (most of all the disdain for the Teaching Magisterium) originated and/or have been, or continue to be, sponsored by the NCR.

There is only one FReeper, as far as I know, vigorously defending the NCR, so he is rare and dear - let's be respectful to him.


TOPICS: Catholic; General Discusssion; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: anticatholic; catholic; catholiclist; ncr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 481-490 next last
To: heyheyhey
Yup.
401 posted on 03/31/2004 11:54:51 AM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; heyheyhey; NYer; AAABEST; ninenot; BlackElk; fidelis; TotusTuus; Jeff Chandler; ...
"Teaching that . . . [...X... is/always has been] ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned."

Just fill in the space marked ...X... as you may choose... after all, it is ultimately your choice.

Now there, that is the Underlying Attitude of it all.

The common denominator linking the National anti-Catholic Reporter and its content/opinions and each of their subscribers in agreement with them.

Vatican II Document - Lumen Gentium - P# 25.
". . . Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . ."

It is this Underlying obstinate, continuous, and unrepentant Attitude of rejection and ridicule of Church Teachings, and ridicule of persons who teach in union with the Magisterium, that has placed the souls of those who adhere to such an Attitude, at severe risk.

This Attitude cries out to faithful Catholics everywhere to address it in the most effective way possible with courage, clarity, and charity, in successive levels of increasing firmness, as it may inspire those who do adhere to Church Teachings with "a religious assent."

Isn't it best for Catholics to just accept All of the Church Teachings with the faith of a child? . . . even if you do not fully understand yet how or why a Church Teaching could or could not be what you would want/expect it to be?

Will you continue to withhold your full "religious assent" until you have obtained enough Knowledge and have attended enough daily RE classes/seminars, and even if it takes your whole life unto your very deathbed?
What then?
What is the value of that?
. . .with mere moments left to the end of your opportunity to still yet choose All of the Teachings He gave you via His Catholic Church.

Why would anyone risk it? . . .Why wait?. . .Do you know Your hour and Your moment?

I hope God's infinite Mercy will prevail. However, I am quite confident that whatever God decides regarding infants (or anything else), will be a Wise Decision. I accept it now, this minute, even though I do not know what it is...and i know that i will like that Decision.

Want on/off this ping list? Do so via Freepmail.

402 posted on 03/31/2004 12:03:25 PM PST by Phx_RC (Jesus, I Trust in You, .........and in the Teachings of Your Catholic Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
I have looked at #371, and I find no conciliar teaching that contradicts my conclusion, the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 and the Baltimore Catechism #3 notwitstanding. What part of #371 did you have in mind?
403 posted on 03/31/2004 12:09:28 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Phx_RC
I'm not familiar with your Catholic pinglist, but sure, keep me on it.
404 posted on 03/31/2004 12:12:44 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
it necessarily follows that the teaching that sacramental baptism -- by which one enters the Church -- is necessary for salvation cannot be rigorously construed to mean that those who are not so baptized can never enjoy the Beatific Vision. (eastsider)

For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Trent on Baptism)

Q. Whither go infants that die without baptism? A. To a part of hell, where they endure the pain of loss, but not of sense, and shall never see the face of God. Douay, 1469

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. Catholic Encyclopedia 1913

Doctrine is that unbaptized infants do NOT enjoy the Beatific Vision.

HOWSOMEVER, it is perfectly legitimate to speculate that God, Who is not bound by the sacraments, MAY award Beatific Vision to ....infants.

Doctrine stops, so to speak, at death's door. The Church is morally certain of the doctrine She teaches, but not morally certain of 'after-death' reality.

405 posted on 03/31/2004 12:25:41 PM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: m4629; sinkspur; drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Council of Trent on Baptism - 7th Session, Celebrated on the third day of the month of March, MDXLVII.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

This canon has nothing to do with your arguement. The substance of the canon is aimed at those who posit Baptism as a choice which may be accepted or not, and have one still end up with salvation.

Hence the phrasing "baptism is free", which is an anachronistic translation of the Latin "baptismus libera est". A better translation would be "If anyone says Baptism is a matter of free choice, that is, that it is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

As far as little infants go, they hardly have an opportunity to chose or not to be baptised. The canon, then is irrelevant to this point.

406 posted on 03/31/2004 12:36:23 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
As far as little infants go, they hardly have an opportunity to chose or not to be baptised. The canon, then is irrelevant to this point.
I agree completely. There is nothing there that contradicts my conclusion in #398.
407 posted on 03/31/2004 12:59:59 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Bob "sinkspur" Barker lives.
408 posted on 03/31/2004 1:04:59 PM PST by Notwithstanding (Good parents don't let their kids attend public school or recieve catechsim lessons from sinky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Doctrine is that unbaptized infants do NOT enjoy the Beatific Vision.
My conclusion in #398 was that it is not doctrine that unbaptized infants cannot enjoy the Beatific Vision. No one knows with moral certainty whether they actually do or don't.
409 posted on 03/31/2004 1:08:40 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: m4629; OrthodoxPresbyterian; drstevej; sinkspur; Polycarp IV; Aliska; BlackElk; Maximilian; NYer; ..
This is because sinky did not, and does not know When and How the Church has always taught on "Unbaptised Infants do not enjoy Beatific Vision in Heaven." "That is not a teaching. It is a speculation", sinky declared.

The doctrine of Limbo is a speculation. It is clearly labeled as such in any Catholic Theolgoical Manual.

Defined dogma says: "Baptism is necessary for salvation, either in water, or at least by desire."

Defined dogma also says: "The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God; the punishment of actual mortal sin is the eternal torments of hell."

Lastly, defined dogma also says: "At the end of the world, Christ will seperate humanity into two groups, the blessed who will go into everlasting life, and the condemned, who will go into everlasting torment. There is no third place."

Reasonably, it does not seem infants can have such a desire, since they cannot yet choose. However, they certainly have not sinned, and so do not merit the condemnation of eternal torment. Therefore, the question becomes, what happens to them?

St. Gregory Nazianz, among others, posited the speculation that they would exist in a middle place, neither blessed nor condemned, living without torment and without the beatific vision. Pelagius, unfortunately, took this concept and ran with it much further than that, leading Sts. Augustine and Fulgnetius to label the concept Pelagianism in its more extreme forms. They also were carried away to an opposite extreme, condemned long subsequent to their deaths, that unbaptized children actually suffered the pains of eternal torments.

St. Thomas and the Schoolmen attempted to rebalance the equation by positing that the unbaptized infants could exist in a state of natural happiness, where although deprived of the vision of God, they would share in many natrual goods out of the benevolence of God. However, with this speculation, it once again was carried away into foolishness, some saying that the "new earth" promised by God in the renovation of the universe after the second coming would be the playground of these "blessed infants", as if it was not promised to the saints.

All of this left matters greatly unsettled, all the more so by the assertion that God grants to all the opportunity to be saved, though not all avail themselves of this. There is no revelation to us as to how this might apply to little infants, as is openly admitted by the proponents of a theory of infant enlightenment and choice.

Really, there is no solution to this, and we simply cannot give a better answer except warn that those who are not baptized are lost in order to encourage baptism, and to console the grieving by recalling that God is merciful and can show mercy on whomsoever He will, even apart from the Sacraments. Baptism for an infant, then, equals a certainty of salvation. This is what Christ has given us to preach, and no more. Especially obnoxious then is the consolement made by some that we might pray the unbaptized infant will go to heaven. If the infant is truly free of any personal sin, then they certainly do not need our prayers to help them into heaven, unlike the Holy Souls in Purgatory. They are already spotless. The problem is their lack of union with Christ because of an absence of grace, not a life of unforgiven venial sins. If Christ wants to bring an unbaptized infant into heaven, He can certainly grant them grace without any further ado, and certainly no need for our intervention.

As to a practical application of this, a new controversy has begun over the practice of some Catholic hospitals of inducing labor after the point of viability during a pregnancy where the infant is diagnosed with a terminal disease and is likely to die in the womb. Some pro-lifers are adamantly calling this a back-door way to abortion. However, they need to (and have not yet) stop and consider that an infant induced to birth alive may be baptised, while one who is stillborn may not, since the Sacraments are only for the living. Furthermore, Catholic Tradition supports all medical efforts to bring the infant into the world that it might be baptised while yet alive provided only that they do not cause further harm to child or mother than will already result.

Many will answer confidently, because of a mistaken disbelief in the need for Baptism, that the practice is wrong because God provides the opportunity of salvation without the induced labor. On the other hand, the Church solemnly warns that those who die without Baptism are lost, and that we have no revelation to support the supposition that there is another method of salvation for infants besides Baptism in water.

I have noticed this belief again and again whe dealing with abortion and people's methods of coping with the horror of the crime. Many, seemingly more to console themselves, wish to assure the victimized infants of heaven, as if it is a natural reward of their existence. Why this should be is not at all clear. If abortion assured one of heaven, surely we should then abort as many as possible to fill up the number of the saints, rather than let them come to life and suffer the chance of hell. Twisted logic, is it not? But it is the logical outcome of a strange belief that assures the unbaptized of salvation or a certain opportunity for the same, while placing the living in jeapordy of damnation.

We might hope that the unbaptized will be granted eternal life, but the only certainty of this is baptism in water.

410 posted on 03/31/2004 1:12:15 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Actually, the quote sets up the following quotations in m4629's string, although your re-translation is MUCH better than what he posted.

It's a foundation, not an argument.
411 posted on 03/31/2004 1:14:25 PM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

Comment #412 Removed by Moderator

To: eastsider
My conclusion in #398 was that it is not doctrine that unbaptized infants cannot enjoy

Missed that, sorry.

They DO NOT enjoy...is the teaching.

413 posted on 03/31/2004 1:17:26 PM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker; GirlShortstop; m4629; Desdemona
Interesting post.
414 posted on 03/31/2004 1:21:42 PM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
They DO NOT enjoy...is the teaching.
If it is possible that unbaptized infants can enjoy the Beatific Vision by extraordinary means, then the only sense I can make of the judgment that they do not enjoy it is that the judgment is phrased elliptically: "They do not enjoy it [by ordinary means]."
415 posted on 03/31/2004 2:48:10 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Maybe. Your addition of 'by ordinary means' is an addition which is based on speculation. Cherusker's commentary is helpful.

The teaching is doctrinal and infallible because it is based on the moral certainty of the requirement for Baptism to attain the BV. Anything less would serve to derogate or obrogate Baptism as a necessity, and contradict "...must be born of water and the Spirit.." No can do.

Thus, while Aquinas and lots of other deep thinkers think that God provides--it cannot be proven. That's why the teaching is phrased the way it is.
416 posted on 03/31/2004 3:25:44 PM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
My conclusion in #398 was that it is not doctrine that unbaptized infants cannot enjoy the Beatific Vision. No one knows with moral certainty whether they actually do or don't.

Precisely. The "doctrine" that unbaptized infants cannot enjoy the Beatific Vision is a natural conclusion to "unless one is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom."

The Church herself, however, has modified the literal understanding of that admonition to include baptism of blood and of desire.

And Aquinas says that God is not bound by His sacraments.

So, while one can intellectually understand the "doctrine," practically one must conclude that we simply do not know, and can Hope that these infants are awarded salvation outright through the direct action and graces of God. The Church actively promotes discussion on this topic and may yet modify "without baptism no salvation" again.

417 posted on 03/31/2004 3:41:05 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Nice summary.

On the other hand, the Church solemnly warns that those who die without Baptism are lost, and that we have no revelation to support the supposition that there is another method of salvation for infants besides Baptism in water.

There also exists the logical possibility that before death God provides these infants the opportunity to choose for or against him. In this case, prayers before the fact would be beneficial.

418 posted on 03/31/2004 3:42:39 PM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Congratulations OP, not quite 100% but close. Only needs some clarification.

Limbo is a theological speculation, a reasonable one at that (supported by Aquinas), but not a solemn teaching.

Neither you nor I have any chance at Limbo, because of Personal Sins involved.

Unbaptised Infants will never go to Purgatory, because no Personal Sins involved. Neither will they suffer torment in Hell, for the same reason.

At the end of our earthly journey, you and I will either go upstairs, downstairs, or stuck in the elevator (Purgatory) for a while which will eventually go up.

Again, it's been my pleasure.
419 posted on 03/31/2004 4:05:38 PM PST by m4629
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; dsc; saradippity; american colleen; ninenot; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Antoninus; Aliska; ...
We have to assume that God is at least as good as we are. Teaching that unbaptized infants can never see God has always been ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned.

Sinky, I was hoping you would repent and turn around instead of being persistent in your error. That's most unfortunate.

Your action is hardly original. Your attitude is reminiscent of many of Christ's followers who left Him when they decided His teaching on the Eucharist repulsive and unacceptable (John 6). Some still haven't learned from this. How tragic. God's way is not always easily understood, but we must trust Him.

Stubbornness is one thing, but stupidity is quite another. Your action is neither commendable nor logical. Do you even realize you are rejecting the doctrine of the very same Church who promised you salvation on behalf of Christ? Either the Church lied to you or you are a fool for believing this same Church that lied to you.

In no uncertain terms, you have succumbed to the Devil's seduction, "for you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5)

Roma locuta; causa finita.

Sadly, a Public and Material Heretic you remain, by your own choice.

420 posted on 03/31/2004 4:08:58 PM PST by m4629
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 481-490 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson