Posted on 05/19/2007 1:45:39 PM PDT by Frank Sheed
No way. As a confessional Lutheran pastor, I am not about the give up the true catholic faith for the errors of Roman Catholicism. Rome still hasn't got the gospel right.
Rome still hasn't got the gospel right.That's funny. Rome preserved and protected the Gospel Truth for over an aeon before the heretic Luther was even dreaming of seducing nuns or endorsing bigamy.+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
I totally agree with your view of Ockham.
George Weigel has a good background on him in “The Cube and the Catheral”
He is a great and tragic figure, an awesome thinker and a man of God gone astray. I hope he repented at the end.
Not to mention that my husband was raised Methodist and my mom Presbyterian.
. . . remember the term "GIGO"? It certainly applies to the St. Loooey Jebbies . . .
Had they been actuaries, they might have messed up somebody's life insurance, instead of just making our ears corrugate . . .
Very interesting.
***************
Holy mackeral. I guess you've got some impressive history to contend with!
My mother converted to Catholicism while she was in her teens. My father was Catholic, an altar boy until he was 17. My husband is Catholic, and also an altar boy until 17.
My husband is one of those hard-headed Americans -- like Dickens's beefsteak, 'he has to be humored, not drove'. But he was the one who announced that if GenCon 2003 went the way it looked like it would go, we were heading over to Rome. Could have knocked me down with a feather -- but even though he was raised Methodist, his mom was raised Irish Catholic, so that was there all along. But he had to figure it out for himself, trying to push him anywhere is fatal.
We were very "high church" Episcopalians though -- lots of 'smells and bells', what some people call "more Roman than Rome." And once we investigated we discovered that there was very little theological difference when you got right down to it. What Catholics actually believe, and what you hear from a vantage point outside the Church that Catholics believe, are two very different things.
There is a lot of not particularly subtle anti-Catholicism in the Episcopal Church. Along the lines of "we have it right as an inheritance from the ancient pre-Council of Whitby Celtic Catholics -- the Romans have it all wrong."
Of course they've tossed all that tradition with this latest series of stunts . . . and of course if you go and actually read up on the Council of Whitby you find out they are wrong about that too and have been all along.
Perhaps if you give a Jesuit a calculator, he’ll use it to call his mother ship in geosynchronous orbit over St. Louis.
(At least, that’s what my goofball son does with his.)
The quotation quoted is out of context. He plainly stated that he mistakenly thought that the late medieval church had embraced the notion that people could save themselves through good behavior. He added that some Catholic scholars also made the same mistake. Actually the church never embraced this concept which has been the center of much controversy over the past 5 centuries. Go back and read it once more. It take a lot of concentration to interpret the sentence.
“To err is human and to forgive Divine. Note that neither is Marine Corps Policy.”
S/F!
F. Sheed
Koons is a secular professor of Philosophy. Just like Beckwith. Their specialties are not in theology or doctrine, but in philosophy (the study of man).
Bork converted, too, huh? I see the albino monk got to him, too ;^D
Yes, I have always thought that part of the “borking” Bork was because he became a Catholic.
**************
Quite right. It's unfortunate. That's one reason these threads are so important, and also why they can be so difficult.
Both of you need to read it again, with the next sentence (as above).
He's saying that he believed (past tense) and still believes the nominalists and scotists of the medieval church (not the present Roman Church), a very powerful part of late medieval Roman Catholicism, had distorted the doctrine of salvation with "a kind of 'Palagian' error." Also he is saying most present-day Roman Catholic scholars agree with this historical analysis. Of course the scotists and nominalists were not the whole church...(by the same token neither was Trent, for that matter...80%+ of its delegates were Italian).
Most Catholic scholars I've heard of ADMIT that the Renaissance-era Church had some very serious issues, beyond simple corruption, which provided fertile ground for schism in the Reformation.
To stonewall and almost say that Rome has always been right on everything doesn't reflect the teachings of Benedict or John Paul II, or the consensus of the present leadership of the Church.
Welcome home! Church fathers know best!
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.