Posted on 11/13/2012 10:30:37 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
I don’t know whether I have a “solution.” But my “approach” is: Expose hypocrisy and corruption.
oh, sure, the anti-Catholic scum need all the help they can get.
So tell me all about how those who hushed up clerical sexual abuse thwarted the anti-Catholics.
How do you know this. I went to St. Joseph’s Seminary back in the early 70’s. Was ordained in 75. Left active ministry in 94. It was pretty darn conservative back then.
Those who accept the heresy of Core and who call Christ Himself a liar by denying the real presence in the Eucharist can be counted on to not twist the what you say to their own ends, right? I mean, just because they twist Scripture to suit and serve their own , Most High and Holy Self, doesn't mean they'd ever twist what you're saying or claim that what you say of a particular narrow context applies universally.
No, no harm done, you believe you can rely on your Protestant pals but not fellow Catholics. We get the message loud and clear.
For some reason I'm thinking of Alberto something or other of He Who Cannot Be Mentioned fame.
What? I’ve never seen a pro-life Protestant bash the Catholic Church over the presence of pro-aborts in the Catholic Church, beyond questioning the integrity of the pro-abort Catholics.
Oh.
So, you don’t read FR much, do you?
You’ve also never been Protestant and realized the Catholic Church is right and become Catholic. Otherwise you’d hear all sorts of stuff from nice pro-life Protestants who live for the opportunity to bash Catholics.
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe any priest would have so little experience with what sort of trash is spread by pro-life Protestants that they couild make a statement like that.
have a nice day
I’ve been in jail with pro-life Protestants, and never encountered Catholic-bashers. I guess I just hung out with a better class of Protestants.
Words such as "false" "wrong" "error" do not attribute motive.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“your group does not (cannot) speak with a single voice about what the Gospel does or does not include.”
Yes, we do. It’s called the Canon of the Catholic church. You are gravely mistaken.
Cardinal Dolan says a lot of things.
Ok, I’m still not clear.
Did the majority vote for Obama or did the majority say they were pro abortion?
Or avoid the grammatical problem by using a more exact term. E.g. instread of pro-abortion, use "anti-Romney." Because that's all you really know.
The implication is that "this seminarian is pro-abortion" when really it could be "this seminarian is pro-life but was politically naive and/or depressed by the crappy choices, and thought it would be honorable to write 'Kyrie eleison' on the ballot". So the statement, as if you knew it for a fact, that they are flatly pro-abortion, is a worst-case interpretation used for shock purposes.
Unless you know that they in fact voted for Obama.
If the remarks about being broken were the only remarks made by the men who claim to be popes, the believers in the world would not be so critical of the RCC. But, the rest of the trappings Rome they have instituted and claimed to be from God, make the organization an unbiblical cult. Sorry, there are no stand-ins for Jesus. The presumption, the arrogance, the audacity is demonic.
Wow. Those ex-Protestants sure do hold a grudge.
However, the pope does not claim this, and nobody claims it for him.
The Pope prays every day, right out loud where you can hear him:
I confess to almighty GodIf you run into any Catholics who tell you the pope is a divine person or without error and sin, please give me their names so I can go after these ninnies with hammer and tongs.
And to you, my brothers and sisters,
That I have greatly sinned
In my thoughts and in my words,
In what I have done, and what I have failed to do
Through my fault,
Through my fault,
Through my most grievous fault.
I will, too.
Thank you very much.
It's also not a blanket indictment of Protestants so it pales by comparison to those who worship their Self, adore their Self, and frequently state that, “Christ is a false Gxd” and all American presidents who were Christian were actually idol worshipers. Or, was it that they were all pagan?
You seem like a very kind, thoughtful person. You also seem to have a grasp of much of the problem humanity has...broken, sinful natures. To expand on my last post, the “pope” may be humble, may understand his need for forgiveness, may understand his failure before God...but, he would not institute/support the trappings of Catholicism if he understood the Gospel to be salvation by grace, through faith, and that not of ourselves it is a gift from God, not by any kind of works, lest any man should boast.
The sacraments, the sacerdotalism, the indulgences, the purgatory, the mary adulation, the canonization of men, the robes, the gold, the army etc. all speak of a works mindset which Rome requires members to acquiesce to in order for them to be rescued. This is the additional baggage which denies that it teaches the Gospel the apostles taught.
I don’t know any Catholics who qualify as the “ninnies” you want to go after. But, that is a commendable ambition. The passion you feel about that false claim is similar to the passion I feel about Rome elevating itself to the false postion of pre-eminence. It is presumptuous, it is arrogant, it is unbiblical. Their only justification comes from self-proving claims from their own people...the Book doesn’t support them.
If I said, God told me I am the new leader of the Assembly of the First-born and all the world should listen to me, you would laugh (I would, too). Well, we are laughing at Rome’s claim in just this way. A complete man-made concoction of religion and mysticism...not the Gospel. If we are people of the Book, then let’s stick with what it says and no more, no less.
Grace to you.
I have never before encountered a convert from Protestantism who had developed into an anti-Protestant bigot.
We agree on a great deal, maybe more than either of us knows at this point. Thanks for your good principles and your good sense.
However, I think one source of misunderstanding is that you interpret some Catholic practices in a different sense than we do ourselves.
Take the question of opulent ornamentation of sacred services: vestments, candles, gold, incense, and the rest. This in itself is not an essential element of worship --- a priest like Fr. Walter Ciszak in a Soviet prison in Siberia with a little tin cup and wine made from soaking smuggled raisins, is offering the divine worship as truly as Ambrose or Augustine in a splendid setting in 4th century Milan or Hippo. In neither case is the priest (Ciszak or Ambrose or Augustine) offering anything of his own at all, but only Christ, the One High Priest, who offers the only sacrifice necessary. You know that: trust that we know it, too.
Gold and incense aren't essentials for saying Mass. and yet they are fitting in their place. Page after page of Exodus and the Books of Kings are dedicated to detailed descriptions of the Temple, its vessels, the garb of the priests, its embroideries and tapestries and so forth; not because God dwells in temples made by hands, but because men are both commanded (outwardly) and drawn (inwardly) to give their noblest artifacts to honor the Great King: to give their best.
Surely you can see this on a human level. Do we begrudge the bride her flowers, her long train, her lace, her finery? And yet this is just a symbol of the finery of her love and the nobility of marriage. Do we begudge the Marine his "Dress Blues", his formal ceremonial acts, the Protocol for the Presenting of the Colors? Do we think it is a symbol of the arrogance or personal vanity of a Marine? Of course not. The Dress Blues are his uniform for stately occasions, just as a pope's brocade, his crozier, his ring, are his uniform for even statelier occasions. It has nothing to do with his individual ego or a personal sense of style.
Nor is this something supposed to die out with the coming of Christ. Jesus Himself honored the Temple in Jerusalem, calling it His Father's "house," and thought it worth defending, though He also knew it would fall. In Revelation chapter 4 you have it all back again: the gold lampstands, the white-robed worshippers, the incense, the regal splendor. It's there from beginning to end. It's adorned like a bride.
It's not arrogant. Not presumptuous. Not unbiblical. It's true that fine ceremonial things are not indispensible to worship --- a shepherd possessing no such display can still worship the Lord laid amidst the straw and hay. We know this. Yet it is in our nature to make beautiful buildings with beautiful things inside. If it's not the Cathedral, it will certainly be wasted on the Waldorf-Astoria, the White House, the U.N. or the Bank. Let the Cathedral have it: it is fitting to give splendid things and to chant "Holy, Holy, Holy" to God who is the splendor of all.
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.