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).
Actually it does.
caww:
Of course you won’t share your Protestant group, that is the modus operandi of most FR Protestants here. Catholics are all transparent we are Catholic, most of the FR Prots here, not so much. There only unity here is the there contra Catholicism posts.
Make your excuses to God not to me. And if you hold those "church fathers" over what Christ and the apostles taught that's your business, but don't call it Christianity.
CynicalBear:
No, I hold those Church Fathers and what they taught in higher esteem that the theories you propose on FR, as well as the arguments that the other FR Protestants make here.
That is what I hold. You on the other hand, hold your opinions in higher esteem than what they taught. In other words, you kind of take what Neitche said, man is the measure of all things (I don’t agree with that) and sort of apply it as “Cynical Bear will read the NT and determine what is correct doctrine and what is not” So, in some sense, you make yourself the measure of what God said in the Bible. Those Church Fathers read the same NT you read today, in fact, it was through those men, along with Church Councils, that canonized the 27 NT. So yes, I make no apologies to say I hold them in higher esteem with respect to their theology than you and yours, and the rest of the FR Protestant pack here.
What I wrote above the truth of the matter.
You have a problem with Saint Jerome’s translation, that is your prerogative. I will take his translation over your views of his translation every day the rest of my life.
Any serious Greek student understands the flaw of Jerome's translation. It has led to so many errors in catholicism.
Personally, I want the best texts and translation available as it helps us get the real meaning of what the authors were writing.
Same with Scripture...
Show me where the words “ mortal sin”, “ venial sin”, and “ original sin”, are found in the Bible
You purport to tell me what I hold or esteem? I've got news for you. It's scripture alone that I hold in higher esteem than what your "church fathers" said. We know from the letters written to the seven churches in Revelation that 85% of them had already left the teaching of Christ and the apostles. That's not good odds for your "church fathers".
>>Those Church Fathers read the same NT you read today,<<
I thought the Catholic Church claims they didn't have the New Testament "as we have it today". What is this some double standard now? Those seven churches in Revelation would have had the same writings then correct? Yet 85% of them had strayed from the truth.
The Catholics here don't seem to be concerned with what the original Greek texts say. They are more concerned with the teachings of the current "church" including it's re-written history.
Now what?
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.Consider that Jesus could have said, "tell it to ME." But He didn't. He said, "tell it to the church." In His lifetime, His Church spoke with His Authority.
Have the gates of hell prevailed against His Church?
As for catholics willingly revealing they are catholic or as you say being ‘transparent’... it's relatively easy to tell without them stating one way or another. So it makes no difference if or not they are “transparent”. It would be difficult for them to conceal their catholic-ism.
The gates of hell have not prevailed against the body of Christ.
Now as to whether that is the Roman Catholic church, or ANY Catholic church for that matter, is another issue.
Based on the history of Catholicism, yes, the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against it...
I’ll be transparent.
I’m a member of the body of Christ, His Bride.
Well that is just it....I made my faith well known a few posts back which should be sufficient to have conversation with any Christian.
They cannot understand because they profoundly associate their belief’s with a system of indoctrination rather than with the person Jesus Christ. They left him centuries ago except for a footnote.
“I am a Christian ...Jesus is my Savior, Lord, Father, God and coming King...I am forgiven by His finished/completed work on the cross and thru His Resurrection Life everlasting with Him.... By His Spirit given me, and His Word, I have the assurance of eternal life with Him and the fellowship of other believers in the Body of Christ.”
That should be more than sufficient for conversation regarding the faith.
My Bible says, "and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Does your Bible say, "and on this rock, I will build my Body of Christ?"
If so, how can an invisible Body of Christ settle a disciplinary or doctrinal dispute?
No, Jerome was a better translator of the Greek than you ,are. This appeal to “any student Greek, etc” is nonsense. Saint Jerome was fluent in Greek and understood the nuisances of the language better than anyone.
It’s enough for me to know where you’re coming from.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned on these threads is that denominational affiliation and statements of faith mean precious little when it comes to the individual. EVERYONE has their own interpretation of their church’s stated beliefs.
Read Scripture.
I’ve read Scripture. Now what? Do I have to accept your infallible interpretation of Scripture? And if it’s not infallible, why should I care?
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.