Posted on 08/18/2002 11:40:35 AM PDT by narses
Logic isn't in you. I post many articles. I agree with some, I disagree with others and many, like this, I agree with parts and disagree with parts. Again, may I suggest you not post to me or about me. Go build your index. Enjoy yourself. But to claim some kind of authority over me or ability to discern what I believe from what I don't post is unwelcome. You have a pattern of building from this kind of unwelcome posting to and about me to outright attacks. For both of our benefit, I implore you to stop.
Logic isn't in you. I post many articles. I agree with some, I disagree with others and many, like this, I agree with parts and disagree with parts. Again, may I suggest you not post to me or about me. Go build your index. Enjoy yourself. But to claim some kind of authority over me or ability to discern what I believe from what I don't post is unwelcome. You have a pattern of building from this kind of unwelcome posting to and about me to outright attacks. For both of our benefit, I implore you to stop.
I think you have obligations you are not meeting. Polycarp highlighted an absolutely indefensile statement made by Bro. Alexis in a piece you chose to post. You have had more than 24 hours to say whether or not you agree with Bro. Alexis. I have asked you and you refuse to answer:
"Therefore, I have to conclude you agree with Bro. Alexis."
You do have to take some responsibility for what you post; especially when you post from sites opposed to the Pope. When you do post from these sites pieces that attack the Pope and, like this one does, calls the Pope a heretic, and you do not post any disagreement with any part of the piece, especially the part where Bro Alexis calls the Pope a heretic, especially when you have not only had ample opportunity to repudiate that scandalous and evil charge but have been asked a direct question as to whether or not you do agree with Bro. Alexis' charge of heresy, then one is both logical and justified in assuming you do agree with the charge of heresy.
Trying to reframe the issue as though I were personally attacking will not suceed. This is not a personal attack. Please address the question I posed to you. Do you or do you not agree with this piece, in general, and specifically, do you agree or disagree with Bro. Alexis' labelling the Pope a heretic?
Standing alone, out of context, they do appear problematic and they do appear to cause needless confusion. This is a typical liberal tactic.
A tactic similar to your BS about the Buddha statue at Assissi, which was immediately removed as soon it was brought to the attention of the Catholic organizers.
But you guys make a living off willfully taking things out of context.
PLEASE, read the entire document before you comment on this any further. I already gave you the link. And since it is a mainstay of liberalism to take texts out of context to give them a meaning they never had, I would hope for better from one calling themselves "Catholic" in more than name only.
But in all honesty, CG, I agree with a good part of what the Brother is saying here.
On the other hand, I would not have posted this, or if I had I would have added the comments I posted above as a warning that I do not agree with it in its entirety.
I read Seattle Catholic as well as Diocese Report. I also read most of the mainstream Catholic sites. That does not make me a schismatic though. Yet I try to be prudent in what I post and give warnings if there are problematic aspects to what I do post.
Narses, you might do well to consider doing likewise so that CG and others do not draw what you perceive to be unwarranted conclusions.
Do you agree with this charge or not?
"'It is clear, therefore, that the Pope to ingratiate himself with the Jews has publicly voiced an opinion contrary to the faith, and that therefore all Catholics are bound not to accept this error; and indeed to reject it completely...'
"Do you agree with this charge or not?"
Are ya askin me?? LOL.
I'm certainly in sympathy with what you're saying, CG.
It would be nice, when posters post items negative towards the pope and the Church, to have some least indication that they are not in agreement with the article.
Though we're always called to try to interpret the actions and words (or lack thereof) as charitably as possible, that doesn't relieve others of the obligation to make themselves as clear as they can. By failing to make clear where we stand, we can draw others into rash judgement.
sitetest
He is right in this regard, CG.
And the one blatant error I pointed out does not disprove the remainder of the article. Much of the article is true.
I think on this article, though it comes from a website known for linking schismatic traditionalists and the author has a known history of statements that could be termed schismatic, you are overstating your case against Narses.
I feel certain that Narses did not realize the point I illuminated before he posted this. Regardless, let's drop it, OK?
"It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Mat. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
This really isn't difficult. Is the Pope "voicing an opinion contrary to the Faith" or not? If we are to give folks the "benefit of the doubt," why is it these sites never give the benefit of the doubt to the Pope but rather give space to those that attack the Pope and conclude he is, essentially, heretical? Who is supposd to get the benefit of the doubt here? The Pope or the author of the charge the Pope is, essentially, heretical?
There clearly is a double standard operating here and I am pointing that out. Narses can post from sites that habitually attack the normative Mass, an Ecumenical Council and the Vicar of Christ but I must give him the benefit of the doubt? Why? He has never indicated, in any of these articles posted from sites that oppose the Pope, that he disagres with a single word in any of the articles. Come on... To be frank, that is baloney; and it is baloney long ago gone bad.
narses seems to trust you. Please tell him the Pope is not a heretic.
I don't think the Pope a heretic. I think it insane for putative Catholics to "give the benefit of the doubt" to the charge he might be. And I think the Pope, believe it or not, has as much a right to expect to receive the benefit of the doubt at least as much as Narses demands for himself.
I will post an editorial from Seattle Catholic to give folks an idea of their orientation.
Doesn't this evil accusation by Bro. Alexis and the editorial evince compelling evidence Seattle Catholic opposes the Pope? If so, will you agree to stick by your promise to quit posting from Seattle Catholic?
When the editors of "The Remnant" and "Catholic Family News" signed "We resist you to the face," surely that is sufficent and compelling evidence they oppose the Pope and, if so, does that mean you will keep your promise to stop posting from those sites also?
Reading II
Rom 11:13-15, 29-32
Brothers and sisters:
I am speaking to you Gentiles.
Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles,
I glory in my ministry in order to make my race jealous
and thus save some of them.
For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world,
what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.
Just as you once disobeyed God
but have now received mercy because of their disobedience,
so they have now disobeyed in order that,
by virtue of the mercy shown to you,
they too may now receive mercy.
For God delivered all to disobedience,
that he might have mercy upon all.
St. Paul seems to be of the opinion that the Jews' rejection of the Gospel will cause them not to be saved; but that those who become jealous of the Gentiles' salvation and accept the Gospel will be saved, and raised from the dead.
Likewise, as once the Jews were obedient to God while the Gentiles were disobedient, now the roles have reversed, and the Jews are disobedient while the Gentiles are obedient; which St. Paul takes as a sign of God's mercy toward all.
I don't favor censorship of these sites. I agree with the suggestion that the poster should state clearly what he agrees with or disagrees with in the initial post so that none of us are confused by the poster's intent. That would effectively silence narses, since it is difficult for him to take a stand.
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.