"Let's talk religion."
Posted on 11/22/2004 4:51:06 PM PST by Land of the Irish
The function of the post was in response to another post telling another poster that they hadn't established why Opus Dei is bad. I believe Opus Dei is bad for the Faith because I believe it is a de facto cult, I believe they place no value on the Traditions of the Church and I believe they are such defenders of John Paul II and everything he does that they lose credibility. We can disagree whether Opus Dei is bad or not, but the religion forum is full of opinions. That's why we are here.
So judge in your own case: is your post Wise or Foolish?
Neither. Not everything we do falls into one category of the other. Is it wise or foolish to order a pizza on Saturday night? Just stating my opinion, based upon personal experiences.
If your experience is not too personal, would you consider letting me know what it is that Opus Dei has done that disturbs you?
My three sisters were kicked out of an Opus Dei grade school, even though they were very devout practicing Catholics, received very good grades and paid full tuition. The reason: my parents would not permit them to formally join Opus Dei and become numeraries, super numeraries, etc. They were publicly humiliated in front of other students for not joining.
I have my own personal experience: I was confronted at a social gathering by some lay people who were active in Opus Dei (different city than my sisters). They asked if I had ever considered joining Opus Dei. I replied that I had considered it but decided against it. When asked why, I replied that I felt that since I was baptized a Catholic and a life-long practicing Catholic, I was already a member of the only group I thought I needed to belong to (i.e. the Catholic Church). They replied that I was a "Protestant to think like that" and that I needed more than a personal relationship with Christ. Anyway, being a practicing Catholic was not good enough for them.
I have other instances but these are just a couple of personal experiences which have led me to believe what I do about Opus Dei. In hindsight I probably should have stated my reasons again so that new posters and lurkers knew I was speaking from personal experience. For that I apologize.
I am deeply sorry for whatever I said that offended you. Please believe that it was not my intent.
Thank you and I appreciate your sincerity but an apology is not necessary. I will take your advice seriously and try to be more careful in the future. God Bless.
I would reference the following:
1. Ezechiel 18:32 and 33:11 - For I desire not the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God, return ye and live...Say to them: As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways: and why will you die, O house of Israel?
2. Wisdom 1:13 - For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.
3. 1 Timothy 2:1-4 - I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth
4. And, of course, the old favorite: Matthew 5:44 - But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.
Those are the ones that I can think of off of the top of my head, that lead me to the conclusion that we are obligated to desire the salvation of all men in particular, even though we know that in general many will be lost and few will be saved. So I would say that if you wanted someone to be excommunicated because you didn't like being in the same Church as him, or you thought he deserved damnation, then I don't see how that would be lawful.
Yet I would also refer to the following:
1. Psalms 17: 36 - ...thy discipline hath corrected me unto the end: and thy discipline, the same shall teach me.
2. Wisdom 12:1-2 - O how good and sweet is thy spirit, O Lord, in all things! And therefore though chastisest them that err, by little and little: and admonishest them , and speakest to them, concerning the things wherein they offend: that leaving their wickedness, they may believe in thee, O Lord
3. Ecclesiasticus 18:13 - He hath mercy, and teacheth, and correcteth, as a shepherd doth his flock.
4. Proverbs 29:15 - The rod and reproof give wisdom.
5. 1 Timothy 5:20 - Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear.
From those I would conclude that there are two times when we can desire someone's excommunication: first, if our end in so desiring is that by their punishment they might be made aware of their sin and repent; second, if our end be so that others will be instructed and that scandal will be prevented from spreading.
So, for example, I earnestly desire the excommunication of John Kerry. He really seems to be under the impression that it is possible to be a good Catholic and rabidly pro-abortion at the same time. He also gives many Catholics the same impression. After all, if he is a "Catholic in good standing", why can't I be pro-choice, too, or even have an abortion (well *I* couldn't, anatomically speaking, but you get the idea)?
So while I cannot say with absolute certainty that if John Kerry died today, he would be roasting in hell, objectively his participation in that sin is certainly sufficient to qualify as "a grave matter", and therefore his chances of salvation would be astronomically increased if he should repent of his involvement with the culture of death. But he will probably never do so when from all sides his position is respected as one which Catholics can hold in good conscience.
So I am lead to believe that his excommunication would be a good ordained to the greater salvation of souls, principally his own. Therefore I desire it for the sake of the love which Christ commands me to have for him.
And as a Catholic, is it a sin to tell somebody to drop dead?
Matthew 5:22 - But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
I would have to say yes.
Also, profanity is a venial sin, right?
I must admit I do not know.
I tend to disagree. From the definition of St. Thomas, an act is Wise if it is rightly ordered toward its proper end. Now any action either attains its end, or it does not. If it attains its end, it does so either intrinsically (and is therefore Wise) or extrinsically (and is therefore Foolish, and attains its end out of mere luck). Again, if it fails to attain its end, it does so either intrinsically (and is therefore Foolish), or extrinsically (and therefore the act itself is Wise, but is frustrated only by circumstance).
But as every agent acts with an end in mind, it seems to me that every act must be either ordered to its end or not, no?
Is it wise or foolish to order a pizza on Saturday night?
If you were hungry, and you felt like pizza, it seems like ordering pizza would attain the end of satisfying your desire, and would therefore be wise. You might say that this is a rather small wisdom, but then again it was a rather small example. That some ends are lesser than others does not mean that they are not ends, or that they are matters of complete indifference. If a matter cannot be even wise or foolish, certainly it cannot ascend still higher to be virtuous or sinful: yet temperance is a virtue and gluttony a sin. So I think we must conclude that even meals should be approached with a certain seriousness, which is probably why we pray before them.
I am inclined say that there is nothing in this world so small that it cannot be an occasion for pleasing God, or offending him, for he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all.
So is it wise or foolish that you are posting on the internet rather than praying?
"Let's talk religion."
"Crisis" is a relative term applied to a turning point in any given situation. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Church history might recognize that the Church has always existed in a state of perpetual "crisis". So to apply "crisis" to current affairs is to indulge in Nowism, ignore the 2000 years of precedent, and forget that God's providence is ultimately in charge.
3. St. Thomas teaches that the denial of a single article of faith means that a person does not have divine faith even in the articles to which he assents.
I'm not certain that the conviction that contraception is intrisically evil is an article of faith, but since the Church does teach such and assent to the magesterium is an article of faith I'll take your point. But again, the teaching authority of the church has always been challenged, denied, and ignored. Nothing new here.
As for your contention that 90% of Catholics do not believe in the Church's teaching on contraception; this must be attributable to our Constitution's "Right to Privacy". The thinking must be that God doesn't come into the bedroom. In fact, that is an argument that "pro-contracepts" use, that the Church has no right to one's bedroom, to which we must counter, "you allow the pharmaceutical corporations in, why not the church?"
I see you aspire to become a priest. Any specific role or order you feel drawn to?
Adios, amigo
You obviously didn't read the letter. Dr. White wasn't talking about sex, weather or politics.
So is it wise or foolish that you are posting on the internet rather than praying?
I believe that there is some confusion. According to the definition that we have been using so far in this discussion, Wisdom consists in ordering an act correctly to its end. So posting on the internet is Wise if it is well ordered to edify and communicate the truth. Praying is Wise if it is well ordered to the ends of prayer (principally greater union with God).
Now, as to the preference for one end over another, that is outside the scope of the definition of Wisdom that we have been using (which I will readily admit is probably only a partial definition). So we must examine the question on other lines.
It is clear that prayer is more excellent than posting. However, I believe that the simplistic conclusion, that one should always choose to pray rather than post, is incorrect. In general, the argument, "X is better than Y, therefore one ought always to do X and never do Y" seems to me to present a logical fallacy. By such reason, no one could ever justify eating, yet it is written, whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God. If one should never eat or drink, it would be impossible to eat for the glory of God. So I say that all things ought not be compared to each other, but rather all things ought to be considered in the light of God and his purposes.
Of course, the purposes of God are to some extent unfathomable, but I think they err who say God is utterly beyone comprehension. For it is clear from God's own creation that he made both the greater and the lesser. So although Scripture says that He made man a little less than the angels, He did not make only angels, but also men, and still more beasts, and insensate things, and inanimate things also.
Therefore I would conclude that just as we must remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil, we must also remember that the lesser of two goods is still good, and therefore any good thing that we do is pleasing to God, even if there are other things which are more pleasing. And while certainly, they are especially beloved of God who have chosen to give their lives entirely to prayer, for they have chosen the better part, and it will not be taken from them, Martha was saved as well, if ordained to a lesser glory than Mary in heaven.
Do you not agree?
To an extent, yes, but with your overall point I must disagree. To say that the Church has been in a "perpetual" crisis, as though we can make no distinction between the state of the Church during the 13th century and the 14th century, or the 19th and the 20th, is incorrect. It is more accurate to say that the Church has gone through a "series" of crises, or as G. K. Chesterton described it, a series of crucifixions and resurrections. That the present situation is not unprecedented, I grant you. That never before in the history of the Faith has the state of the Chruch been dramatically superior, I do not.
So to apply "crisis" to current affairs is to indulge in Nowism, ignore the 2000 years of precedent, and forget that God's providence is ultimately in charge.
While we must know that the Providence of God will bring us through this Crisis, as it brought us through the persecutions, and the Deformation, and the Revolution, etc., we must also remember that the Providence of God is never an excuse for our own inactivity, and right action must be based upon an accurate assessment of the situation.
But again, the teaching authority of the church has always been challenged, denied, and ignored. Nothing new here.
But ignored by who? There have always been heretics, we might even say that there have always been more infideles then fideles (although I am not sure, I am willing to concede it for the argument), but that 8-9 out of 10 Catholics should have materially apostasied from the Faith on a number of doctrinal points is extremely severe, no? And while that might have been the case at the height of the Arians, it was certainly not the case at the height of the Scholastics.
As for your contention that 90% of Catholics do not believe in the Church's teaching on contraception; this must be attributable to our Constitution's "Right to Privacy".
Sola Scriptura is a blasphemous doctrine when applied to Sacred Scripture, but at least in that case it is to a certain extent understandable, given that the Bible *is* the inerrant Word of God, after all. Inasmuch as a Protestant actually reads the Bible without reading into it, he does a laudable and edifying thing. But to take this doctrine and apply it to the writings of men, as many Americans have done, is naked idolatry. The Constitution, no matter how excellent, is a creature. If people choose any teaching of the Constitution over the teaching of the Church, then professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man...changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator. So while I am interested in the causes of this apostasy, and thank you for your analysis (which I tend to agree with), I must say with St. Paul that they "are without excuse." The Constitution can never be pitted against Revelation, or the Supreme Court against the Magisterium.
In fact, that is an argument that "pro-contracepts" use, that the Church has no right to one's bedroom, to which we must counter, "you allow the pharmaceutical corporations in, why not the church?"
Respectfully, I must disagree. To counter in that fashion would be to concede the very principle we are trying to win. To place the Church on the level of some mere corporation, which should be "allowed" to have an influence, is an insult to the Bride of Christ. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. To the Church, and to Peter its earthly head, God gave the power to bind whatsoever he will on earth, and it shall be bound in heaven. To the Apostles and their successors Christ gave the authority of teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
To their rebellious assertion that God does not/should not/is not permitted/etc to come into their bedroom I would simply answer, Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present. If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea: Even there also shall thy hand lead me: and thy right hand shall hold me. And I said: Perhaps darkness shall cover me: and night shall be my light in my pleasures. But darkness shall not be dark to thee, and night shall be light as day: the darkness thereof, and the light thereof are alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast protected me from my mother's womb....My bone is not hidden from thee, which thou hast made in secret: and my substance in the lower parts of the earth.
To the equally impudent assertion that God has no right over "their bodies", I would answer know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body.
In my opinion, we cannot try to convince the world to accept this or that principle of Catholic teaching in a way that mitigates the fundamental rights of Christ as our King: not president, not prime minister, not duly elected representative - KING. So while of course I do not think that it was your intent to obscure this fact, I think that would be the practical effect of your argument.
I see you aspire to become a priest. Any specific role or order you feel drawn to?
I am currently in the process of applying to the FSSP.
To an extent, yes, but with your overall point I must disagree. To say that the Church has been in a "perpetual" crisis, as though we can make no distinction between the state of the Church during the 13th century and the 14th century, or the 19th and the 20th, is incorrect. It is more accurate to say that the Church has gone through a "series" of crises, or as G. K. Chesterton described it, a series of crucifixions and resurrections. That the present situation is not unprecedented, I grant you. That never before in the history of the Faith has the state of the Chruch been dramatically superior, I do not.
So to apply "crisis" to current affairs is to indulge in Nowism, ignore the 2000 years of precedent, and forget that God's providence is ultimately in charge.
While we must know that the Providence of God will bring us through this Crisis, as it brought us through the persecutions, and the Deformation, and the Revolution, etc., we must also remember that the Providence of God is never an excuse for our own inactivity, and right action must be based upon an accurate assessment of the situation.
But again, the teaching authority of the church has always been challenged, denied, and ignored. Nothing new here.
But ignored by who? There have always been heretics, we might even say that there have always been more infideles then fideles (although I am not sure, I am willing to concede it for the argument), but that 8-9 out of 10 Catholics should have materially apostasied from the Faith on a number of doctrinal points is extremely severe, no? And while that might have been the case at the height of the Arians, it was certainly not the case at the height of the Scholastics.
As for your contention that 90% of Catholics do not believe in the Church's teaching on contraception; this must be attributable to our Constitution's "Right to Privacy".
Sola Scriptura is a blasphemous doctrine when applied to Sacred Scripture, but at least in that case it is to a certain extent understandable, given that the Bible *is* the inerrant Word of God, after all. Inasmuch as a Protestant actually reads the Bible without reading into it, he does a laudable and edifying thing. But to take this doctrine and apply it to the writings of men, as many Americans have done, is naked idolatry. The Constitution, no matter how excellent, is a creature. If people choose any teaching of the Constitution over the teaching of the Church, then professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man...changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator. So while I am interested in the causes of this apostasy, and thank you for your analysis (which I tend to agree with), I must say with St. Paul that they "are without excuse." The Constitution can never be pitted against Revelation, or the Supreme Court against the Magisterium.
In fact, that is an argument that "pro-contracepts" use, that the Church has no right to one's bedroom, to which we must counter, "you allow the pharmaceutical corporations in, why not the church?"
Respectfully, I must disagree. To counter in that fashion would be to concede the very principle we are trying to win. To place the Church on the level of some mere corporation, which should be "allowed" to have an influence, is an insult to the Bride of Christ. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. To the Church, and to Peter its earthly head, God gave the power to bind whatsoever he will on earth, and it shall be bound in heaven. To the Apostles and their successors Christ gave the authority of teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
To their rebellious assertion that God does not/should not/is not permitted/etc to come into their bedroom I would simply answer, Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present. If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea: Even there also shall thy hand lead me: and thy right hand shall hold me. And I said: Perhaps darkness shall cover me: and night shall be my light in my pleasures. But darkness shall not be dark to thee, and night shall be light as day: the darkness thereof, and the light thereof are alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast protected me from my mother's womb....My bone is not hidden from thee, which thou hast made in secret: and my substance in the lower parts of the earth.
To the equally impudent assertion that God has no right over "their bodies", I would answer know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body.
In my opinion, we cannot try to convince the world to accept this or that principle of Catholic teaching in a way that mitigates the fundamental rights of Christ as our King: not president, not prime minister, not duly elected representative - KING. So while of course I do not think that it was your intent to obscure this fact, I think that would be the practical effect of your argument.
I see you aspire to become a priest. Any specific role or order you feel drawn to?
I am currently in the process of applying to the FSSP.
Sorry for the double post...internet connection issues.
In my opinion, we cannot try to convince the world to accept this or that principle of Catholic teaching in a way that mitigates the fundamental rights of Christ as our King: not president, not prime minister, not duly elected representative - KING. So while of course I do not think that it was your intent to obscure this fact, I think that would be the practical effect of your argument.
The fact that Christ is King is already obscured. You can quote scripture all you want but for someone who has denied God's authority over one's body and denied the Church's teaching "access to their bedroom", probably isn't going to recognize an excerpt from a psalm as authoritative.
Pointing out the logical inconsistency in their position, the admittance of one insitution (a corporation motivated by profit)to their bedroom and not another ( the Church, motivated by eternal salvation ) is a good start. The apostle exhorts us to be all things to all people, and there are instances when we must get into the mindsets of those who we are trying to enlighten in order to have any practical effect. In my humble opinion.
I am currently in the process of applying to the FSSP.
It is a fine order by all accounts. My understanding is that there are more applicants than places available so I wish you great fortune in being admitted. God bless.
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.