Observe the inscription on the cruciform, "ο ΩΝ". That means "the [only] Existence". The created world exists secondarily. God exists and that is all He does. He is existence itself.
Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Today’s New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that America’s most influential newspaper has declared an editorial jihad against this pontificate. Abandoning any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic, the Times looses a 4,000-word barrage against the Pope: an indictment that is not supported even by the content of this appalling story. Apparently the editors are relying on sheer volume of words, and repetition of ugly details, to substitute for logical argumentation.
The thrust of the argument presented by the Times is that prior to his election as Pontiff, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not take decisive action to punish priests who abused children. Despite its exhaustive length, the story does not present a single new case to support that argument. The authors claim, at several points in their presentation, that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Ratzinger had the authority to take action. But then, again and again, they quote knowledgeable Church officials saying precisely the opposite.
The confusion over lines of authority at the Vatican was so acute, the Times reports, that in the year 2000 a group of bishops met in Rome to present their concerns. That meeting led eventually to the change in policy announced by Pope John Paul II the following year, giving the CDF sole authority over disciplinary action against priests involved in sexual abuse. By general consensus the 2001 policy represented an important step forward in the Vatican’s handling of the problem, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for that policy change. How does that sequence of events justify criticism of the future Pope? It doesn’t. But the facts do not deter the Times.
The Times writers show their bias with their flippant observation that when he might have been fighting sexual abuse, during the 1980s and 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger was more prominent in his pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy. But then, while until 2001 it was not clear which Vatican office was primarily responsible for sexual abuse, it was clear that the CDF was responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. Cardinal Ratzinger’s primary focus was on his primary job.
After laying out the general argument against the Vatican’s inaction—and implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his efforts—the Times makes the simply astonishing argument that local diocesan bishops were more effective in their handling of sex-abuse problems. That argument is merely wrong; it is comically absurd.
During the 1980s and 1990s, as some bishops were complaining about the confusion at the Vatican, bishops in the US and Ireland, Germany and Austria, Canada and Italy were systematically covering up evidence of sexual abuse, and transferring predator-priests to new parish assignments to hide them from scrutiny. The revelations of the past decade have shown a gross dereliction of duty on the part of diocesan bishops. Indeed the ugly track record has shown that a number of diocesan bishops were themselves abusing children during those years.
So how does the Times have the temerity to suggest that the diocesan bishops needed to educate the Vatican on the proper handling of this issue? The lead witness for the Times story is Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: a former auxiliary of the Sydney, Australia archdiocese, who was hustled into premature retirement in 2004 at the age of 66 because his professed desire to change the teachings of the Catholic Church put him so clearly at odds with his fellow Australian bishops and with Catholic orthodoxy. This obscure Australian bishop, the main source of support for the absurd argument advanced by the Times, is the author of a book on Christianity that has been described as advancing “the most radical changes since Martin Luther started the 16th-century Reformation.” His work has drawn an extraordinary caution from the Australian episcopal conference, which warned that Robinson was at odds with Catholic teaching on “among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching." Bishop Robinson is so extreme in his theological views that Cardinal Roger Mahony (who is not ordinarily known as a stickler for orthodoxy) barred him from speaking in the Los Angeles archdiocese in 2008. This, again, is the authority on which the Times hangs its argument against the Vatican.
And even the Times story itself, a mess of contradictions, acknowledges:
Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.
It is not clear, then, why the Vatican bears the bulk of the responsibility for the sex-abuse scandal. Still less clear is why the main focus of that responsibility should be Pope Benedict. On that score, too, the Times blatantly contradicts its own argument. Buried in the Times story—on the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the article—is a report on one Vatican official who stood out at that 2000 meeting in Rome, calling for more effective action on sexual abuse.
An exception to the prevailing attitude, several participants recalled, was Cardinal Ratzinger. He attended the sessions only intermittently and seldom spoke up. But in his only extended remarks, he made clear that he saw things differently from others in the Curia.
That testimony is seconded by a more reliable prelate, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide:
“The speech he gave was an analysis of the situation, the horrible nature of the crime, and that it had to be responded to promptly,” recalled Archbishop Wilson of Australia, who was at the meeting in 2000. “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”
The Times story, despite its flagrant bias and distortion, actually contains the evidence to dismiss the complaint. Unfortunately, the damage has already done before the truth comes out: that even a decade ago the future Pope Benedict was the solution, not part of the problem.
There was a point there, somewhere — you missed it...
Truly it seems that everything else in nature proceeds as it is supposed to do .... and then there's man, willful and defiant.
How could any word of man be more powerful than a Name of God?
“There was a point there, somewhere — you missed it...”
Really? How so?
Alamo-Girl "got it"...
Namely, the use of the phrase Ayn Sof to describe God the Creator. Literally, it means "no thing."
But the meaning is that no word of men can describe God the Creator, e.g. time, space, form, matter, energy do not apply to the Creator of them.
The insight is that once we mortals attach a word to an object, we limit our awareness of the object to the meaning of that word.
“How could any word of man be more powerful than a Name of God?”
“Alamo-Girl “got it”...”
Perhaps Isaiah didn’t get it either.
Isa. 57:15, “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy;”
Ex. 3:14 “Yahweh” in ancient Hebrew is a causative in the third person that has been shortened in biblical Hebrew. In its original form it reads “Yahweh asher yihweh”, “He causes to be what comes into Existence”.
This particular one is a sermon to the unconverted. In the Protestant mindset, once the Grand Getting Saved occurs, the gospel ceases to matter.
Actually, you are. Or at least I am now that I am in Missouri.
I could observe the round pond out my window and the fact that is has a water pipe in the center for a fountain, and so conclude that not me but the water pipe is the center, but I would be deceived by appearances.
God gave you eternal soul, and He took on human body, so yes, man is pretty much the center of the creation.
Yes, good post.
Observe the inscription on the cruciform, "ο ΩΝ". That means "the [only] Existence". The created world exists secondarily. God exists and that is all He does. He is existence itself.
We might discern those Names of God as first cause and final cause of "all that there is."
And God's Name is I AM.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. – Revelation 1:8
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
But if you don't have proper faith and practice, you do not get salvation.
Who is the "we" in [Eph. 2]verse 10? The context says it refers to the saved only
Yes, that passage does speak of the Elect, and it urges THEM to do good works as well as have faith. This is precisely why salvation is both through faith and works.
Or is it your contention that the unconverted do not have to dogood works? Quite the opposite, see the quote Kosta just reminded us of, "to them first that are at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance, and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance" (Acts 26:20)
relies also on works as a separate and independent requirement for salvation
It is not "separate and independent", it is jsut a requirement that Protestantism misses and so it becomes the focus of debate. One should not separate faith and works. Faith is what we do.
we see sanctification very differently, with Catholics seeing it as growth toward salvation
Yes, because nothing impure can enter heaven -- you have to become a saint if you want to be saved. This is why St. Paul called those of whom he approved "saints".
Our focus is only on Christ
Obviously not, because Christ gave you the gospel that tells you to do good works, and told you that He will judge you by them. You focus is on your preacher who scatters the flock away from Christ.
As I understand Catholicism declared faith IS real until forfeited by failure to pass the test
Faith is not salvific until it is matured through works. It is potentially real, but it is not mature.
curse
Anathema is not a curse. It is a declaration that a doctrine is false and leads away from Christ.
you: Actually, you are. Or at least I am now that I am in Missouri.
Truly, though, Alamo-Girl is not the center of the universe.
I use this example to remind myself of where I am in this universe (quoting myself.)
But your car is speeding down the road at 65 mph. So for the guy watching you from the roadside table, that fly is going 70 mph.
But the road you have taken is on the equator and the circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901.55 miles and the earth rotates once every 24 hours. So that fly is now going 1,100 mph + 70 mph = 1,170 mph.
Moreover, the orbital length of earth traveling around the sun is 149,600,000 miles, traveled in 365.25 days. That is 67,000 miles per hour. So add that in, and the fly is going 68,170 mph.
The sun orbits the Milky Way galaxy at a speed of 486,000 miles per hour. Add that in, and the fly is now going 554,170 miles per hour.
All of this and we haven’t gotten to the accelerating expansion of the universe, i.e. space/time itself.
Space/time doesn’t pre-exist – it is created as the universe expands.
A galaxy 1 million light years away would seem to be moving away from us at a rate of 60,000 miles per hour. For every 3.26 million light years further out that we look, the galaxies seem to be moving away from us at an additional 162,000 miles per hour. In sum, the universe is currently at least 156 billion light years wide.
And that is looking at motion from the fly’s perspective.
If we go in the other direction as "observer" – the quantum – the cumulative velocities are even more mind-boggling.
It's not about me, it's about Jesus.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20
Ask yourself, 'Upon Whose integrity do the promises of God rest?'
Paul stated the way to salvation very succinctly, and it placed the responisbility to save squarely upon the 'shoulders' of the only One capable of overcoming the world and the devils. If you presume to have such ability, you are mistaken. In the 'Age of Grace', believe on Him and you will be saved is the operant condition. No instituion can edit that to any refined state for it is God's integrity which makes it so, in the Age of Grace.
To which kosta replied: I really can't disagree with you at all on this.
LOL kosta! I do believe this is the first time I've ever seen you agree (or at least not disagree) with anyone about anything.
Actually “possessed” isn't used. But I'll say he was influenced. How would Judas be guilty if he had no control or wasn't free to do otherwise than what he did?
And if free will is an “illusion” how could you conclude ANYONE had freewill?
“Okay it says so in Acts 5:31, 11:18, and 2 Tim 2:22. Still having doubts?”
No, I have no doubts that over and over the exhortation is for people to take positive action, to “repent”, something they would do, Acts 2:38, 3:19, 8:22, 17:30, 26:30, and that's just Acts.
Then what does “granted”, “give” repentance mean in the three scriptures in which it is used?
That He made it possible, provided opportunity.
Acts 14:3 says it was ‘given, granted’ to the disciples to perform “signs and portents”.
Goo’s action made it possible for them to do so. Rom 2:4 in fact says God was trying to “lead” people to repentance.
LOLOL!
Thank you ever so much, D-fendr, for the wonderful excerpt from Chesterton!
Everything that human beings know today in all fields — science, philosophy, history — is the product of human experience and reflection tracing back over millennia. The "small and arrogant" oligarchs are themselves heirs of this tradition. Yet paradoxically they are at war with it, just as evidently they are at war with God. They urge us to "forget" the achievements of our great cultural ancestors, because if we "remember" them, then they can't sell us a bill of goods that will cost us our liberty, dignity, and possibly our lives in the end. As George Weigel has written,
This historical myopia is unhappily reminiscent of the new atheists.... [R]eason detached from the Jewish and Christian sources of Western civilization — and especially from the idea that God impressed a certain rationality on creation, thus rendering it intelligible — has become the parody of reason that is postmodernism; the witches' brew of metaphysical nihilism, epistemological skepticism, and moral relativism that underwrites ... political correctness.... ["The Light of Reason," National Review, June 7, 2010, p. 42]It not only underwrites political correctness, but also sociopolitical radicalism based on pure abstractions. And if history is any guide, such radical projects simply do not work in the "real" world.
From the point of view of our would-be "controllers," human beings become better fit for the "herd" if they can be lobotomized. Since this is largely impractical (at least so far), for them to remain in ignorance of the human past is the next best strategy for controlling them....
Ultimately, that's what it's all about: A self-selected elite wants to control mankind. Or at least as much of it as they possibly can.
C. S. Lewis, of course, delves into the same issues Chesterton has raised, in The Abolition of Man....
Thank you so much for writing, D-fendr!
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.