Posted on 04/10/2011 2:25:01 AM PDT by verdugo
SPEAKING OF public tv....AND I KNOW THIS is off topic for a second.....
BUT....
TRY AS I MIGHT, AND AFTER EXHAUSTIVE REASEARCH I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DISCOVER WHETER OR NOT
LINKTV
GETS FEDERAL FUNDING?
DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWER AND DO YOU HAVE A SITE TALKING ABOUT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR LINKTV?
THANK YOU ...
Semper Fi
The author of this appears to be one of the perpetually angry cranks.
Mother Angelica would not approve.
Attacking very good works - though human and therefore necessarily imperfect works - is a sin that is common among such cranks.
This screed of a book has a website: http://www.networkgonewrong.org/index.htm
It seems Ferrara is a crank:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1592495/posts
What ever happened to charity as Jesus taught? He gave all of us an individual mandate to practice charity and love for our fellow man, not government sponsored social justice wealth redistribution. When Obama was campaigning and just before the housing market crash, I remember one of my coworkers saying that everyone had a “right” to a house. I thought he was crazy. We waited to buy our house until we could afford it. We didn't expect the government to give us one.
I've noticed that when the government takes over our social programs, individual acts of charity go down. How many old folks now live in nursing residences with government subsidies. Families do not feel responsible for the grandparents anymore. Why should we, the government will provide.
Greenism is believing in the silly science of global warming. I have read enough on this subject to realize that there is little real science, but a lot of politics. When scientist disagree with global warming, they are threatened with their jobs. Global warming is used as a way to control our behavior, from flushing our toilets, to what type of lights we can use and what type of house and car we can buy. Eventually, they will be forcing us to sell our homes if they do not meet the government standards for square feet per person. I do not believe Jesus meant government control when he talked about charity.
Regardless of whether the author is a “crank”, are the details true or not?
Oh for cryin’ out loud, she’s almost 90 years old. EWTN shows reruns of her show daily and I just got done praying the rosary with Father Mitch. Her shows are on DVD and for streaming on the website. The Sister is a saint. Nobody is keeping her off the air.
Ferrara is a crank who presents the details with the dishonest bent of a crank.
Just as MSNBC often presents factual details, but presents them with the dishonest bent of a “journOlist”.
In both instances, the audience is misled by the spin of cranks.
Conservative Catholics don't like to admit this because to them the Bible is "Protestant," so they dance around the issue and mention everything else but the Bible issue, but so long as the Catholic Church permits the belief that there are untruths in the Divinely-inspired Bible--ie, that G-d has lied (Chas vechalilah!!!), it will be a liberal religion and all these other problems will continue to flow from that source.
The number of "conservative Catholics" on Free Republic who jump through one hoop of illogic after another to defend the notion that cosmogony is a purely scientific matter (and that Divine revelation and theology have nothing to say about that subject) while hypocritically defending every act of post-creation "Divine interference with the natural order" via miracles is truly sickening.
Here's another question: What are the credentials of the person that called Christopher Ferrara a "crank"? We know nothing about this person who calls himself Notwithstanding (or whatever). He has not refuted one point of the article, and only engaged in character assassination.
Here are the credentials of the author:
Christopher A. Ferrara
Born New York, New York 1952
BA Fordham University, 1973
JD Fordham University School of Law, 1977.
In 1990 Mr. Ferrara founded the American Catholic Lawyers Association and, since approximately 1991, has concentrated his practice on the pro-bono (that means for free) representation of Catholics in religious and civil liberties cases, both civil and criminal, both plaintiff and defense.
Mr. Ferrara has a number of significant appellate victories to his credit including the recent decision of the Second Circuit in Spitzer v. Operation Rescue, striking down an expanded injunction against pro-life activists under FACE, and narrowing the grounds for liability under FACE for the alleged making of threats.
Mr. Ferrara has also won a number of acquittals and dismissals of pro-life activists at the trial level and obtained an appellate court reversal of a $109 million verdict against pro-life activists in Portland, Oregon, whose reinstatement by a sharply divided (6-5) en banc panel is now the subject of continued proceedings in the federal district court.
Mr. Ferrara is a widely published author on Catholic Church affairs and co-authored The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church (Remnant Press, 2002).
Therefore, it's no surprise that you get the responses from these “Catholics” on FR. The pew sitter in the Novus Ordo has been untaught the faith over the last 50 years, and all that is left are unreasoning feelings oriented effeminate types, like charismatics and such.
Therefore, it's no surprise that you get the responses from these “Catholics” on FR. The pew sitter in the Novus Ordo has been untaught the faith over the last 50 years, and all that is left are unreasoning feelings oriented effeminate types, like charismatics and such.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, on Sacred Scripture:
[101]”In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words...[102] Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely: ‘You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he not subject to time.’(Heb 1:1-3)”
109 “In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current...
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter...
112 1. Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture. Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover...
113 2. Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture...
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By ‘analogy of faith’ we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis...
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
117 1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.
117 2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly...
117 3. The anagogical sense. We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; the Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.”
Related threads:
May the Laity be Critical of it's Pastor, Bishop, Pope, Church? (Catholic Caucus)
Pope Clarifies That Only He Can Criticize a Cardinal
The Bishop and the Conference (Must Read for Catholics!!)
What is a Cardinal and What is the Purpose of the College of Cardinals?
Pope Cautions: Episcopal Conference Must Not Erode Bishop's Authority
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current...
Thank you for proving my point, firerosemom.
The official catechism of the Catholic Church here endorses late nineteenth century liberal German Protestant higher criticism and jumps through hoops to explain that the first eleven chapters of Genesis don't actually mean what they say. Meanwhile, these same hypocrites illogically insist that the new testament is to be interpreted literally when it comes to the virgin birth, resurrection, and transubstantiation because "G-d can do anything!"
Logic tells us that if the new testament means what it says, then so does the first eleven chapters of Genesis. The real reason Catholics accept one and not the other is because Genesis is for "trailer trash," and Catholics (at least American Catholics) aren't "trailer trash."
Verdugo?
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
94 “Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:
- through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts; it is in particular ‘theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth’.
- from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience, the sacred Scriptures grow with the one who reads them.
- from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.
95 It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
94 “Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:
Translation: the doctrines of the Catholic Church constantly change and evolve.
- through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts; it is in particular ‘theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth’.
Translation: everyone was an idiot until late nineteenth century liberal German Protestantism discovered that the Bible was a pack of myths. I'm still trying to figure out why "conservative Catholics" are such hypocrites when it comes to applying these theories consistently. I notice most of them are happy to dismiss the first eleven chapters of Genesis and the Book of Jonah, but they become "simple-minded fundies" when they get to the "new testament."
95 It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”
Verdugo, how did nineteenth century liberal Protestant theories get subsumed into "sacred tradition and the magisterium of the church?"
Catechism of the Catholic Church
84 “The apostles entrusted the ‘Sacred deposit’ of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. ‘By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing, and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.’”
So . . . what does "this heritage" have to do with late nineteenth century liberal German Protestant Biblical criticism, or Darwinian evolution, or Lyellian geology?
And if Genesis 1-11 doesn't mean what it says, why should John 6 mean what it says either?
Is it your intention to continue posting excerpts from the Catechism to confirm me in my prejudices? I'm not anti-Catholic enough for you already?
Why, verdugo...
Would that fall under "character assassination or detraction?"
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.