Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
It is your fallible opinion based on your fallible authority on what this means and whether you are or are not.
I would hope you do those things on the list that metmom posted. If they upset you or convict you, as they do me at times, then perhaps something else in us needs looking at.
In your case, that higher authority is your self. Why would someone in the Church look outside Christ's Church to a fallible authority?
In addition to anger, I believe we see very deep issues of authority and rebellion.
Leading to the ultimate rebellion against all authority and retreating to the false security of complete self authority.
The concept of being qualified in subject matter seems to be under attack now.
Every individual an authority on every subject.
Kewl!
We've been so "grouped" as people and taught group-think that it is hard to see or be seen as one out of the group they're assigned to. Or, in many cases, gladly and willingly join in order to escape their very individualism. That's a shame. There is still a lot of individualism, but groups feel they MUST put those individuals into a group in order to make themselves feel more secure. There is safety in numbers, you know, we are told that all the time.
Our Grandparents. That was the last age of true individualism for society. IMHO
I think the site you copied this snippet from is most likely a dumpster. There is no way I am going to believe that any of you actually visited Catholicfaithdefenders.com, have read the PRAESTANTIA SCRIPTURAE or have any idea of the context in which it was issued.
Are people really so naive as to not realize that anything that can be found on the internet can be fact checked on the internet. Perhaps they expect that everyone will be as intellectually lazy as they are.
That passage is NOT contained within the book quoted. I actually posted the entire chapter of that book in post #3397 and it simply is not there. The falsified version that you reposted does appear, however on many anti-Catholic websites and in posts on Free Republic by anti-Catholics apparently not interested in the truth.
Actually, this is not what shows superficial or dishonest research, and as i am the one that originally posted this then let me respond to you both. If you carefully read the attribution, you will see that two chapters are given, “Chapter XIX, XXIII, “ and the only error is that “chapter” should be plural, nonetheless their first one is cp. XIX , and you apparently only searched XXIII which is a little below it. For you are right that (much of) anything that can be found on the Internet, and the book is easily found online, ( http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm) and if you search (Ctrl+F) for "further use for his reason" you should quickly find it (under “WHENCE OUR BELIEF: REASON”).
And in context Stapleton teaches that once one decides to trust Rome, there is no more need to seek for revealed truth, as Rome has become his source and supreme authority, which was the issue.
As for the Liguori quote, Google only provides it in the preview: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=458&tbm=bks&q=%22without+asking+reasons%22++Liguori&btnG=Search&oq=%22without+asking+reasons%22++Liguori&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=4243l10144l0l11206l3l3l0l0l0l0l758l985l0.2.6-1l3l0
As for the Syllabus of Errors someone mentioned in reference to your charges, i do not recall posting that, but that collection has its Catholic defenders, and while not of dogmati cauthority (little is) , i think it cites many previous documents that had been written during the reign of Pius. “In its nature, it is true, the Syllabus is negative and condemnatory; but it received its complement in the decisions of the Vatican Council and in the Encyclicals of Leo XIII.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm
I will try to get back to about the premise behind this sometime later if needed, though i have previously dealt with such here. But again, i was not saying there is no room for some disagreement among Catholics in much of what is teaches, and i since stated there was, nor was i contending that Roman Catholics do not make a freewill, if fallible, choice to give implicit assent of faith to teachings of Rome's assuredly “infallible” magisterium, once they ascertain they are, and understand the infallible authority, but my issue is the warrant for this faith, versus holding Scripture to be the supreme infallible authority, as progressively established by Divine power, and obtaining the assurance it provides by its means, and the results of both.
May all be born again and "Praise ye the Lord. O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever." (Psalms 106:1)
The ONLY authority is God’s Holy Spirit Word for God’s children.
Anyone following anyone/anything else is satan’s children.
ROFL!!!!! I posted the link on my original post. Catholicfaithdefenders.com and that’s exactly where I got the quote from. But you still accused me of getting it from a “dumpster site”!!
He had many great sayings that were not only humorous, but revealed a deep understanding of life. The most memorable were:
Stupid is supposed to hurt.
Without an education you are not much more than obsolete farm equipment.
Work smart because you will never work harder than a mule, or cheaper.
The first 20 years of your life are where you are supposed to fill your head with the things you will spend the rest of your life selling. Pay attention and make sure you have plenty of inventory.
If you don't want people talking about it, don't do it.
Beware of people telling you what you want to hear. When someone has his tongue in your ear you need to know where both of his hands are.
Just because no one ever finds out about it doesn't mean it isn't a sin.
Some believe they are choosing not to follow the authority of other fallible men by deciding that they alone will decide what Holy Scripture is and what it means.
Most who make this choice are at least consistent in its application. A few are not:
"A Protestant believes in no infallible authority; he is an authority unto himself, which authority he does not claim to be infallible, if he is sober and sane."
On the contrary,.....
Matthew 11:28-30 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
I don't read anywhere that CHRIST told us to kiss our brains goodbye at the door of the church.
Ah, more strawmen. This one with “STRAW MAN” in big letters across its chest.
Some folks just should not do apologetics.
Happy Thanksgiving, all! See you after the holiday.
May we all join each other in prayers of thanks for all of God’s gifts to us.
In fact it would be contrary to that. “searched the scriptures daily to see if these things are true” and we are to be wary of wolves in sheep’s clothing and false prophets. Unlike what the Catholic hierarchy teaches we are to double check what they say is doctrine.
That’s a lie. The “infallible authority” would be scripture itself.
I think I would have loved to spend some time with your Grandfather. ;) Thanks for sharing some his sayings. There was a great amount of common sense then. Something that is SORELY missing today.
No one who seeks with intelligence, single-mindedness and a pure heart, will fail to find these attributes and marks of the true Church of Christ. Whether, after finding them, one will make an act of faith, is another question. But that he can give his assent with the full approval of his reason is absolutely certain. Once he does so, he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm#19)
I appears that some here would rather spend their energies jumping to conclusions, rushing to judgment and getting their knickers in a knot over their OWN sloppy research. Thanks again. Now if they will only address the point of the posts!
Thanks! Yet another gem you have taught me about Free Republic. Good thing to know.
Actually it is a brazen attempt to draw a conclusion from the parsing of an entire chapter using a context and intent not present in the original material. I expected far better from you.
:And in context Stapleton teaches that once one decides to trust Rome, there is no more need to seek for revealed truth, as Rome has become his source and supreme authority, which was the issue."
Even that is not a complete portrayal of what Fr. Stapleton wrote or intended. You originally omitted the title of the chapter drawing the reader to a conclusion that the Church demands obedience without reason when the entire Chapter provides a reasoned argument to trust the Church in matters of faith. That is a twist that even the New York Times would applaud.
I seriously doubt that you read the entire book or even the entire Chapters you cited. These snippets are available, completely out of context and without a sympathetic representation of original intent on any number of anti-Catholic websites. That is sloppy if not dishonest scholarship.
Similar is your treatment of the THE TRUE SPOUSE OF JESUS CHRIST; OR, THE NUN SANCTIFIED BY THE VIRTUES OF HER STATE.(Note; you truncated the title too) You mislead the reader into believing that this is a teaching to all Catholics when in fact it is a treatise for Nuns and other religious. The quote you cited is not in the work, which is only 177 pages (not the 358+ in your citation) and the call to obedience is to emulate Mary's obedience to the Holy Spirit. The book, along with many of his other writings can be found at http://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/pdf/liguori-true-spouse-of-jesus-christ.pdf.
I asked a number of questions earlier on this thread that have not even been acknowledged. Perhaps you would like to respond:
-Do you believe or expect anyone else to believe that God needs to lie to reach Catholics or that He would approve of these deceptions?
-Who is the “Father of Lies” and who do you think these falsehoods actually serve?
-Why is it that there needs to be and are so very many false assertions made about Catholicism?
-Why is it necessary to go to the extremes of having to hide these lies within falsified documents and attributions?
-Why is the intensity of this hatred so great that there had to be a list of banned websites and sources within the Religion Forum when there is to corresponding listing of Catholic sponsored anti-Protestant sites and material?
-Why are there so very many anti-Catholic pejorative terms and monikers when there are almost none by Catholics against other faiths?
-Why is it that you and so many others are so very eager to accept and repeat these falsified factoids about the Church without verification?
-Have you ever considered why Catholics continue to come to this cesspool of lies and go to the trouble sifting through the garbage to sort fact from fiction over and over again?
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.