Posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:14 AM PDT by Cronos
I want to thank Archbishop William E. Lori for reminding me once again why I'm an ex-Catholic ("Fight for freedom," June 27). With the so-called "Fortnight for Freedom," the church leadership is deliberately and cynically using a mixture of patriotism and religion in a blatant and manipulative attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.
I can't seem to recall any recent news about Catholic churches being bombed in the United States or attempts to bar American Catholics from attending mass. I do know that the Catholic Church has been using its "religious freedom" for decades to aid and abet child abusers, to recently attack nuns in the United States who are at the forefront of what used to be one of the church's primary missions to aid and comfort the poor and needy, and that the American church has over the past few decades formed an alliance with some of the most strident and politically active right-wing religious groups in the U.S. Archbishop Lori even received an award in May from a coalition of some of those groups.
I am proud to be an American, and I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights. I support freedom of religion, and I support freedom from religion. And, at this moment in time, I am also very proud and happy to be an ex-Catholic.
Sandy Covahey, Baltimore
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
“Don’t waste your time posting excerpts from your false prophets to me.”
~ ~ ~
4/1/12
message to Kevin Barrett
* They speak of how you each are already cleansed and adorned in righteousness simply by your belief on My name. These are all lies, My people. * For does not My word say that he who DOES righteousness is righteous?
Kevin Barrett is a Protestant, what are you going to do
metmom? I think it’s you didn’t like Our Lord’s words
to Kevin. They are very easy to understand, you don’t care and that’s pride.
You give Protestants Scripture to show them Martin Luther’s
“Faith Alone” is a lie. They stay with him instead!
Silence. Where are your comments to reply showing Ephesians 2:10 confirms Luther’s “Faith Alone?” Again, you posted it.
Martin Luther was not a holy man, who would base their
faith, their salvation on his heresies?
Changing on one fact, the truth, no book interprets itself.
The Bible and the Devil...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxdapuJ6Q
Does this mean that you would put your mother's body out on the curb for trash pick-up and that Joseph of Arimathea was acting counter to Jesus' command?
Peace be with you.
There is a difference between a burial, and a celebration.
More accurately, there is a difference between a funeral and a burial. And for the record celebrations are not all parties and festive events. Catholic celebration, from the Latin from Latin celebrare, means to frequent or observe.
Peace be with you
Scripture can be used to interpret Scripture because Scripture is the truth.
Using your criteria, however, prohibits the IM from interpreting itself. Therefore, all pronuncments from the IM are subject to the personal interpretation of the individual believer, the very personal interpretation that is condemned when the individual believer uses it to interpret Scripture.
Therefore, if any one personal interpretation of Scripture is invalid when done by the individual believer, the personal interpretation of the IM is likewise invalid when done by the individual believer.
Too many Catholics want to have their cake and eat it too.
Where are you going with only those 3 items and why?
Sorry, Daniel - wrong thread! Not good that I post when tired.
“Scripture can be used to interpret Scripture because Scripture is the truth.
Using your criteria, however, prohibits the IM from interpreting itself.”
~ ~ ~
Scripture doesn’t interpret Scripture. More error. The reason, you have no authority, you are your own pope metmom. It makes everything a lot easier.
What is IM?
"For Protestants the Bible alone means the Bible only is the final authority for our faith.....Scripture interprets Scripture..."
That is circular reasoning and complete nonsense. As Churchill once begged; "Can a man stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle?"
Any Biblically based doctrine is only as good as the fidelity of its translation and, absent an infallible authority, that fidelity cannot be established without the input of those who possess knowledge of what legal scholars call "original intent".
A bold attempt, but it is your argument that is circular, for while you do not have one edition claiming to be a infallible translation (some RCs argue that Scripture itself is not infallible), much less anything close to full infallible commentary on it, assurance of the veracity of your claim that Rome is assuredly infallible (and thus her judgment on fidelity) is not based upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, else you would be as a Protestant, or on other proofs, as these only have the weight Rome gives them (and your judgment of them is fallible), but instead it effectively rests upon Rome's claim to be infallible;
For (as said) she has infallibly defined herself as infallible, when speaking in accordance with her scope and subject based criteria, which thus renders her claim to infallibility to be infallible, and whatever else she may thusly declare support it. And thus you have assurance, after having made a fallible human decision (unless you claim infallibility) to give assent of faith to her).
Under this circular reasoning no evidence against her claims have any weight against them, while anything can be “proven,” as according to Rome's “interpretation” (decree), only her interpretation can be right in any conflict.
While RCs may appeal to Scripture in seeking to provide warrant for Rome's traditions of men, these do not need Scriptural warrant (though they must not contradict Scripture, yet which is according to her self-proclaimed irreprovable interpretation), as her pronouncements are declared to be infallible Truth if declared according to her formula.
In addition, Rome also autocratically defines her amorphous, unverifiable Tradition as well as (somewhat selectively) what the CFs materially taught, based upon the premise that the voice of the church is Divine, and thus they mean whatever she says they mean. And thus RC arguments for her essentially rely upon what they attempt to prove, and in which they also argue that one cannot have real doctrinal assurance apart from the magisterium.
As for your premise that Sola Scriptura is based upon circular reasoning due to an infallible authority being necessary to establish the fidelity of the translation of Scripture, this disallows the approx. abundant references to Scripture in the New Testament alone (many from a translation), as even those who sat in the seat of Moses (Mt. 23:2) could not presume (though they basically did) what Rome has.
Nor do we begin to argue that Scripture is Scripture simply because it says it is, which would be circular, but as souls recognized Christ as the Divine Messiah despite rejection by those who ought to have affirmed Him, (unlike as for Rome) we see the Divine writings as being essentially supernaturally established based upon its Divine qualities and supernatural attestation (thus most of what we regard as Scripture was recognized as such before there was a church in Rome).
And being thus established it has authority, therefore we engage in exegesis based upon what the totality of Scripture states, including a basic interpretative hermeneutic which is revealed therein (and which is contrary to much of recent Roman Catholic scholarship).
However, we cannot presume assured infallibility in so doing, as in Scripture a perpetual. assuredly infallible magisterium was not necessary for either the establishment of writings as Scripture, or for assurance, but souls were persuaded through true men of God (which also are such even if rejected by those who sit in positional power), by the manifestation of the Truth, by Scriptural substantiation in text and in power, with the supernaturally established Scriptures being the infallible transcendent standard for obedience and testing Truth claims. Thanks be to God.
Ironically, that original intent is only found in the Traditions of the Church and in the Early Church Fathers, whom Protestantism discounts because of their Catholicity, which were the wellspring from which the Bible was produced.
This also is presumptuous, as the reason we have historically contend so strongly for Truths we both concur on and against others is due to the weight of Scriptural warrant for the former, and the lack or contrariness in this regard for the latter. And other churches who also operate under sola ecclesia have disagreements with her as concerns what Traditions are to be kept, or what it teaches (or even who all the CFs are), but Rome can autocratically declare whatever it wants.
Nor does being the instruments and stewards of Scripture require or make one an assuredly infallible interpreter of it, which would nuke the church, which began with an Itinerant Preacher who was rejected by the magisterium, but who established His claims upon Scriptural warrant, in text and in power, and as a principle for it to follow. May I and it do so better now. To God be the glory.
Yes, the Apostles were visible human beings as was Christ as were other Christians as are we who continue in the same faith as Christ preached and the Apostles taught. Where I disagree is when any organized institution presumes to be that visible union alone in exclusion of all other assemblies that share in the Christian faith. Just as Paul reminds us that it is not who Apollos baptized, or Peter or Paul but who are joined together in that we are "like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood" (I Peter 2:5) as the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to write.
This union that IS one in Christ is so not because of everyone being gathered together under one umbrella organization that bills itself as THE church of Christ, but as the one spiritual union, a spiritual "house" that makes us ALL part of the holy priesthood of all believers. Your magesterium has made moves recently to try to demonstrate this attitude of inclusion of the body of Christ and they FULLY accept that being a member of the Roman Catholic Church is NOT a prerequisite to being part of the redeemed in Christ. Do you disagree with them? Rather than take so much time trying to convince those of us who DO follow after Christ in faith and in holiness of life, why not worry more about those within your own congregation that wear the Catholic label but who do not evince that in their own lives? Why does it matter that someone is Baptist and not Roman Catholic if the faith is there as well as the evidence of that faith?
AMEN!!! If Scripture didn’t clearly say we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, then we wouldn’t hold to it. It’s really that simple.
Actually, your statement is to much a generalization, as whether a proper baptism took place is a matter of judgment.
Thus the CE (1907) states, Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. (www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VII)
And how many are disciplined as per Mt. 18 (which is invoked for support, though it is really dealing with personal offenses):
“And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. “ (Matthew 18:17)
Paradoxically, she is tax collector!
Actually, according to Canon 1184 §, unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur280.htm)
This, and the degree of conflicting judgment that can occur on regarding it , was part of a debate here just last week: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2901874/posts?page=68#68
That was a surprise to me!:) But then again, the 1st century church,
” had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. “ (Hebrews 10:34)
The 4th Of July and Why we need to boldy fight for religious freedom
‘We’ll Face More and More Serious Challenges to Religious Liberty in Our Country.’
Archbishop Chaput Closes Fortnight: What We Must Render Unto God and Unto Caesar
Government cannot take away true freedom, Archbishop Chaput teaches
Repair my house: renewing the roots of religious liberty
Rally opposes government intervention in religious matters
Novena for Religious Freedom for the United States of America (Prayer)
FREEDOM! US Catholic Church Rolls Out Major Offensive Against Obama’s Attacks on Religious Liberty
Opening Mass for the Fortnight for Freedom, Thursday 7PM ET
Fortnight for Freedom! (6/21-7/4)
Fortnight for Freedom
Group funded by George Soros poised to attack US Bishops for the “Fortnight for Freedom”
Archbishop [Lori]: 'Fortnight' about religious freedom, not politics
Religious Freedom and the Love of God
Bishops, That is a Pretty Nice Tax Exemption You Have There. Wouldn’t Want Anything Bad ...
Fortnight for Freedom
Baptist Leader Endorses Catholic Campaign
Canon 1184 does not define what constitutes a sign of repentance and certainly doesn't identify you or the public at large as the local ordinary.
Peace be with you
Ok, this is a strange position for me, a Catholic to defend Lutherans, but your statement Martin Luther was not a holy man, who would base their faith, their salvation on his heresies? is not only wrong but stupid. No Lutheran claims Luther was a holy man and they would say that they base their faith and salvation on the Bible.
As a Catholic I repudiate your post's divisive tone. You want to debate with a Lutheran, then explain nicely why you think he's wrong. Otherwise it's just spouting vitriol and gets us nowhere
I repeated --> I've never seen either say anything to the non-Trinitarians who would post their objections to the Trinity. Nothing, not a word. it's almost as if they agree with them.
Never, have I seen the bunch of non-Catholics disagree with the Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. in their midst when they talk about the Trinity being a Catholic incorrect concept.
perhaps this non-Catholic club accepts any creed, even Mormons as long as they are in the same 'let's try attackin' Caflix"
What a bunch of losers.
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.