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 ...
I do not see anywhere in post 125 where he expresses he is an ex-Catholic. He quotes a supposedly Calvinist preacher who thought Rev. 14:13 refutes sola fide, which is absurd, and makes the account dubious, because (as has been said), sola fide teaches that that the faith that appropriates justification is one that effects works.
Maybe he is either a type of SSPX and subscribes to the Three Secrets of Fátima, (www.fatima.org/crusader/cr67/cr67pg03.asp), in which such interpreters see Rv. 12:4 as speaking of one-third of the Catholic clergy following the dragon – i.e. the devil. And as they undermine the authority Vatican II, judging it according to their interpretation of infallible teachings (as they judge them to be), and thus they reject many teachings of it, those who follow the devil would include those who affirm the rejected teachings of V2.
But as said (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2901874/posts?page=175#175), he has been reproved by other Catholics for his posting of unapproved prophecies, and has exhausted efforts in seeking to have a meaningful objective exchange with him.
Blessed be the Lord.
Indeed, as i myself substantiated, nor are lay RCs the LO, though some act as if they are in seeking to dispense with all liberals, regarding which one can make a case pro or con.
And he’s at it again! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2901874/posts
to which he replies I am not a “sour puss”,
to which he replies I am not a “sour puss”, , secondly, he refers to a "Remnant" -- we don't know this Rapture terminology, it's an exclusive baptist-type or evang type
thirdly, his references are not SSPX.
finally, the sheer level of stupidity in the posts by a newbie looks like definite flame-bait....
And so we’ve noticed but if a non-Catholic had commented on it, we’d have been charged with being anti-Catholic.
That was not meant, and i speak against women ministers, (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.htm), but “her” meant the Catholic church here. But i think it is RC teaching that in the case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes (CCC 1256). (Catholic Answers)
Actually, while upholding the the trinitarian formula,
There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s name: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Those who were converted by Philip. (Acts 8) “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts 2).
Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. (CE, under Matter and form of the sacrament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm)
I was referring to historical predominance, or what it is came to be, and Oneness Pentecostalism is a movement that first emerged around 1914, and resulted in the Assemblies of God and many other Pentecostals rejecting them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism#Beginnings_of_the_Oneness_movement)
As for Lutheran and a Presbyterian baptism, there is indeed a difference, and i should have said that classic Prot theology among those who essentially differ from Catholicism in their theology on baptism, as regards the act (coupled with faith) working forgiveness and regeneration in an ex opera operato manner* (with the right words, the right intentions, and the right substance combining to wash away original sin), and being (normatively) necessary for it, versus the faith which it expresses and requires doing so, as understood in Cornelius type conversions, though as receiving the Holy Spirit one can see hindrances to a neat little formula. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2901137/posts?page=78#78)
Thus Lutherans would do emergency” baptisms of children, while others would not, even though the Presbyterians do baptize kids in incorporating them into the covenant community, while most evangelical churches dedicate kids, but only baptize believers as per Baptist churches.
*As one theological site comments,
Lutherans are quick to distance themselves from Catholic baptism, saying that the water, administered by a priest, does not save ex opera operato. The sacrament is always spoken of as water and the Word, the Word making the water efficacious. However, this seems to me that they are still with the difference that but the power is in the Word, rather than in the church. (http://www.thirstytheologian.com/2010/09/08/lutheran_baptism.php)
No time for a tome, but I wish to concur with Daniel and metmom that stpio has presented himself as RC, and that your weak inference re sourpuss, while in court would make for an interesting three minute diversion during direct examination, would doubtless be set aside in mere moments during cross, and should not be given any weight whatsoever.
As for the prophecies, the one he referred me to was Kevin Barrett, who is loosely affiliated with the Open Heaven group, which in turn appears to be affiliated with the Latter Rain movement, which groups are clearly operating on the premise of an open canon as well as Prima Dreams and Visions, definitely not within the Sola Scriptura camp.
Beyond that, I don’t know what to say. If you disown him as RC based on his eschatology, I suppose it would be fair to ask what specific edict of your majesterium he has breached, and by what majesterium-recognized process you are personally empowered to disown him as RC.
Peace,
SR
And it definitely isn’t Verdugo or his former alias. I would pay to hear that exchange between Verdugo and this new seller of fake prophecy aka Fakecy.
It takes one to know one.
Martin Luther was not a holy man, who would base their faith, their salvation on his heresies?
Watch it now - judging a man because of Rome's contempt for Luther is NOT wise! God used Luther to prevent the gates of hell from coming against His Church! And hell is mad every since!!
Who says anyone bases their salvation on a man but someone with heresy teaching! God's children KNOW salvation is on what JESUS DID and said HE DID ALONE! Not what someone says. It is ALL about JESUS! JESUS is THE WORD. There is NO OTHER WORD above HIM!
Unless one is BORN AGAIN and believe God's Word is The Final Authority they are believing heresy. God said Salvation is a GIFT, satan says one has to work for it. Satan is the master of liars.
If one believes they have to work for it, they don't have salvation. One doesn't get salvation their way - it's from GOD, one has to receive it the Way He gives it, as a gift which means NO WORKS.
ONLY??? NEVER say ONLY when referring to the NAME OF JESUS!
Jesus The WORD ALWAYS was and ALWAYS will be. Jesus The Word is the ONLY TRUTH and TRUTH NEVER CHANGES!
It relies exclusively on exit polling that is notoriously inaccurate, but it would be insane to try to blame the Obama mess on Catholics when 73% of Catholics did not vote for Obama. And since we still vote by secret ballot anyone who says with any certainty that they know that all the members of their "conservative Protestant" congregation voted for McCain are guessing at best.
Peace be with you.
And ANNULMENT is about money as a LIE always costs. Satan came to Kill/ROB/Destroy. Rome's annulment proce$$ is from satan.
JESUS gave us HIS WORD - it always was and will be - He did not leave it anywhere!
Jesus is ALIVE and ACTIVE, HE is the cornerstone of HIS Church and His children are members of His Body/The Church which is based on TRUTH/His Word alone. He is very active in HIS Church, he didn't leave it, as He works through His Spirit- filled children who are vessels for HIM ALONE.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any nuttier.....I think we have found someone to fill the Quix void.
Jesus is the LOGOS.
Peace be with you.
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.