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 ...
Because of politics?? I wonder if the author’s ‘other reasons’ had anything to do with salvation but I doubt it.
I suspect the 54% quoted contains many with ideas that match the mindset of Sandy. As to her knowledge, I find that those who are EXs have a lack of understanding of the WHAT and WHY of Church teaching.
Unfortunately, I’m not seeing much response to “Fortnight” here in Pittsburgh.
Well said.
That lie has been circulating way too long. 19 million Catholics cast a vote for Obama but that is only 27% of the nearly 70 million voting age Catholics in this country. That means that 73% of the Catholics voted for McCain or "None-Of-The-Above".
Peace be with you
The upshot is that Obama won among eligible voters who voted, and he won by the same percentage among self-defined Catholic voters (54:47) as among all American voters at large. Give or take a percent, rounded to whole numbers, etc. etc.
Those "whole numbers" had better change this time around.
That seems to be the objective analysis.
Catholics actually voted against pres. O. in some states, but I have never seen a breakdown of what % of Catholics who voted did so in what state. For instance the Catholics in Ohio, Pa and NJ voted against Obama by slim margins, but in Ca and NY pres. O. won the Catholic vote. The weird thing is that in some red states Obama won the Catholic vote, while in some blue or swing states he lost it(NJ,Pa., Ohio, Minn.). I can’t see him getting more than he did last time with the mandate ruckus the bishops are puting up.
Freegards
Half of Catholics did not vote because neither party gave them a compelling enough reason to do so. When half of any voting group fails to vote it is a problem. Neither party provides a clear cut "Catholic friendly" platform and rarely produces any clearly Catholic friendly candidates.
On a daily basis we see the not so subtle anti-Catholic bias displayed by those who claim to represent the conservative best of America. They bray and bitch endlessly about Catholics not being loyal to the GOP or to their personal conservative principles and then hold Catholic responsible for politicians who do deviated from Catholic teaching. Until a party or candidate more closely adopts and embodies Catholic teaching they cannot presume the Catholic vote. We serve our country best by serving God first.
Peace be with you
Which only makes it more deplorable that 'sound Catholics' have fallen so far short of providing the vision, values, and leadership for a real, coherent alternative.
"Someody oughta get out there and do something!!" is usually translated by the saints as "God help me, I've got to do something."
Towards the end of these heretical times there may be only a small amount who actually adhere to the teachings of the Church,and those who do will be persecuted in many ways just like we see happening to the Coptic Catholics.
Weather you may realize it or not,dear friend, some of your posts actually strengthen the faithful Catholic laity to hold strong to the teachings of the Catholic Church
It wasn't hatred of where they were from but love of where they were going that defined their view of themselves.
Unfortunately, many American Catholics don't understand that. If a Fundamentalist Protestant becomes Catholic he's expected to toe a number of "lines" (evolution, higher criticism) in order to prove his "loyalty."
Sometimes the price is not worthy paying.
There is no loyalty forced on anyone,dear friend. If you are a serious Catholic you believe things like the Sacraments of the Church and dogmatic teachings because you love Christ and know these teachings come from him.
You know as well as I that there are many sects of Judaism that believe that God did not make the world in 6 literal days in man's concept of time.
Many Jews realize God is unchangeable and realize that God would be bound to time and therefore change to be bound to time if He made the world in 6 literal days in man's concept of time.
God is eternal and unchanging, therefore time is eternal to God.
Perhaps it might do you well to understand that how God explains things in writing is only there to help man see the the glory of God rather than man made concepts of things like binding our concept of time to God's eternal time
Your response is one way RCs respond to the present declension (another being a denial of evidence), and which is shared by most evangelicals as pertaining to the Christian faith overall.
But as long as a church preaches that it alone is the One True Church, and her nominal, liberal multitudes see little or no real discipline, and treated as members in life and in death, then you are stuck with them as you must remain in the same Church. Unless you want to be in schism, as some Catholics have felt they must be.
Meanwhile, i am cognizant of the possible effects of my posts, as well as its intended effects.
Sandy, if the government can force the largest Christian church in America to violate its conscience, they can do it to any of them, any religious (or irreligious) community even, and one lapsed Catholic in Baltimore is very small potatoes indeed. I’m a Prod and I get that. It’s a bit frightening that you don’t.
My post did not reflect denying evidence there is many liberal Catholic’s. I am well aware they are out there just as there are extreme heretics that live their faith according to how they interpret Scripture in protestantism.
At least in Catholicism polls can be taken and measured from those who decent from dogmatic teaching of the Church,thus showing the Church what it must concentrate on to help those in error. In protestantism there is no clear teaching, it’s a do it my way theology that can never be measured since there is not clear teachings. Basically, it’s read the Bible and do whatever makes you feel holy.Protestantism is a pluralistic faith without clarity.
That may be a favorite Catholic delusion but (see here for a more extended response) the reality is that under the Roman model of sola ecclesia, formal divisions and schisms are also apparent. Her interpretation of Tradition, history and Scripture has significant differences with other Catholic groups and churches and others who operate under her sola ecclesia model, which also claim to be the one true church based upon their interpretation.
And while certain core truths require assent of faith, Rome allows varying degrees of interpretation according to her "hierarchy of truths," and the "sense which holy mother church held and holds" can see different interpretations. For just as Protestants cannot claim infallibility in interpreting their supreme authority (Scripture), neither can RCs in interpreting theirs (the magisterium), and interpretation is required, even in determining which of the potentially hundreds of infallible pronouncements really are so (so that they may provide the necessary assent of faith), as well as to varying degrees the meaning of these and the multiplicity of non-infallible teachings.
And disagreement is allowed to some extent (open to interpretation) as regards the latter category, once one has determined which of the different levels a magisterial teaching, or parts thereof, fall under.
Meanwhile, under the SS model even without one centralized formal magisterium, rather than doctrinal anarchy, historically they also have overall manifested assent to core truths, and a common front against those who deny them, as well as "traditions of men."
And because of their submission to Scripture, they recognize the authority of their respective magisterium, but as in Scripture, this is always conditional. The church itself began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses. (Mt. 23:2; Mk. 8:31; 11:28-33)
And due to a Scripturally based regeneration and relationship with Christ, evangelicals also manifest the unity of the Spirit across denominational lines in many ways, and yet (in this late hour) testify to greater unity overall in many important moral views and teachings in comparison to their Catholic counterparts.
Under SS, rather than assurance of truth resting upon self-proclaimed assured infallibility, truth is established upon the weight of Scriptural warrant. While this allows challenges, evil is overcome by good (not the sword of men or forgeries which Rome too much relied upon), by evidencing conflation with the supernaturally established Scriptures in text and in power, and which requires the church to not simply claim to be that of the Living God, but to manifest it. Which i need to do much better.
Wrong!
I looked at your link and the list things claimed Catholic don't have to agree upon. Those who recognize the Pope as Holy See are to follow dogmatic teaching if they are aware of what they are.There are only a few issues that need to be worked out with our Eastern Orthodox brethren( which both sides can give a little), but we are closer that ever because the love the EO's have for Pope Benedict XVI
Those who knowingly don't believe Church dogma have excommunicated themselves "latae sententiae"
Pelosi, Coumo in NY, and others fall into this category
Knowing this is important to those who do know what the Church teaches and it becomes a sin to those who do not try and correct those walking in error
The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which is 'wide' (latae) or widely applied; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does not require the future particular judgment of a case by competent authority.
Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offenses which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically. Heresy is the obstinate denial of ANY truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium.
Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith
FWIW,dear friend,It's easy to spot cunning and manipulative people because they have to write extremely long posts and post many links to try and explain themselves.It's not impressive or intellectually and spiritually sound either!
That said, mainstream protestantism has a good amount in common with Catholicism because it's impossible to remain a Christian and dismiss Catholic teaching which was borrowed from Catholic Theology in mainstream protestantism.
I wish you a blessed evening!
Wrong! Those who recognize the Pope as Holy See are to follow dogmatic teaching if they are aware of what they are. There are only a few issues that need to be worked out with our Eastern Orthodox brethren..Those who knowingly don't believe Church dogma have excommunicated themselves "latae sententiae.."
Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offenses which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically. Heresy is the obstinate denial of ANY truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium.
Rather than being wrong, the reality behind what you describe illustrates this illusion. The fact is that the basis for unity is the issue, and under the Roman model of sola ecclesia, formal divisions and schisms are also apparent, and you cannot restrict it to simply the Latin church, unless you want to compare it to one SS-type church.
• The “few issues” which separates you from the EOs include no less than the primary doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, and his claims to universal power, based upon your respective interpretations of Tradition, Scripture and history under sola ecclesia. “The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.
To which disagreements are added more. (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html http://ww.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html, http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.asp; etc.)
In addition are the SSPX, with about 500 priests present in 31 countries, who dissent from some things in Vatican II and object strongly to some things in the catechism, seeing a contradiction between these and the previous Magisterium, but while they lack canonical status, apparently they are not presently excommunicated (and have been in talks about full communion). And the SSPX has its own Catholic subgroups, besides other traditionalists Catholic sects.
Then there are the loosely organized sedevacantists groups, which while they may be excommunicated from Rome, consider her to be the one that has moved, based upon departure from Tradition, Scripture and history.
• As for within Rome, what actual persons fall under the "latae sententiae" clause, which is not the extent of Scriptural discipline, is variously interpreted, partly due to the fact that what constitutes all that has been definitively taught by the Magisterium (requiring assent of faith) is open to some interpretation (all of Trent, or Vatican Two, what parts of Bulls, Encyclicals, etc.), as (sometimes) is their precise meaning (as in extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).
Then there is what crosses the line and excommunicates one (which does not necessarily mean being "outside the grace of the Church."). There are a number of provisions in Canon law that could keep an excommunication from taking its effect, at least automatically, such as one who ignorantly or through inadvertence, or error commits an objectively schismatic act. (http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/09/schism_and_mort.html) .
In addition, what Rome says and effectually conveys manifests interpretation, and this can seem to be two different things. And the interpretation that Rome effectually gives is that such persons as named above are not excommunicated, because she treats them as members in life and in death. And which no less a public figure than Ted Kennedy (for one) exampled, as he manifested continued accommodation of abortion and homosexual relations without repentance, while asserting he “never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings, and tried to be a faithful Catholic, etc.” yet (as he insolently wanted to have his cake and eat it too) he had fellowship with priests, and Masses said at his residence while living, and at the end Pope wrote, “the Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord." (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/29/ted-kennedy-to-pope-benedict-i-am-writing-with-deep-humility/) He then was honored under Rome in death, and Rome even allowed Pres. Obama to give a eulogy (contrary to canon law i think).
And which sends a message to other “nominal” (at best) impenitent RCs , that what really matters is that they die in the arms of Rome. (It is when liberal RCs convert to conservative evangelical faith — not liberal Protestantism — that the most concern is shown, as now they are a threat to her.)
Then you have the uncertain interpretive sounds by Bishops as regards specific judgments on this issue (even if some laity presume they understand better than they),
Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together.
[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, but he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives.
...there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' (from the thread US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711746/posts?page=289#289)
As long as Rome does not proactively excommunicate such (and looses most of her members), then there is uncertainty what Rome understand the criteria for excommunication to be, and such must still be considered members, and whom you are stuck with.
And the same judgment applies to Protestant churches who accommodate such impenitent men, but at least members can leave to be part of a more faithful fellowship of believers.
But Rome has even elected grossly immoral men as popes, and could not even formally excommunicated Hitler. (It is also debated whether (theoretically) a pope who was self-excommunicated for heresy, would still retain jurisdiction over the universal Church.)
In Scripture men such as were warned-but-impenitent practitioners of fornication or promoters thereof, which Kennedy was, or even who support indolence, etc. (besides promoters of rebellion against clear Scriptural teachings) were to be marked and at least disfellowshipped, (1Cor. 5:11; 2Thes. 3:14; Rm. 16:17; Titus 3:10) and were sometimes named as having been delivered over to the devil for chastisement. (1Tim. 3:10)
Rome rarely formally disciplines or excommunicates anyone now, being inconsistent with the past when she supported torturing suspected theological deviants, which means of dealing with such was also unScriptural.
FWIW,dear friend,It's easy to spot cunning and manipulative people because they have to write extremely long posts and post many links to try and explain themselves. It's not impressive or intellectually and spiritually sound either!
I doubt if you consider me a “dear friend” though i hope for civil dialog, but your remark is at first hypocritical, as your own church is known for writing extremely long discourses in trying and explain herself, and just the "Bulls" of the popes from 540 to 1857 are said to fills forty-one volumes, while she has a history of using fabrications to her own ends. And other RCs have posted such lengthy tomes or posts, which i have not seen you protest against, while other posters have expressed edification from mine (thanks be to God).
Yet, while my response to you was not lengthy, such are often warranted (and usually carefully formatted) to more fully explain and substantiate what is being argued.
That said, mainstream protestantism has a good amount in common with Catholicism because it's impossible to remain a Christian and dismiss Catholic teaching which was borrowed from Catholic Theology in mainstream protestantism.
Which apologetic is superficially considered, as the same could be said of the Jews, who are actually stated to be the stewards of Scripture, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and of whom Christ came, (Rm. 9:5) but which does not make them assured infallible.
And rather than our shared assent to certain core truths validating Rome, the reason why we hold to and contend for these while against others of Rome, is because the former are based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and which the others lack as doctrines, and or are found to be in opposition, as defined by Rome.
Thus under both SE-type and SS-type churches their are disagreements and divisions, the difference being a matter of degrees, as Rome is one of many operating under the church effectively being the supreme authority (as only as she gives her affirmation does anything have authority) who claim to be the one true Church, which she can autocratically infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
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.