'Fortnight for Freedom': One more reason to be an ex-Catholic

Baltimore Sun ^ | 29 June 2012 | Sandy Covahey

[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

[boatbums]

Here’s the quote you asked for... Luther came up with “Faith Alone” and “Bible Alone”, both from his mind not God. “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”[57] [57] Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107.

Typical out-of-context, rabid attacks from Roman Catholics who care more about attacking Protestants than speaking up for the truths of the Christian faith.

From http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-said-christ-committed-adultery.html:

No. 1472: Christ Reproached as Adulterer Between April 7 and May 1, 1532

[Martin Luther said,] “Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, ‘Nobody knows what he’s doing with her’ [John 4:27]. Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 [:2–11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.”

Well how does one respond to this? The quote is indeed appears outrageous.

First, the quote has no context. One does not know what exactly Luther had in mind. Was he kidding? Was he summarizing someone else's argument? Was he using hyperbole? It's really hard to say. If taken literally, it certainly is at odds with his other statements about Christ. Thus, even though one can't know exactly why he said this, we can have a strong assurance he didn't mean it literally.

The editors of Luther's Works include a footnote for this comment of Luther's, and they offer the following speculation:

"This entry has been cited against Luther, among others by Arnold Lunn in The Revolt Against Reason (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951), pp. 45, 257, 258. What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer’s remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer."

If you run across a Roman Catholic citing these words against Luther (or any obscure comments from Luther's Table Talk) I commend to you also these words by Roman Catholic Scholar Thomas O’Meara:

“…Catholics are using inaccurately rhetorical arguments when they make the value of Luther’s theology and reform depend upon his table-talk language. Rhetoric appeals to the mind- but it appeals through emotions. It reaches the mind not through a purely intellectual act, examining the case thoroughly and logically, but by leaps and bounds, driven by emotions and will, faculties incapable of a calm judgment of what is true” [Thomas O’Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), 5].

I always caution Roman Catholics to be careful with Luther’s Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of comments from Luther written down by Luther’s students and friends. Thus, it is not in actuality an official writing of Luther's and should not serve as the basis for interpreting his theology. Even anti-Luther Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar has pointed out,

“Of course, it must not be overlooked that the Table Talks are ephemeral—‘children of the moment.’ While they correctly and vividly reproduce the ideas of the speaker, minus the cool reflection which prevails in the writing of letters and still more of books, they contain frequent exaggerations and betray a lack of moderation. The lightning-like flashes which they emit are not always true. The momentary exaggerations of the speaker at times beget contradictions which conflict with other talks or literary utterances. Frequently humorous statements were received as serious declarations. Humor and satire of a very pungent kind play a great part in these talks” [Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work (Maryland: Newman Press, 1950), 481].

No one knows if Luther actually said this. The critical apparatus in the Weimar Ausgabe reveals the textual and grammatical problems in this supposed quotation. Schlagenhaufen recorded only a portion of what he remembered Luther to have said that day (and after how many beers?). No context is given.

Scholars know how difficult, if not impossible, it is to link the lapidary "table notations" of Luther's friends to Luther's own views. The editors of the American Edition speculate in a footnote that the "probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer" (LW 54:154).

A more probable context is Luther's account of the atonement. One of his basic assertions is that our sins become Christ's and Christ's perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith. This idea of "the happy exchange" is found in many Luther texts. Given his central soteriological and christological concern, the theological irony in Schlagenhaufen's remembered notation becomes clearer: The "godly" Christ becomes or is made a sinner through his solidarity with sinners, even to the point of dying as a God-forsaken criminal on the cross. This is how Luther understood Paul's statement, "God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).

So Christ "becomes" an adulterer, though he does not actually commit adultery with Mary or anyone else. He puts mercy front and center, and rejects the legalism which demanded that the woman caught in adultery be killed and the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene be shunned. The holy one becomes the sinner by putting himself into the situation of sinners, by loving and forgiving them, and ultimately by taking their sins on himself. For this gospel reason, Luther could also remark that God made Jesus "the worst sinner of the whole world," even though he also acknowledged that the sinless, righteous Christ actually committed no sin himself.

Trapped in a literalistic approach to Schlagenhaufen's contextless note, some readers have missed the metaphorical character of the remark, which Luther may have made, if he made it at all, with a twinkle in his eye. I'm confident that Luther would not be a fan of The Da Vinci Code--except perhaps with a beer in hand and that twinkle in his eye.

[Springfield Reformer]

“and of course, the rest of the non-c crew will remain quiet. Anti-Trinitarianism is fine with them...”

You gotta be kiddin me ... L.O.L.

No seriously, I’m really laughing. I’ll probably giggle about this all the way home tonight. Can’t stop grinning. Thanks for the entertainment. :)

Peace and Joy All,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

“I think you do a good job with respect to these rules and it is appreciated.”

Dittos.

Peace,

SR

[presently no screen name]

You have no idea how many laughs I get out of their posts. Awhile back, I called them the Comedy Catholic Crew.

[stfassisi]

BB-””Except this “sacramentalism” cannot be traced back to Jesus Christ nor to the Apostles but gradually became ingrained within the organized and controlling institution””

Dear sister, it most certainly can be traced back to Jesus and the Apostles.

We have writings from the life Polycarp (who was a direct disciple of Saint John)and a succession of writings from Saint Irenaues who listened to Saint Polycarp preach. You really should not ignore this connection.

Here is just a few writings .. that obviously cane from Saint John and Christ to Saint Polycarp and than to Saint Irenaues

Eucharist

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood...” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

Confession

“Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God—a thing which frequently occurs—have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).

Baptism

” ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’” Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

BB-””I accept that we may not EVER agree about this but I thank you for your respectful manner and your concern.””

I pray for you to return to the Catholic Church because you can be a great asset in helping others with your writing gifts and your passion for Christ.

I will be praying for you at Adoration at the Shrine of Martyrs in Auriesville NY this week..

This beautiful shrine is a very special place to me and the Birthplace of Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha to whom my mother was interviewed by the Church for Kateri Tekakwitha’s upcoming Canonization of Saint Ceremony
http://www.martyrshrine.org/

Here is my mothers story that was recorded.

Catherine’s Story

The year was 1957. Shortly after twenty-one year old Catherine Vitullo delivered her first child, she became so ill the country doctor thought she was dying. Catherine suffers from a rare hereditary disease called “Renal Cystinuria” in which the body produces kidney stones that cannot be crushed and are difficult to dissolve. There at the Catholic hospital in Ogdensburg, NY, she went into kidney failure, received the last rites of the Church, slipped into a coma and clinically died on the operating table.

One of the doctors, however, saw movement, and decided she had not died. Catherine remained in a coma for about 2 to 3 weeks.

Upon finally awakening, Catherine reported to the nuns who were attending to her that she felt she had left her body, but returned to her body in obedience to God the Father who spoke to her saying, “You must go back. There is more for you to do.”

It was while she was in that comatose-like state that she saw a gravestone with the name “Anita Tekakwitha” etched in the rock. Suddenly the stone split and broke and she came out of the coma. The nuns listened to her story and wrote everything down as she told it. They believed it was actually Kateri Tekakwitha who was responsible for her recovery. No one, however, could explain the name “Anita” instead of “Kateri”. That’s still a mystery.

Prior to this time, Catherine had never heard of Kateri Tekakwitha, but was determined to thank the saint by visiting the Shrine at Auriesville and praying novenas to her.

Since then, Catherine has had 25 kidney operations, including the removal of one of them. Her prayer for her first child Gene and subsequent children was that they would remain free from this dreaded disease. Catherine’s prayers have been answered, as her 3 children suffer no effects from this disease. Although she had one kidney removed and suffers from painful periodic flare-ups, she has persevered in caring for her family, seeking to do the Will of God in all that He asks of her.

[Salvation]

This may be the solution to the pronunciation that your mother thought was Anita.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2012-07-14

Bl. Kateri Tekakwitha
[Pronounce: Gah-deh-lee Deh-gah-quee-tah]

[MarkBsnr]

To Cronos’ point:

It is not specifically about antiCatholicism; it is about the alliances over the years of non Trinitarians with certain Trinitarians against the Catholics and the seeming overlooking of beliefs which are either blatently nonChristian or crowd the edges of definition.

It goes to the point of the philosophy: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The question on my part is this: to what ends might you take in order to contest those who hold a viewpoint that might not be entirely in alignment with yours?

[stfassisi]

This may be the solution to the pronunciation that your mother thought was Anita.

Thank you soo much for this ,dear Sister.

My mothers suffers incredible pain and offers it up for others.People who meet her would never realize this because she is a shining beam of love,a simple person, who attracts attention of those in need, and our Lord uses her to give others hope in difficult situations in their lives

She always tells people that Christ loves them and there is nothing that cannot be forgiven

[stpio]

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”[57]

[57] Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107.

From http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-said-christ-committed-adultery.html:

~ ~ ~

Really boatbums, I like your source to explain Martin Luther’s words. Anyone reading the quote can figure it out, Martin Luther was/is creepy, very dark, blasphemous. He’s your man.

Martin Luther said God Himself slept with His followers, His creation! How sick.

When are you going to reply to Romans 2:13 and James 2:24?

[BlueDragon]

[metmom]

I replied: “everyone is a sinner, so what” and a few Popes were not true Popes. Most likely the same popes you accuse of being sexually active. Are you free of all sexual sin in your life, it’s been a pure chaste life for you? See the weakness of your protest.

Not another Catholic who treats sex as sin......

/roll eyes.....

If you believe one of these, Sola Scriptura, Faith Alone, Man is Completely Depraved, you are a FOLLOWER of Martin Luther, doesn’t matter the denomination/non-denominational of Protestantism that you are professing today.

There is nothing quite so pathetic as someone so willfully deceived. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

We believe it because it's in Scripture, not becaue Luther believed it too.

[xone]

Hi, Kevin isn’t Catholic, the fact is he is Protestant.

I don't care what he supposedly is, he is a false prophet.

SAME response of “false prophet”, fifth time now, you all still will not reply to what is FALSE in the message.

He claims to channel Christ the Lord, maybe that impresses some. Without that, he is a single cymbal, meaningless, just another universalist dope

Even a debating person by profession (lawyer) runs away. Pick and chose, remain silent about certain verses (James 2:24, Romans 2:13 to name two) because they show the lie, the heresy of “Faith Alone.” The stubbornness, unwilling to change when you’re shown the Truth

Scripture is clear, despite the blindness of some. Doesn't change the facts. The reliance on the Fakecy clowns that have been indicated doesn't change that. More baloney, from a dealer in used food. The rest of the post is a regurgitation, a puking if you will of the same spiritual salmonella-laden rotten meat product as before. It is pathetic, but absent the Truth, what can we expect from the deceived 'Catholic'. I mourn the loss of Leoni/Verdugo from this board to counter this sewage.

[metmom]

Not as sick as someone who wants to believe the worst about someone so bad that they promulgate rumors of this type.

[stpio]

Hi, Kevin isn’t Catholic, the fact is he is Protestant.

“I don’t care what he supposedly is, he is a false prophet.”

~ ~ ~

tee...hee...it’s not enough.

The 6th time now, saying the same one line. Excuse me, you
didn’t explain what in the message was FALSE? People are
noticing, Protestants can only protest.

The have no argument, the Gospel doesn’t support “Faith
Alone.”

[HiTech RedNeck]

This is stupid liberal. This is not a fundie bible thumper.

[xone]

Fancy words like “spurious”, sounds kind of prideful

Amish? Drive a car? Have clothes that aren't black? Learn the language, spurious says it exactly, if one isn't ESL.

As for the quote, pathetic, are there no depths that the ignorant haters won't plumb? Plumb. sorry another 'fancy' word. Plain speaking to the ilk posting such nonsense would get pulled.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Sure lost track of the original issue in the middle of a protestant/catholic bashfest here.

I’m a fightin’ fundie and it’s clear what I believe. I don’t agree with Rome on certain matters. But this kind of childish pot shot taking has to stop. Fightin’ fundies don’t want to see mandatory abortion insurance wished on Catholics any more than they’d want it at the First Snake Handling Church of Hickville (exaggerating for effect).

[xone]

I am with you brother, but I cannot stand silent in the face of so-called ‘prophets’ being placed on the same level as real prophets by a so-called ‘catholic’. Sadly one only partially repudiated by his/her/its brethren. Spurious, unconscionable, pathetic, painful, sickening are adjectives that come to mind but they are all ‘fancy’ words, not suitable for doughheads.

[stpio]

“The rest of the post is a regurgitation, a puking if you will of the same spiritual salmonella-laden rotten meat product as before. It is pathetic, but absent the Truth, what can we expect from the deceived ‘Catholic’. I mourn the loss of Leoni/Verdugo from this board to counter this sewage.”

~ ~ ~

Jesus didn’t use them. Fancy words are pretentious, prideful but are easier to read than the ungentlemanly, sickening choice of words in your post xone. Instead, please you three, explain how “faith alone” fits these Gospel verses?

Romans 2:13
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

James 2:24
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

1Peter 1:17
And if you invoke as Father him who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every one’s work: converse in fear during the time of your sojourning here.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Maybe like Paul advised, it makes sense to “become as” your audience, assuming they aren’t just goofing around to get in your face (like if they know darn well what spurious means and just don’t like the message, but want to pick on words rather than honestly debate on the subject of the message).