Free Republic

This is an old handle of mine that has since been replaced for professional reasons.

I am in complete support of Jim Rob keeping FR conservative, and not merely Republican.

There is NO declaration in the scriptures that gives sole authority to the Roman Catholic Church.

That is swmobuffalo's interpretation of Scriptures, many others understand it differently. And of course, the man-made authenticity of the English version usually cited is a copy of a copy can also be called into question, as can the canon of books in Sacred Scripture itself. Ultimately, the authority of the Fathers and of the Scriptures themselves relies on the authority of the ultimate Teacher, Christ. We believe Scripture because God is its author. As cited, Scripture states that not all of Christ's teachings are contained in it. The authority of the Church comes from Christ, and what the early Church taught helps us understand why the Church teaches what it does today. In that post I was answering a question asking if the teachings of the Church could be traced to any explicit, tangible source.

Perhaps you don’t realize it, but your tone has a tendency to put off potential Tiber-swimmers. Reasoned discussion, as practiced by certain other members of this forum, can have the opposite effect.

I normally don't take that tone. However, when POST #1 calls a remarkable Council a tragedy, and the whole article seemed to be have its own conclusions assumed as fact, a forceful response seemed to be called for. Sometimes, a tepid response to certain types of insinuations can be taken for lack of deep belief in a position.

Since you seem to know your stuff, just a few questions that have kept popping up and no one seems to be able to give a good answer on this forum... I know that it is a lot to cover, but has gone unanswered for a while.

Dear Ottofire,

I know some stuff, but it is far from complete. As the Scriptures say, not all the books in the world could hold all that He taught the Apostles. I do not pretend that what I say is authoritative, but I think I can give answers to some of your questions.

So where is this unbroken teaching of traditions?

Ultimately, the unbroken teaching of traditions comes from the Living Magisterium of the Church. Christ said he would send the Holy Ghost, and that was why He had to go back to the Father, but that He would not leave us alone. The Magisterium is the Teaching Authority of the Church Christ founded. The Apostles are the first Bishops, with Peter as head. In Scriptures, the Apostles openly discuss Bishops and also appoint a replacement for Judas. Even after St. Paul's conversion, he has to be okayed by the authorities in order to play his role and receive instruction.

Of course, the Romans and others had this bad habit of executing the Bishop of Rome, the Seat of Peter. But, there was always a successor and their names are recorded in part in Scripture, but also in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus and Cornelius are commemorated in the Mass in the Canon for that reason. It is recorded that Pope Linus had formally instituted the rule of women covering their heads in Church (echoed by St. Paul, of course, in Scripture). Pope Clement is particularly interesting because one of his letters from the late First Century AD, to another Bishop, is warning that disobedience to him by Corinth in a matter of presbyters would be "no small sin," indicating assertion of universal jurisdiction. Some sections of the early Church actually treated this letter as Scripture, though it certainly never made the final cut.

St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and St. Irenaeus was his student. Around 150AD, "Against the Heresies", and important tome dealing with thos irrepressible Gnostics, who had taken to writing their own apocryphal works (Gospel of Thomas being one example). Anyway, Irenaeus provides some pretty detailed information about the early Church and its structure, and its authority. That's not quite the same as "Peter taught me this", but it has the same import.

To be sure, the Church has both a written and an oral tradition. Some of the early oral traditions were written later, some were written earlier and lost. St. Jerome refers to manuscripts that are no longer extant. Not as many things were written then, as papyrus and vellum were hard to come by.

why is it that much of what Rome claims is not included, but instead merely claimed that you gotta get the whole story via a mysterious tradition that no one can actually point to?

My first inclination is to point to the Gospel According to St. John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." (Douay-Rheims) Combine that with, "Not by Bread Alone shall man live, but by every word from the mouth of God" (memory).

As far as Dogma is concerned, for Catholics, the slam dunks are formal Papal pronoluncments on matters of Faith and Morals binding on the Whole Church. Those are nice and cut and dried. However, other teachings regarded as infallible would be "the unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church" (Origen and Tertullian are included here even though they later became heretics.) And of course, dogmatic Councils (Vatican II was NOT dogmatic) that wind up getting approved by the Pope, that have real explicit statements of dogma. (You know, the ones that say "si .... anathema sit" "If anyone should say ... lety him be anathema") Even the unbroken custom of the church can have a certain degree of infallibility (most of the early saints were never formally canonized, but were universally recognized as such).

So, the Church is a composite institution. With a deep and rich history. The books that never were deemed inspired in some cases (like the Didache with its early second century pronouncement against abortion, and Pope Clement I and Pope Victor [180AD] showing assertion of universal jurisdiction) are still useful as historic records. A thorough discussion of this would require me to go to my reference books, and I am taking a week long vacation tomorrow, but I invite you to read the Fathers of the Church, especially early ones like Irenaeus. The Faith of the Early Fathers is an affordable and accessible three volume set in paperback that is pretty rreasonably priced. Also, since these things are all in the public domain, an Internet search would work as well, even for English translations.

Since anything ancient can be called into question as to its authenticity, the need for a continuous, organic authority is necessary. I believe that authority is in the Roman Catholic Church.

May Our Lord bless you in your research.

My Catholic Douay-Rheims has 27, as well. When read NL's post the first time, I was thinking about the disagreement over OT books, not NT. And I don't pretend to have a running total of the number of either in my head.

I will put in a good word for the Letter of Clement and the Didache, however.

What is most perplexing is that the argument between the Protestants and Catholics came down to the deciphering understandings of the 29 books that the Catholic Church decided would compromise the New Testament.

You raise an interesting point. I fear, however, that once you get into the realm of personal interpretation, and in some cases multiple manuscripts (the Jehovah Winesses for instance, omit the Johannine Comma completely, and it is not in all the manuscripts), that nothing stops a theologian, or a king, or a money-lender from making it mean what his belly tells him to make it mean.

Well, here we are in the middle of a discussion about Latin and Greek causing divisions, and you pull out one of many English translations.

You have no authority in any event to give your interpretation of a translation of a translation of a copy of a small fragment any more weight than anybody else.

Since I do not belong to the Church of nmh, and since neither Christ nor Scripture itself says sola scriptura, I will go with the unbroken teaching of the Christ passed down through His Apostles and their successors, rather than nmh or what might well-have been the 16th century equivalent of Catholics for a Free Choice. The only tragedy of the Council of Trent is that it was about 50 years too late.

Emphasizes what a tradgedy Trent really was, and how, when those Church leaders who really know and believe in the scriptures put their heads together in council, Holy Spirit-led agreement results.

There is a reason why Christ built his Church on Simon Peter, who would become the rock. The Fathers at the Council of Trent are successors to the Apostles, this group of people was not. That is how we know what the authoritative understanding of Scripture is, the voice that calls through the narrow gate, and not the legions of variations spawned by the myriad of Protestant sects over the last 500 years is the voice of truth.

I normally don't take this tone, as this is essentially a political board, and Evangelical Christians, conservative Anglicans and Lutherans and Catholics can be on the same side of so much.

BUT, if you insist on calling one of the greatest Councils a tragedy, don't be surprised when you find your false presumptions based on a misunderstanding of the teachings of Christ and Luther's own purposeful mistranslation (he added the word "alone", when it was in neither the Greek nor the Latin, because "he would have it so") are challenged.

The various extant Greek manuscripts available in the 16th century disagreed with each other. The Latin Vulgate was translated at a time when better manuscripts were available. It is a presumption on the part of the author that reading in Greek rather than in Latin made a difference in the decision making. The eastern Church, which never used Latin, did not buy into the Luther/Calvin approach.

How, short of federal action against abortion after Roe vs. Wade is done away with, will we avoid turning NYC, LA and Chicago into the abortion mills of the nation.

Who knows? Pre-Roe, New York's legislature repealed their own permissive abortion law, but the bill was vetoed by Nelson Rockefeller.

In war, and this IS a war, one can gain a tactical advantage by forcing the enemy to retreat to narrower and narrower quarters. Having to go from, say, South Dakota to Minneapolis will likely deter some abortions.

When a dozen or so states outlaw abortion in a post-Roe world, their ground troops can focus on the remaining states, and probably pick off a half-dozen more. The pro-aborts don't have the numbers to pray, picket, protest, lobby, etc. They do have a lot more $$$, but they are not gaining with the young even with pretty much unimpeded access thrugh media and schools.

The recent court decisions may not stop so many abortions short term. However, it does establish the principle that it is not an unlimited "right." Now that this is in play, we can argue that this so-called right should be more restricted. At some point with God's help, sicne this is largely a spiritual war, critical mass is achieved, and the whole thing is undone bloddlessly. If Daniel "the Red" Ortega can flip on this (whether it was a real or convenient conversion, I will let God decide), anything can happen.

It's certainly true with Democrats. Just ask former Senators Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Mondale, McGovern...

You left out JFK....

Seriously, while being a governor is an advantage all things being equal, I believe it doesn't make that big a difference with the right kind of candidate.

Looking back (omitting elections and re-elections of sitting presidents):

Bush the Younger(2000)
Clinton (1992)
Bush the Elder (1988)
Ronaldus Maximus (1980)
Carter (1976)
Nixon (1968)
Kennedy (1960)
Eisenhower (1952)
FDR (1932)




I will assume that VP is better than Senator or governor for being elected, so Nixon and Bush the Elder would not count in this equation. That narrows the number of elections to examine:

Bush the Younger(2000)
Clinton (1992)
Ronaldus Maximus (1980)
Carter (1976)
Kennedy (1960)
Eisenhower (1952)
FDR (1932)




Eisenhower was a general, so we won't count him defeating governor Stevenson, since generals are not part of the equation.

Now we are down to:

Bush the Younger(2000)
Clinton (1992)
Ronaldus Maximus (1980)
Carter (1976)
Kennedy (1960)
FDR (1932)




Now we are down to six elections, of them, five out of the six had been governors, and all from largish states except for Clinton. So it looks like being a governor is really important, even with a relatively small sample.

BUT WAIT!

In FOUR of the six elections, the defeated candidate was a VERY unpopular president. (Hoover, Ford, Carter, Bush the Elder). In the other two the defeated were sitting VPs (Nixon, Gore). Sitting presidents and VPs typically can get the nomination pretty much for the asking, even if they are rather umpopular (Truman '52 and Johnson '68 did not run to avoid getting skunked, but both achieved the office through death of a president). Of the two sitting VPs defeated, one was defeated by a SENATOR (Kennedy over Nixon).

2008 will be a different kind of race, because it will be the first one in over 50 years with no sitting or former president or VP running in the general election. The last time this happened was 1952!

This changes the dynamic dramatically, as there is nothing resembling an "incumbent," unless you want to count Mrs. Clinton as a "co-president."

In short, while being governor is very good, not being governor is hardly a disqualifier, especially in this unusual election.

NO; this billboard is not just fine.

I'm sorry you didn't pick up my sarcasm. My point was that Canada is so far gone that a billboard like that can go up, while anything that makes an argument against perversion, including and especially religious ones cannot. Of course I do NOT think the billboard, or Canada's current state, is "just fine."

While that billboard is just fine, just watch what happens in Canada if you post a billboard quoting Romans or the Sodom and Gomorrah story, or quoting Reggie White (R.I.P.)

Bush the Younger didn’t win NH in 2000. He got shellacked by McCain....... Bush bounced back and won Delaware and finished off McCain in SC.

I forgot about that, thanks for the correction. This just shows that New Hampshire is no longer an invincible bellwether either. The demographic is way different and its reflexive contrariness doesn't always serve it well.

Some more history:

Election Year	Ames	Iowa Caucus	New Hampshire
1980	Bush the Elder	Bush the Elder	Reagan
1988	Pat Robertson	Bob Dole	Bush the Elder
1996	Dole/Gramm (Tie)	Dole	Pat Buchanan
2000	Bush the Younger	Bush the Younger	Bush the Younger
2008	Romney	--	--

The moral is that the Ames poll doesn't necessarily say who's going to win the Iowa caucus, let alone the nomination.There's a lot of time left.

what happened to Hunter?

The second tier (Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter) had to hunt for votes where they could get them. Huckabee and Hunter seemed to make an effort to grab some of Tancredo's bloc with a border control appeal. Brownback, not able to grab Tancredo support on the immigration/border issue, earlier called Tancredo's pro-life credentials into question.

The border guards got a lot of support on talk radio. People ae willing to give them a lot of slack given the conflicting set of duties they are faced with. Hunter perhaps tried to capitalize on that. It didn't work. He and Huckabee, however, are still looking like possible VP material, in my opinion.

That's the sound of the anti-Mitt brigade of bigots movng the goal posts.

We will now be regaled with their piehole crapola about how his win was actually an utterly devastating loss. Or, if it was a win, it was utterly insignificant.

First, as a social conservative who would support Thompson, Brownback or Huckabee, I want to congratulate you on the victory of your candidate.

While a little bit of gloating is called for, I am not impressed with the combination of non-retaliatory anti-Thompson sniping and then a pre-emptive strike anticipating your candidate being belittled. Calling those who "move the goal posts" bigots is completely uncalled for and is a victim card normally played by lefties.

I am one non-Romney supporter who is willing to say his campaign showed good organization (a big plus for a candidate) and met expectations. I predicted a third of the vote going his way, he got it. In a crowded field, that is no small feat. Romney has also shown that unlike Giuliani, he can get Republican votes outside of the northeast.

To me, this poll showed the resolve of the social conservative voter to show up. The top three finishers are campaigning as social conservatives. Huckabee and Brownback have not had a lot of resources, and together their numbers would have almost matched Romney's. I suspect that many if not most of Huckabee's voters would have gone with Brownback and vice versa.

So, is “Horton Hears a Who?” non-fiction?

Boil that dust speck!

Note: Fr. Cekada is a formal sedevacantist.

There were lots of underlying problems that Vatican II has exacerbated, and as a pastoral council, there are no real demands from it so it can just be superceded by reaffirming Catholic teaching more explicitly. Few on either side of the discussion cite specific lines from the Council because there just isn’t a lot there that can’t be interpreted multiple ways. Which means the actual text is not all that useful.

The best thing we can do is to go on being Catholic, and with items like the recent Motu Proprio issued by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, we are given tools. There is no need to engage in the dabates of the 60’s which were a disaster. now it is time to rebuild. We still have the Councils of Florence, Niceaea, Ephesus, Trent etc. to uphold. There is no need to shadow box with the stuff of Vatican II which was penned for a certain era that has now passed, maybe so we can say, better not try THAT again. People were not talking about implementing Vatican I in the 1920’s, they were busy being Catholic. We should do the same.

I was referring, as everybody else seems to have understood easily, to the industrial age....sheesh

To some of us, never means never. And of course, you are now admitting that there was wide-spread independence in the pre-industrial era.

You also ignored my more current examples (Nazi Germany and Iceland's grid). Notwithstanding that, of COURSE a country can if necessary and with the right resources substantially provide for its own energy needs without relying on other countries.

It has been said that we are no longer in the industrial era, and are in the post-industrial era. Just as the industrial age eventually meant the importation of coal and oil, superconductivity, fusion, and better technology for the storage and transmission of electricity could allow some countries to become energy independent without sacrificing the economy.

You said NEVER have, NEVER will. Not "pre-industrial age" (and large scale importation of energy actually began rather late in the industrial revolution.) now you are scaling back NEVER will to not in our life time. But of course some of us lived during Nazi Germany, and only the lack of reasonable electric cars prevents Iceland from doing it now.

Sorry, I am speaking in principles, because I thought you were. Once you cede pre-industrial age, and "not in our lifetime", you have moved away from the principle that it is not feasible. I gave you an opportunity to define your terms, as I tried to find a more reasonable ground for you to stand on. You have not shown any interest in doing so.

So don't pretend you didn't say what you did. And by all means say what you mean.

Is the current debate among the candidates grandstanding? Probably. But that has nothing to do with the larger question. Even if the U.S. is not positioned to be completely energy independent (maintaining resources and infrastructure to provide substantially for our own energy without reliance on other countries) that does not mean we should become more dependent on outside sources, especially when those sources are our enemies.