Posted on 01/28/2004 12:46:44 PM PST by heyheyhey
In my opinion, the NCR (different from the National Catholic Register and from the Catholic World Report) appears to be classic type of a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is the most anti-Catholic weekly publication that I know, and yet it continues pretending to be "Catholic." The evidence of NCR's anti-Catholic and anti-Christian agenda is somewhat camouflaged, so let it be dug up and brought to daylight in this thread.
- Why, and who cares? Under normal circumstances I couldn't care less, but very many American priests and religious read the NCR, and it has poisonously influenced a generation or two of priests. When we see the sorry state of affairs in our Church we should know, for our own protection, where the devil dwells. Many screwy things (most of all the disdain for the Teaching Magisterium) originated and/or have been, or continue to be, sponsored by the NCR.
There is only one FReeper, as far as I know, vigorously defending the NCR, so he is rare and dear - let's be respectful to him.
Technically true. But is it reasonable to do so, given the facts?
Regardless, I cite it as converging evidence. The Scriptural passages are clear enough.
NaCR and their supporters will disagree with you.
Their infallible teaching is that ANYTHING is up for grabs.
The teaching [that unbaptized infants do not enjoy the BV] ... is based on the moral certainty of the requirement for Baptism to attain the BV.One can say with moral certainty that unbaptized infants do not enjoy the BV only if one can first say with moral certainty that unbaptized infants cannot enjoy the BV. And so long as extraordinary baptism (i.e., non-sacramental baptism) remains a possibility, one cannot say with moral certainty that unbaptized infants cannot enjoy the BV.
What moral certainty is the judgment that extraordinary baptism is impossible for infants based on?
Note that there are two parts to this BC answer: the first affirming that '...without Baptism, cannot enter heaven...' and the second a speculation.
As I have tried to point out, the Church can only teach definitively ( as above ) what She KNOWS definitively. The Church DOES NOT KNOW about 'extraordinary Baptism' although it is clear that She has a "good hunch."
Thus we must believe what is taught: that '...without Baptism, CANNOT enter heaven.'
The whole thread is about a very narrow and explicit circumstance: "unbaptized infants."
My thanks to all of you for the engaging conversation, and best wishes for Holy Week.
I should have been clear about who "you" was. It was our brother Sinky and anyone who Promotes/Reads the NCR as if it could be trusted to be Catholic in its content.
Maybe the following would have been better:
TO: sinkspur....FYI: All others
Teaching that . . . [...X... is/always has been] ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned.
Just fill in the space marked ...X...
Now THERE, that is the Underlying Attitude of it all.
------------------
My purpose for all except Sinky, was to invite other people to the thread to further the effort of pointing out and pinning down the Problem that the NCR is in the Church today. I hope that people will at some point get inspired enough to do something about the NCR in their own diocese. In Phoenix we are actively working on something to present to our new Bishop Olmsted in the confidence that he will do something about it. At least here we have reason to believe that he will Want/Like to do something about it, and that is the key.
Most NCR subscribers like to follow "the spirit of Vatican II" so it seemed appropriate to present an applicable portion the Real documents, LG #25, to point out that it is not just the "ex cathedra" Teachings that we are expected to adhere to, but also others which were underlined in the same paragraph of Post #102.
On reviewing my P#102, it is clear that I mistakenly made an abrupt jump from addressing Attitude onto a Possible reason that a Catholic might have when withholding "religious assent", and then presented my thoughts about only one of the many possibilities. The "I need more knowledge" reason one I have encountered often, which is probably why it got inserted in the post.
Sinky's reason(s) for withholding full "religious assent" are known only to him but even from my short time at FreeRepublic it seems clear to me that it is indeed being witheld.
If I had to say a reason, it would be that he does not accept the authority of the Magisterium to be the sole decision maker on what is to be included in or excluded from "Church Teachings".
He seems to have more regard for the "authority" of National anti-Catholic Reporter than he does for the Magisterium and seemingly little regard for one or more of the following phrases in LG#25: "sincerely adhered to", "the character of", "his frequent repetition", or "from his manner of speaking".
And then Sinky will quibble over what is or is not important or essential enough to be considered to be consistent with the mind of the Church, such as the current thread where the good Abp of Atlanta will only allow the feet of men to be washed. A good bishop sure has to put up with a lot of "stuff" from the unwashed, the ignorant, and the obstinate.
Rather than stay at this computer, I would rather participate in a Prayerful PUBLIC Action, to help to persuade yet another member of the Lavender Mafia to: REPENT.
For Catholics in dioceses like Albany, Rochester, Cleveland, LA, etc., "you" (far too many members of the flock) need a sign (among others) for your bishop that says: REPENT, CONFESS, RESIGN. Be where the bishop is for as many public events as possible, especially every possible Mass of his, the more the better -- the quicker the resignation will occur. It may take a while to get him to resign but it is worth it for the good of the diocese. Pray for the soul of that bishop who will be resigning or has recently resigned.
In Phoenix, letters were written and ignored for Years. We found that the Public Protests were far more effective. We now have signs that specifically SUPPORT the new bishop And have other signs which PROTEST the members of the Lavender Mafia and other assorted "on the Church payroll" dissidents. We sheep should not have to continue to pay the Wolves to be preying on us.
Some people would say: Hey Phx, you have the bishop that you have all prayed for, for years, why don't you just relax, take a break, and let him do what needs to be done. We in Phx are concerned that when the Vatican fully realizes just how good Bishop Olmsted is, that they will reassign him to another diocese (perhaps LA) like they did with Abp O'Malley's sequence of assignments.
That to us is not an unreasonable concern.
I am getting concerned that those who are still reluctant to make and use signs are getting tired of listening to my plea to do so even though Mother Angelica would probably say: "Keep it up, ...".
My home page has some details about sign making and protesting that somebody might find useful.
I will update it as often as possible and necessary.
I am going to relax for a while on Sinky related matters, it takes too much time which needs to be invested elsewhere.
Thanks narses for giving me this opportunity to carry on some more here. I really value your posts and those of other FReepers who are in Loving union with the Magisterium, as well as the posts from those of other faith traditions who are respectful of our faith.
Please point out, specifically and with citations, where I have "witheld religious assent".
A conspiracy theorist, to boot. The only "funding" I get is from my software company employer, for whom I work, full time.
I should have been clear about who "you" was. It was our brother Sinky and anyone who Promotes/Reads the NCR as if it could be trusted to be Catholic in its content. Maybe the following would have been better: TO: sinkspur....FYI: All others Teaching that . . . [...X... is/always has been] ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned. Just fill in the space marked ...X... Now THERE, that is the Underlying Attitude of it all. ------------------ My purpose for all except Sinky, was to invite other people to the thread to further the effort of pointing out and pinning down the Problem that the NCR is in the Church today. I hope that people will at some point get inspired enough to do something about the NCR in their own diocese. In Phoenix we are actively working on something to present to our new Bishop Olmsted in the confidence that he will do something about it. At least here we have reason to believe that he will Want/Like to do something about it, and that is the key. Most NCR subscribers like to follow "the spirit of Vatican II" so it seemed appropriate to present an applicable portion the Real documents, LG #25, to point out that it is not just the "ex cathedra" Teachings that we are expected to adhere to, but also others which were underlined in the same paragraph of Post #102. On reviewing my P#102, it is clear that I mistakenly made an abrupt jump from addressing Attitude onto a Possible reason that a Catholic might have when withholding "religious assent", and then presented my thoughts about only one of the many possibilities. The "I need more knowledge" reason one I have encountered often, which is probably why it got inserted in the post. Sinky's reason(s) for withholding full "religious assent" are known only to him but even from my short time at FreeRepublic it seems clear to me that it is indeed being witheld. If I had to say a reason, it would be that he does not accept the authority of the Magisterium to be the sole decision maker on what is to be included in or excluded from "Church Teachings". He seems to have more regard for the "authority" of National anti-Catholic Reporter than he does for the Magisterium and seemingly little regard for one or more of the following phrases in LG#25: "sincerely adhered to", "the character of", "his frequent repetition", or "from his manner of speaking". And then Sinky will quibble over what is or is not important or essential enough to be considered to be consistent with the mind of the Church, such as the current thread where the good Abp of Atlanta will only allow the feet of men to be washed. A good bishop sure has to put up with a lot of "stuff" from the unwashed, the ignorant, and the obstinate. Rather than stay at this computer, I would rather participate in a Prayerful PUBLIC Action, to help to persuade yet another member of the Lavender Mafia to: REPENT. For Catholics in dioceses like Albany, Rochester, Cleveland, LA, etc., "you" (far too many members of the flock) need a sign (among others) for your bishop that says: REPENT, CONFESS, RESIGN. Be where the bishop is for as many public events as possible, especially every possible Mass of his, the more the better -- the quicker the resignation will occur. It may take a while to get him to resign but it is worth it for the good of the diocese. Pray for the soul of that bishop who will be resigning or has recently resigned. In Phoenix, letters were written and ignored for Years. We found that the Public Protests were far more effective. We now have signs that specifically SUPPORT the new bishop And have other signs which PROTEST the members of the Lavender Mafia and other assorted "on the Church payroll" dissidents. We sheep should not have to continue to pay the Wolves to be preying on us. Some people would say: Hey Phx, you have the bishop that you have all prayed for, for years, why don't you just relax, take a break, and let him do what needs to be done. We in Phx are concerned that when the Vatican fully realizes just how good Bishop Olmsted is, that they will reassign him to another diocese (perhaps LA) like they did with Abp O'Malley's sequence of assignments. That to us is not an unreasonable concern. I am getting concerned that those who are still reluctant to make and use signs are getting tired of listening to my plea to do so even though Mother Angelica would probably say: "Keep it up, ...". My home page has some details about sign making and protesting that somebody might find useful. I will update it as often as possible and necessary. I am going to relax for a while on Sinky related matters, it takes too much time which needs to be invested elsewhere. Thanks narses for giving me this opportunity to carry on some more here. I really value your posts and those of other FReepers who are in Loving union with the Magisterium, as well as the posts from those of other faith traditions who are respectful of our faith.
"Yet it is a fact that the Church is called Catholic because it truly embraces the whole of that truth, some particles of which may be found even in various heresies." St. Augustine of Hippo, Letter of Augustine to Vincent the Rogatist, 93:7:23, 408 A.D.
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her members but even by all her enemies." St. Augustine of Hippo, The True Religion, 7:12, 390 A.D
Notre Dame Archives Index NCR002
In October 1968, Bishop Helmsing sent a letter to the National Catholic Reporter, issuing "an official condemnation" of the paper and requesting the editors to remove the term "Catholic" from the masthead. At a special meeting on October 12, the Board of Directors of the National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company unanimously declined to remove the term "Catholic" from the paper's title, and at that same meeting, after expressing full agreement with the action taken by the Board of Directors, Mr. Fallon submitted his resignation as President of the Board and as a member of the National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company.
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.