Posted on 09/10/2006 9:16:53 PM PDT by boromeo
Okay, if "tolerance" is actually hypocrisy, then perhaps many of the early American colonists had it correct. The Mass. Bay colony wouldn't allow anyone to live in Mass. who wasn't a Puritan. Heck, they killed Quakers and R.I. was settled by escapees from Mass.! And they weren't the only ones who acted this way.
After the colonies became a nation, the separation between church and state came about. This, no matter what the ill educated an do LIBERALS tell you, was meant to prevent this country from having a state religion....NOT to keep; religion out of this nation.
Yet you come onto this thread and post all kinds of what you claim to be the Catholic church's positions, which look like bigotry to the rest of us. And if this stuff is true, then it would really be best for you to have kept it to yourself; especially since it makes the Catholic church look terrible.
American is NOT a theocracy, but if it was one, YOU would be the one getting the dirty end of the stick; not Protestants, since the vast majority of those involved with founding this nation were Protestants, whom you think are all consigned to hell.
The funniest thing, though, is that with every reply you make, you refute the article that heads this thread. It is NOT that there is an anti-Catholic nature to Freemasonry ( though if there was, it would be well deserved ! ); rather, there is an anti-everyone but Catholics, in the Catholic church and by some Catholics, such as yourself.
If you ever want to change your nic, I suggest that you use Savonarola.
Previous to YS, they BOTH participated -as celebrants- in an ELCA service. Said they didn't realize it was a service until after they got there.
reductio: Hence, it would be the self praise that stinks for reductio to adopt the honored name of Savanarola just as the Society of St. Pius X dishonors St. Pius X by misappropriating his name for their nefarious purposes of impersonating Catholics.
It also seems unlikely that reductio had Jesuit teachers. The Jesuits who taught me so long ago that Jesuits were still Catholic would have made short work of him. Later Jesuits were possessed of the more leftist types of error such as were condemned as "modernism" (read secular humanism) than reductio who flirts with SSPXism and Feeneyism (most particularly).
Unfortunately, there are those who regard themselves as Catholic who are all too familiar with partial readings of ancient texts and not at all familiar with more contemporary materials and ignore the context of both. Hurling anathemas from on high (or wherever) at the specks in others' eyes helps them to ignore the motes and beams in their own eyes.
Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer struggled against Hitler on behalf of the persecuted Jews, came to America, was welcomed as a hero by many sympathetic Americans who raised funds to fuel his efforts but he went back to Germany to personally confront the evils of nazism and was hanged by Hitler as a last minute effort before Hitler blew his own brains out in the bunker with Eva Braun. BUT, despite such noble works (apologies to reformation views of works) and the burning faith in and love for God which was exhibited by his works, he just must be in hell because he was not Catholic at death. Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Moral hero and good and faithful servant or denizen of hell simply for not being Catholic??? Apparently the latter or so we are expected to believe by reductio. I don't believe that.
Ditto the Protestant ten Booms. Ditto Dismas, the good thief, crucified with Jesus Christ and who was never baptized Catholic or otherwise. Just because Jesus Christ said that Dismas would join Him in paradise that day doesn't mean that Jesus Christ had any business contradicting the Council of Florence not to be held for 1400+ years in the future, right, reductio????
When I attended a Jesuit prep school of the illustrious actually Catholic sort (in olden days), we never wondered about the eternal destination of the Bonhoeffers or of the ten Booms or of Dismas (Christ's own words were good enough for us before Marcel Lefebvre and Leonard Feeney's acolytes discovered their supposedly superior wisdom). We went immediately to the outer shores, the worst we could imagine and asked our Jesuits whether Hitler or Stalin could possibly have been admitted to heaven. Now, no one regarded those outcomes as likely but the Jesuits admonished us that no one can possibly know whether either had enjoyed a grace of final perfect repentance in those last moments of consciousness and therefore, we could not be certain that either was in hell.
Reductio is not an authority on Catholicism (based on his posted opinions) nor is he authorized by the Church to be one. He is far closer to the Feeneyite heresy condemned by actual Church authority in the 1950s (Fr. Feeney repented and returned to the Catholic Church before he died) or the SSPX schism condemned as such by John Paul the Great in his Ecclesia Dei in 1988 in which he excommunicated SSPX leaders and adherents. Marcel Lefebvre, the founding schismatic of the SSPX, never repented publicly before he died, but, like Hitler and Stalin, we can never be sure that he did not respond to a grace of final perfect repentance.
It ill behooves Catholics in the United States to harangue against Protestants or Masons since we have generally enjoyed the hospitality of both and have flourished here. We are not required to deny objective truth nor should we. There have been brief periods of anti-Catholic activity in various places here. If we want to complain, we will have to confess anti-Protestant and anti-Masonic behavior of our own.
When Connecticut was a formally Congregationalist state (until 1818), the Roman Catholic Mass was not allowed to be said there. Is it not reasonable to suggest that the Congregationalists were acting on a far older Catholic model of Christendom which merged church and state to a substantial degree??? The Baptist congregation at Danbury, Connecticut, complained to retired President Thomas Jefferson of Congregationalist hegemony in Connecticut in 1911. IIRC, the Baptist faith originated with Roger Williams' expulsion from Massachusetts by Congregationalists there across the border to Connecticut's next door neighbor Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
Ironically, free will as a gift from God is a central tenet of Catholicism. How you exercise it will determine whether or not you are in a state of grace at death. If you are not in a state of grace you are not going to heaven, no matter what religion you profess. At least that is what we Catholics believe.
If I am fortunate enough to enjoy through eternity the Beatific Vision, I promise not to complain if my mother's best friend Hilda is there though Methodist, Dietrich Bonhoeffer though Lutheran, the ten Booms though reformed Christians, the good pagan centurion who (at the cost of his own execution) slew St. Peter by a sword rather than allow his sufferings in upside-down crucifixion to continue, post-Crucifixion Jews who lived good and righteous lives ("I come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.") or the thoroughly moral member of a Fifth Century American Indian tribe who (despite never hearing of the Bible and never being baptized much less being Catholic and never having the slightest opportunity for either) obeyed the law written in his or her heart by God (why was it written there?), worshiped the Great Spirit as a sole Supreme Being and lived an extraordinary life of what we might call genuine piety (under such circumstances) and minimal sinfulness. As to the last, did God create such people with the specific intent that they go to hell or even limbo through no fault of their own???
May God bless you and yours.
First let me explain my position. I'm in an indult FSSP, blessed by the Vatican, so you can't accuse me of being SSPX or a Feenyite when I say this to you.
I find it bothersome the analogy you have used here. I think it can be said with certainty that Hitler and Stalin are roasting in Hell. It's pretty obviouse they didn't repent before their death and they certainly can't be compared to the Good Thief on the Cross who did no more than steal something. Hitler and Stalin were responsible for millions of deaths. Sacred Scripture says there are no murderers in Heaven.
Another thing, I have to agree with Reductio on the infallible dogma that "Outside the Church There is No Salvation." Now you tell us, was this dogma, defined and taught by the Church for hundreds of years declared infallible teaching or not? If you answer honestly, without trying to placate Protestant sensitivity here, you would have to answer YES! To answer otherwise would be misrepresenting Catholic teaching and declaring that the previous Popes who taught this were "just out of touch with reality." If you want to claim that, then you might as well say that infallibility is a bunch of bunk.
According to Father John A. Hardon, S.J.(Jesuit) in the Catholic Pocket Dictionary:
Infallibility: The condition of infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required: 1. he have the intention of declaring something unchangeably true; Pg. 195
Unchangeably true. Hmm... wouldn't that make Outside the Church There is No Salvation UNCHANGEABLY true?
The only thing that would save someone "outside of the Church" would be invincible ignorance.
As author Kevin Knight states from an article in Catholic News Agency:
Extra ecclesiam
Outside the Church there is no salvation.
It's a stark sentence. Some Catholics even love its shock value, waving the doctrine like a flag in the face of their enemies. Other Catholics flatly refuse to believe it, and claim that this teaching was repudiated by the Second Vatican Council. Both groups are wrong.
Despite what some may think, this dogma is infallible, and all Catholics are required to believe it. This was repeated clearly at Vatican II, which said: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation."
Certainly we can't go into the exclusionary error of Father Feeney, but neither should we fall into the error of relativism.It ill behooves Catholics in the United States to harangue against Protestants or Masons since we have generally enjoyed the hospitality of both and have flourished here. We are not required to deny objective truth nor should we. There have been brief periods of anti-Catholic activity in various places here. If we want to complain, we will have to confess anti-Protestant and anti-Masonic behavior of our own.
I think it ill behooves a Catholic to be so accomodating to that which the Church has declared as a threat to the faith and has warned repeatedly not to enter into membership with them. If the Masons want to take that as "anti-Masonic" behavior, so be it. You also forget Catholic contributions to this country as if we are somehow not responsible for anything good within this country. You only seem to want to give credit to the Protestants and Masons.
Did you know the oldest settled city in the United States, St. Augustine, was settled by Catholics?
Hospitality? Hmph! We had to fight tooth and nail with the Protestants for what we have here. It's revisionist history to say otherwise or you don't know your Catholic American History. Ever read about the Know Nothing Movement? Ever heard of the attacks on Catholics by the Ku Klux Klan?
It's not as rosy a picture as you paint.
And may God bless you.
I strongly object to Catholic beliefs being called mere bigotry.
I am not sure why you pinged me to this. I never said any such thing, nor have I ever bashed your religion. I merely object to you saying that I will not go to Heaven unless I am in your Church. What would you call that?
No, actually.
"Okay, if "tolerance" is actually hypocrisy, then perhaps many of the early American colonists had it correct. The Mass. Bay colony wouldn't allow anyone to live in Mass. who wasn't a Puritan. Heck, they killed Quakers and R.I. was settled by escapees from Mass.! And they weren't the only ones who acted this way."
While yet being incorrect, it would seem that, yes, they might have carried themselves a bit less hypocritically, in that according to your account they at least didn't contradict themselves by on the one hand claiming to know the truth and on the other, underminkng the credibility of that truth as the pluralists do by pretending that contradictory religions can claim equality of status as truth. You see, if someone really, really believes what they claim they believe, it makes no sense whatsoever to pretend that everyone else who says something different must also possess the truth, or to believe that others must be left to wallow in error. This would the truly weak and essentially liberal position to take. All it really tells anyone is "hey, I not really even sure of my own beliefs". And what good is that?
"After the colonies became a nation, the separation between church and state came about. This, no matter what the ill educated an do LIBERALS tell you, was meant to prevent this country from having a state religion....NOT to keep; religion out of this nation."
Well check it out... you know what I'd say to that? I say that the separation of Church and state is ITSELF a liberal idea, and in fact, that all which calls itself "Christianity" but is apart from the Catholic Church qualifies as Liberalism.
"Yet you come onto this thread and post all kinds of what you claim to be the Catholic church's positions, which look like bigotry to the rest of us."
What I posted were the clear, unambiguous, unmistakeable teachings of the Catholic Church, which irrefutably state exactly the point I've made, which is that absolutely and without a doubt, the Catholic Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of it, and that Church and state are not to be separated according to Catholic dogma. And I am 100% correct that this is the exact and permanent teaching of the Catholic Church.
"And if this stuff is true, then it would really be best for you to have kept it to yourself; especially since it makes the Catholic church look terrible."
In all honesty I can tell you that I do not in the least care how the truth looks to people when it is told to them. The reason for this is simple: very few people like hearing the truth, and the problem is generally on their end of the equation. It is, in fact, why Christ Himself was put on a cross and killed: because few people wanted His truth, and they would not tolerate Him any longer. So no, I do not believe that the truth ought to be suppressed because the others will themselves to take offense at it.
American is NOT a theocracy, but if it was one, YOU would be the one getting the dirty end of the stick; not Protestants, since the vast majority of those involved with founding this nation were Protestants..."
The Catholic Church believes that the aims of the state are to be aligned with the aims of the Church. When you come across a genunine Catholic, that's what that Catholic will tell you. And then you'll understand very quickly that the principles of Americanism are incompatible with the principles of the Catholic Church. It's just a fact.
"The funniest thing, though, is that with every reply you make, you refute the article that heads this thread. It is NOT that there is an anti-Catholic nature to Freemasonry ( though if there was, it would be well deserved ! ); rather, there is an anti-everyone but Catholics, in the Catholic church and by some Catholics, such as yourself."
That's because the Catholic Church is the one true Church. Freemasonry's two principle aims are exactly what I stated above, and their aim is, at the root, primarily against the Catholic Church.
I pinged you because the rules, as I understood them, required me to ping you when your name was involved. And so I did.
You stated an opinion opposite the to the dogma of the Church. No volume of fancy words will cover this up.
I see. I guess I just don't know still how my name was involved in your statement. But it alright, I will just accept it and carry on! Thanks.
God bless.
And I strongly object to Catholic beliefs that ARE bigoted, as well as those who post them and then can't handle reaction from others who don't share your beliefs!
You have stated that not just the pope, but the Catholic church is infallible. How can that be so, when popes and priests, with the blessing of the church, sold indulgences? Jesus NEVER talked about that, nor did he sell a "get out of hell free" pass. You can't find anything in the OT nor the NT, or even any of the preceding centuries, when the Catholic church's existed, about this one.
I have no desire to turn this thread into a flame war, where each of us trash the other ( though that IS what you have done! ) and our respective religions. And since you have now completely hijacked this thread, I suggest that you now cease and desist.
LOL! I didn't know that was a rule on this part of FR, so I suppose I should have been in trouble myself! I do apologize to you, because I didn't know about it! Guess I will have to sit in the corner! :-)
You live in a PLURALISTIC town, I bet. Your state and the nation you live in, is NOT a Catholic theocracy. When are you going to move to a country that is solely Catholic?
You are on a website that is NOT for only Catholics. Are you here just to proselytize to the "heathen"/"heretics" and/or pound your chest and tell the rest of us that we are all going to burn in hell, then? If that is the case, then I suggest that none of that is the purpose for FR.
Everyone who is NOT a Catholic is a "LIBERAL"?
Liberals to extreme lefties can easily be found, who profess to be Catholics. Never heard of the Kennedy family, have you? How about John Kerry, Bernadette Dorn, Moynahan, the Berrigan brothers, and on and on and on? And before you tell me that they aren't REALLY Catholics, that tactic isn't going to work.
Frankly, I don't give a damn what the Catholic church says. I have done my very best to not take on that church and stated all of the absolutely vile, hypocritical, and corrupt things that it has done and said for 2 millennia; however, if you want, I can post, endlessly, about it; though I would much prefer to not waste my time and energy doing so.
Oh gee.....Christ was crucified because people wouldn't listen to HIS words? Ummmmmmmmmm....you mean that HE wasn't crucified, to redeem our sins?
Since you clearly state that Catholics owe all of their allegiance to the church, first, then NO Catholic should EVER hold elected office, in this nation, nor and post of authority in anything. Thanks for completely blowing out of the water, everything other Catholics, have fought, tirelessly, to make the rest of us not believe.
Truth? You would know the TRUTH, if it bit you on the nose and nothing you did, could ever dislodge it!
Freemasonry is NOT a religious organization; it is a FRATERNAL and CHARITABLE organization. It is an organization which has ALWAYS tolerated the social interaction and community of ALL men of good character, who believe in GOD. So, of course you would see it as menacing, frightening, and something to avoid at all cost.
Your post clearly lays out why, for many centuries, Catholics weren't trusted, in America.
Well what on earth kind of ridiculous religion is going to state that all other religions can get people to Heaven? Come on. That'd be an absolute waste of time. Let's be reasonable here.
"And I strongly object to Catholic beliefs that ARE bigoted, as well as those who post them and then can't handle reaction from others who don't share your beliefs!"
And from this it can be clearly demonstrated that pluralism can't work. It is an impossibility to have five different religions claiming to be the truth and yet coexist peacefully under a common banner that is not itself a banner of religion, all without lapsing into violation of it's own silly maxims. In other words, where is your tolerance for genuinue Catholicism in your pluralist society? It is impossible. The actual aim of pluralism is no religion, not "religious tolerance". "Religous tolerance" is just a placating kind of non-idea excuse for what is actually happening, which is that religion is being given the heave-ho from all society, that's all.
"You have stated that not just the pope, but the Catholic church is infallible. How can that be so, when popes and priests, with the blessing of the church, sold indulgences? Jesus NEVER talked about that, nor did he sell a "get out of hell free" pass. You can't find anything in the OT nor the NT, or even any of the preceding centuries, when the Catholic church's existed, about this one."
To answer this, one needs to first make all parties clear as to what infallibility means, who exercises it, when, and concerning what.
"I have no desire to turn this thread into a flame war, where each of us trash the other ( though that IS what you have done! ) and our respective religions. And since you have now completely hijacked this thread, I suggest that you now cease and desist."
Where's the tolerance? What about this freedom of expression? See there... a Catholic can't just repeat what the Church actually teaches in a pluralist society without unlocking the contents of the whitewashed crypt-O-doublestandard, can he?
I'm not going to. And ya'll have to let me stay on, or else you contradict your own creed.
Everyone who is NOT a Catholic is a "LIBERAL"?
The truly liberal ideas are the ones which are at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
One way of describing the relgious views of the Masons, is "a return to Egypt."
with its nonjudemental, tolerant gods, so called. Hence the infactuation with things Egyptian. Never mind the history truth of its cruel gods, the Hebrew notion of Egypt as the land of slavery.
Well, yeah. There was this middle-of-the-night kind of illicit trial where they falsely accused Christ, whipped up the crowds against Him, rejected and mocked His teachings, in their duplicity made him out to be a threat to the stability of a state which they themselves hated, a little garment-rending ensued here and there, they lied, and they off and crucified Him. So yeah.
Ummmmmmmmmm....you mean that HE wasn't crucified, to redeem our sins?
No, I didn't mean that. He was crucified for our sins. I don't see how stating the first thing precludes the belief in the second thing.
Since you clearly state that Catholics owe all of their allegiance to the church, first, then NO Catholic should EVER hold elected office, in this nation, nor and post of authority in anything. Thanks for completely blowing out of the water, everything other Catholics, have fought, tirelessly, to make the rest of us not believe.
You're welcome, because they were wrong to have misled you. After all, were they ever helping you to come closer to the Church by not telling the truth?
Truth? You would know the TRUTH, if it bit you on the nose and nothing you did, could ever dislodge it!
You meant "wouldn't". But what is written above is the truth.
"Freemasonry is NOT a religious organization; it is a FRATERNAL and CHARITABLE organization. It is an organization which has ALWAYS tolerated the social interaction and community of ALL men of good character, who believe in GOD. So, of course you would see it as menacing, frightening, and something to avoid at all cost."
I know exactly what they really are, and what their intentions are, and by what principles they operate.
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.