The Banishement of Mother Angelica from EWTN

Book - EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong ISBN 0-9663046-7-5 | 2006 | Christopher Ferrara

[firerosemom]

Caatechism of the Catholic Church
295 “The Mystery of Creation
God creates by wisdom and love
We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom, and goodness: ‘For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.’ Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: ‘O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all’; and ‘The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made’.

298 Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them and bodily life to the dead through the Resurrection. God ‘gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.’ And since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him.

306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ cooperation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of cooperating in the accomplishment of his plan.”

[Zionist Conspirator]

::Yawn::

[WPaCon]

The real reason Catholics accept one and not the other is because Genesis is for "trailer trash," and Catholics (at least American Catholics) aren't "trailer trash."

I see you often posting similar things to this. I don't know how you get this idea. You make it sound like the magisterium and the pope sit around and make up doctrines just to spite "trailer trash" and "rednecks."

If I remember correctly, on another thread, you said that you wanted to or did convert to Catholicism, but the Catholics didn't like you because you were a "redneck." Is that why you think Catholics have such a dislike for rural Americans?

[gottabeme]

Greenish is like a treehugger. They have never moved on from knowing God The Father in all His creation. They see God in a tree. They have not known His Son Jesus Crucified for our sins...that would mean admitting there is sin and amending our lives and realizing that Jesus did die for our sins and opened the gates of heaven for us. But for these religious...bishops, priests, sisters...it’s dangerous. More so than for your lay person or for someone who does not truely know God.

[WPaCon]

Let me ask you a very simple question: what's the difference between the miraculous creation and formation of the universe in six days 5770 years ago a human child being conceived without the participation of a male parent?

First, let me say that I'm no expert on any of this. But I think the difference is that the Church always taught one as an infallibly true dogma, while the other was never taught as an infallibly true dogma.

Why do Catholic apologetics always boast about how the Catholic Church should never be confused with those stupid people who believe Genesis?

They probably think it makes for more effective apologetics.

If you can think of another reason other than sociological snobbery, I'd be happy to hear it.

I think what I said above about one being a dogma and another not is the most reasonable explanation. Do you think the Catholic Church decides its beliefs based on what would spite Fundamentalists?

Like liberals, Catholics like rural people so long as they don't live in America and don't have white skins. Also like liberals, they seem to regard rural Americans (or at least rural white Americans) as a dangerous bunch of neanderthal "haters" who are about to break out any minute into a spate of nineteenth century convent burning.

I don't know where you get this idea. This is not a common attitude among Catholics. I'd guess it's a common attitude of people from northeast metropolises such as New York and Boston, where there are a higher percentage of Catholics than the rest of the country. However, this attitude would be because they're from big northeastern liberal cities, not because they are Catholic.

Did you see that attitude in the your particular parish? I'd find that surprising, since I think you said it was in Kentucky, which I would think is even less hostile to "rednecks" than where I'm from.

For example, I'm close to Pittsburgh, and I don't see that snobbery towards rural whites. Actually, one side of my family was composed of rural white Catholic farmers, and that's hardly an anomaly. (I believe Dr. Kopp posted a little bit ago that Western Pennsylvania has the most rural Catholics in America.) This backs up my opinion that this anti-"redneck" attitude is caused by where people live, not their religion, if there are many Catholics where I'm from who have no problem with "rednecks."

[verdugo]

The CCC is the Catholic basics, a brief teaching, for new converts to the faith. Telling a Catholic that they should read their catechism is like telling a senior in college studying engineering, that they should read on the subject in the encyclopedia.

[Zionist Conspirator]

The CCC is the Catholic basics, a brief teaching, for new converts to the faith. Telling a Catholic that they should read their catechism is like telling a senior in college studying engineering, that they should read on the subject in the encyclopedia.

The latest CCC (1994, I believe) is also quite liberal. Did you notice the quotations above posted by firerosemom that implied limited inerrancy and evolution and excused higher criticism?

[verdugo]

And by the way. The CCC is the worst catechism ever written. It contains so much progressivist ambiguity and double speak, that when one is done reading it, one does not know whether they are a cat or a man.

“There was once a cat that fell asleep and dreamed that he was a man dreaming that he was a cat, and when he woke up, he did not know if he was a cat or a man”.

[Zionist Conspirator]

And by the way. The CCC is the worst catechism ever written.

Not according to the vast majority of FReeper Catholics, unfortunately.

[WPaCon]

On what grounds do you make this claim?

Again, I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on this, and I think it's important for you to remember that. But just from doing basic searches and from what I've always heard, one is a dogma of the Church while another isn't. I'm sure a more knowledgeable Catholic here could give you the proper documentation.

And even if it's true, what's the excuse?

Why is there a need for an excuse?

Yet whenever a quotation is found by an otherwise highly esteemed Catholic that implies young earth creationism it will always be written off as a "personal opinion" based on the "scientific knowledge of the time." Again, this is hypocritical, as the same science that tells us the first eleven chapters of Genesis cannot possibly be true also tells us that a "virgin birth" of a human being is impossible.

I don't see how it's hypocritical when one has always been an infallible dogma, while another has not, allowing for personal opinion.

So once again it all comes down to "us vs. them," and "our profound miracles vs. their ignorant superstitions."

From my understanding, it all comes down to one being an infallible dogma, while another is not. Do you think Catholics believe things based on whether they will be against the beliefs of Fundamentalists?

Thank you for admitting that Catholic apologeticists only want intellectuals in the Church and Bible-thumping white-trash can stick to their own churches, mercifully and providentially raised up by G-d to provide for inbred morons who don't have the vast brains to belong in the Catholic Church. I really appreciate it.

I don't know where you're getting this from. All I was saying was that these Catholics apologists that you described probably think its makes for more effective apologetics to denounce literalists. It mean anything more than that.

You didn't read what I said about Jack Chick, did you?

Yes, I did. I read your whole post. I just didn't find a need to respond to your section about Chick.

The priest was a Teilhardian ultra-liberal (though a nice guy) and the members were all urban types. Plus what you completely miss out on is that every Catholic periodical available after service, each of which claimed to speak on behalf of the whole Catholic Church, had exactly the nasty, patronizing attitude I describe.

I think you're extrapolating one bad parish to represent the whole Catholic Church.

though Catholics (very much including yourself) seem to disagree.

I never said anything about young earth creationism making one a mental cripple.

[WPaCon]

I grow weary of this prolonged argument with hypocrisy.

I can sympathize with growing weary with this argument, but I don't see any hypocrisy.

So you're saying that because the virgin birth is mentioned in the Nicene Creed and young earth creationism isn't that young earth creationism therefore cannot be a dogma of the Catholic Church?

I'm not saying that. I haven't said that young earth creationism cannot be dogma, just that it is not.

You're saying that every single required dogma is in the Creed and if it's not then it's optional and there is "room for disagreement?" Does that mean there is room for disagreement on papal infallibility or the immaculate conception because they're not in the Creed any more than young earth creationism?

I never mentioned the Creed. I've never said how exactly something becomes dogma. I don't even know, myself. I'm pinging Cronos to this, because he is a knowledgeable Catholic and he could explain how you can know whether something is dogma or not. All I said was that one thing is dogma, while another is not.

Even more importantly (and the crux of the matter), you're saying that G-d can write a book and it contain errors and untruths? Just what kind of "gxd" is this you worship?

We do not claim that the Bible has any errors. We're just arguing over interpretation of it.

Because the reason young earth creationism is rejected is simply because "we now know this could not have happened" (because it violates how the world actually works). And yet the virgin birth and the resurrection violate those scientific laws every bit as much.

Young earth creationism has never been rejected. Believing in young earth creationism is not contrary to the Catholic Church.

And yet the virgin birth and the resurrection violate those scientific laws every bit as much. Fr. Raymond Brown may have been a liberal but at least he was consistent. One can't say the same thing about people who dismiss young earth creationism specifically because scientists don't believe it while believing other things which those same scientists also reject.

Science can be used as a general guide, except when it is superseded by infallible dogmas. Nothing inconsistent about that rule. Do you reject all science, because it apparently contradicts young earth creationism? If not, then you are doing the same thing.

The only reason one has "always been a dogma" while the other "has not" is that within the past two centuries people suddenly stopped believing the latter because science tells us it is "impossible." Two hundred years ago--and certainly in the days of Bellarmine--the claim could have been made that YEC "has always been an infallible dogma." If one formerly infallible dogma can be changed because uniformitarian scientists don't like it, on what grounds do you persist in holding onto other "impossible" events which may be rejected in the future just as other "impossible" dogmas have been rejected in the past?

I'd love to see the proof that YEC was once an infallible dogma, not just that it was believed by most, if not all, Christians.

How many times must I answer this question?

You haven't answered very directly.

I have responded each time that Catholic apologeticists make a punching bag of Fundamentalist Protestant creationism while holding up as "heroic examples of simple childlike faith" exotic illiterate peasants who do things like nail themselves to crosses and wrap snakes around statues. Now, do you want to ask me again? It's obvious that creationism is "red-lined" in the Catholic Church because it is associated with "trailer trash."

That looks like a "yes." Don't you think it is absurd to believe that a religious organization with several hundred million members headquartered in Rome would pick and choose its beliefs based on whether or not it contradicts with those of rural Americans?

Catholic apologeticists make a punching bag of Fundamentalist Protestants because they aim exclusively for intellectuals and don't intend to ever convert any Fundamentalist Protestants. Thank you again for admitting this.

Thank you again for putting words in my mouth. I've never admitted to such. All I said was that the Catholic apologists you were referring to thought denouncing Biblical literalism was an effective tactic. It doesn't mean whatever else you think it means. It doesn't mean there can't be other Catholic apologists trying to convert Fundamentalist Protestants.

Of course not. That example is an excellent illustration of exactly what I am saying and you are denying. Of course you couldn't respond.

No, I though you were being sarcastic and not making a serious argument, because you put a sarc sign at the end. I didn't feel the need to respond to something that looked sarcastic. I'd love to refer back to that post, but it was deleted, probably because of mentioning a certain guy's name. If I remember correctly, you said Catholics should change their beliefs, just to be different from that certain guy, and then you put a sarc sign at the end. If that's what you actually posted, then it's actually a good illustration of how Catholics don't change their beliefs just to be different from certain people. In any case, I didn't feel the need to respond to something that didn't look like a serious argument.

I am so sick and tired of having my personal experience with the Catholic Church attributed to "one bad parish."

Well, it's the first time I said that, I believe.

Was my "one bad parish" responsible for the content of Our Sunday Visitor, Liguorian, Catholic Digest, or the innumerable books churned out by well-respected Catholic theologians defending evolution and the documentary hypothesis? That must have one busy parish!

Every pope since at least Pius XII has accepted evolution. Were they all members of my parish?

The current pope doesn't believe in the traditional doctrine of original sin. Was he a member of my parish?

I was referring to the anti-redneck attitude, not its belief in evolution, original sin, or other theological issues.

Then why do you think Catholic apologeticists constantly attack it? Because they have a profound respect for those of us who believe in it???

What Catholic apologist do has nothing to do with whether or not I think young earth creationists are mental midgets and your falsely attributing that attitude to me.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Science can be used as a general guide, except when it is superseded by infallible dogmas. Nothing inconsistent about that rule. Do you reject all science, because it apparently contradicts young earth creationism? If not, then you are doing the same thing.

Science can tell us only about the world before it. It has no access to a world when the current laws of nature either did not exist in their present form or were in the process of coming into existence. And at any rate, Divine revelation always supersedes the claims of science.

We do not claim that the Bible has any errors. We're just arguing over interpretation of it.

The notion that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are some sort of mythological "poem" different from the rest of the Torah rests on liberal Biblical criticism, which in turn rests on uniformitarian assumptions.

I'd love to see the proof that YEC was once an infallible dogma, not just that it was believed by most, if not all, Christians.

Perhaps the virgin birth or resurrection will one day join the list of those things once believed by most chr*stians that will be rejected one day on the authority of science.

Don't you think it is absurd to believe that a religious organization with several hundred million members headquartered in Rome would pick and choose its beliefs based on whether or not it contradicts with those of rural Americans?

I don't think it's absurd that the American members of that organization go out of their way to disassociate themselves from the beliefs of Fundamentalist Protestants, even as they accept the primitive beliefs of folk Catholicism.

I was referring to the anti-redneck attitude, not its belief in evolution, original sin, or other theological issues.

There's precious little difference between one and the other--especially when American Catholic apologists often thump the "don't confuse us with those awful people" mantra.

[dangus]

Warning! Verdugo is a non-Catholic troll, who has declared that all five post-Vatican II popes are would be excommunicated by Pius X. Please, all Catholics: Have nothing to do with him. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

[WPaCon]

Science can tell us only about the world before it. It has no access to a world when the current laws of nature either did not exist in their present form or were in the process of coming into existence. And at any rate, Divine revelation always supersedes the claims of science.

I don't think this is a point of disagreement.

Perhaps the virgin birth or resurrection will one day join the list of those things once believed by most chr*stians that will be rejected one day on the authority of science.

They won't, because they're dogmas. Anyways, the ideas of the virgin birth and resurrection have always been against science, and they have not been rejected.

I don't think it's absurd that the American members of that organization go out of their way to disassociate themselves from the beliefs of Fundamentalist Protestants, even as they accept the primitive beliefs of folk Catholicism.

I don't think that's absurd either, but it seemed as if you were arguing that the Catholic Church picks its based on whether they are contrary to those of Fundamentalists.

There's precious little difference between one and the other--especially when American Catholic apologists often thump the "don't confuse us with those awful people" mantra.

They may be related, but there is a difference.

[verdugo]

Ignorance is bliss:

Sedevacantes and Papaloters, two sides of the same coin.

The sedevacantes say the popes can’t teach errors, therefore, we have had no popes since Pius XII. The papaloters say nothing that the popes do is an error, therefore, tradition can be ignored, or has been updated.

The Catholc that follows tradition/antiquity, does not fall into that conundrum.

“Those that have eyes to see, let them see”.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not mention Chick at all on Free Republic whether pro or con. It is a banned source and subject.

[verdugo]

"We therefore choose to keep our Faith and we cannot be mistaken in clinging to what the Church has taught for two thousand years. The crisis is profound, cleverly organized and directed, and by this token one can truly believe that the master mind is not a man but Satan himself. For it is a master stroke of Satan to get Catholics to disobey the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience." (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre)