Posted on 07/28/2011 3:37:09 PM PDT by NYer
Fr. Albert Cutie taking the easy way once again, agreeing with everyone in the room for his show rather than facing a hard truth. And Ann Coulter, in her always kind manner, dropping the "Who's the Christian here?" on him. Oof.
Fr. Cutie was a priest who had his own talk show and was kind of a big deal until he got caught on the beach with a woman (if you know what I mean). Then, he left the priesthood and joined the Episcopal Church, I believe, where he's resumed his road to stardom and publicly criticized the Catholic Church for its rules about celibacy.
Ann is right in that children do better with mothers and fathers. That's not an attack on single mothers. It's a fact that our culture doesn't want to accept but it's a fact nonetheless.
At 2:00 AM I am unlikely to workout.
I have no opinion about the police state of Calvin in Geneva nor the other Prussian stuff. Of those I am blissfully ignorant.
Yet, I stand by what I said about Communism and the Catholic Church today. Just so you understand, I was simply saying that there are similarities in structure but that the Communists are trying to destroy the church. I also said that there were other similarities but that the Communist are lying and the church is sincere. For you to jump on that statement and call it “rot” is a surprise to me because it is obviously true. I attempted to show you that but you seem determined to hang onto your “rot” statement.
So be it. I am going to bed but God bless you, anyway.
Yeah, and that sort of "command structure" contradicts II Robot, Chapter 4 Verse 8 which reads:"
And thus spake Robot saying,"Oh ye sheep, to each his own. My Sheep shall vote and those sheep who vote one way shall have a flock and those who vote the other way shall have a flock as well. For each sheep is a shepherd unto itself and each word in My Word is for each flock a different Word. For my sheep shall boast one to another each keeping whatever word they wish and casting those they care not for aside lest any follow me for it is right that sheep moon-walk to their own destruction.".
Clearly, any sheep who can swallow a chubby German heretic whole and never vomit it back out of their mouth can surely make their own personal sheep word from The Word rather than bearing the cross of His Word which says His sheep need shepherds, not that His sheep are shepherds.
One man alone is not the Magisterium. Even guys like St. Augustine got it wrong on occasion.
Was this woman the only place he was practicing YOPIOS?
He had departed from the Faith long before he was engaged with her.
Very good.
What I don't agree with nor understand is how priests and bishops involved in criminal child sexual abuse got to keep their jobs and were moved around to different parishes where they continued to sexually abuse children. Shouldn't these men have received at least the same discipline as Cutie? I see some hypocrisy here.
Agreed. That is one of the pre-eminent tasks of the immediate last and current Pope: to deal with this situation. You have no idea how much I poured into the intercessory prayers last Sunday about the replacement of Rigali by Chaput, and what I offer up to the congregation each week. One of my friends said that somebody else in church remarked to her about the fact that I knew so much about what was going on in the Church. Even our Padre regularly talks to me about what's going on.
No excuses. And nobody, but nobody in this entire diocese will mess with my kids. It's not everyone that will stand up in a public and televised meeting with the Bishop and call him a non Catholic in the company of the non Catholic USCCB, and demand to know why I should send any of my kids to the seminary in his diocese.
Never said he was. Responding to statements that weren't made only fools those who aren't paying attention. Look again.
"But wasn’t Fr. Alberto Cutie part of ‘the Magisterium’, ‘the ultimate authority’, ‘wise and holy’ and ‘vetted pretty thoroughly’?"
"He had departed from the Faith long before he was engaged with her."
So he had 'departed from the Faith' while he was still part of ‘the Magisterium’, ‘the ultimate authority’, ‘wise and holy’ and ‘vetted pretty thoroughly’?
You are far too kind. I'm sure that I just post what most people are actually thinking, but I can type fairly quickly. And Google Image is my friend.
Mr. Cutie is following the god that he sees in the mirror...
Never said he was. Responding to statements that weren't made only fools those who aren't paying attention. Look again.
Okay.
"He had departed from the Faith long before he was engaged with her."
So he had 'departed from the Faith' while he was still part of ‘the Magisterium’, ‘the ultimate authority’, ‘wise and holy’ and ‘vetted pretty thoroughly’?
Part of the Magisterium? Sure - a very minor part, being a priest only, but he disqualified himself as it turns out.
The ultimate authority? Not on his own.
Wise and holy? It seems that he departed from those ways.
Vetted pretty thoroughly? He was. Then he departed from the conditions that were conducive to vetting.
People change their minds, after all. Some fall into complete heresy like Marcion or Pelagius. Some merely stray and then come back, like Augustine.
OK, so he had 'departed from the Faith' while he was still part of ‘the Magisterium’, ‘the ultimate authority’, ‘wise and holy’ and ‘vetted pretty thoroughly’?
Apparently there is an underlying assumption that those like him who are still part of 'the Magisterium' but have 'departed from the Faith' are either ultimately discovered or inconsequential to 'the Faith'?
One of the things that we understand from Scripture and the examples of the Apostles is that fallible men can follow infallible God.
Another thing that we understand from Scripture is that fallible men can corrupt the Faith and fall away from an infallible God, so that argument isn't definitive support for any kind of 'Magisterium'.
So again, we are back to the underlying assumption that fallible men who have 'departed from the Faith' and are still part of 'the ultimate authority of the Magisterium' are either ultimately discovered or inconsequential to 'the Faith'.
Any news on how Scripture can only be authoritative where it assigns ultimate authority to 'the Magisterium' who then serve as the 'ultimate authority' for interpreting the rest of Scripture?
Nope. The Magisterium, by definition, is the Pope & the bishops teaching in union with him.
‘the ultimate authority’
The Magisterium is happy to tell you that God is the ultimate authority, and they're only his servant.
‘wise and holy’
Ordination doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, wisdom, or holiness, sorry. Or, as one past member of the Magisterium put it, "The streets of hell are paved with the skulls of bishops."
‘vetted pretty thoroughly’
Individual bishops don't have a charism of infallibility, and the certainly don't have one when they evaluate candidates for the priesthood.
In any case, take this up with the Episcopal church. Cutie is not a Catholic anymore.
Other similarities between Communism and the Catholic Church.
Communism claims to seek the best for everyone. So does the church through Scripture.
Communists claim to fight evil, the evil corporations and the rich. The church fights evil.
Communism claims to level the playing field for everyone. So does the Church, in the eyes of the Lord.
Communism has Block Commissars to keep everything and everyone in order. The church has priest to minister to all.
Communism demands devotion. So does the Church.
Communism threatens death and enslavement to non-believers. So does Christianity, although not by earthly force.
Communism is a religion of the State and the Party. Christianity is a religion of The Trinity and God’s Holy Church.
This list could continue but I am confident I have made my point. Those of you who have somehow thought I was disparaging the church are simply determined to miss the point. I won’t argue foolishness with you so don’t try to insist I am saying something I am not.
It was someone else who brought up child sex abuse by priests and the seeming lack of discipline by the church, not me, but you have not responded to that nor my suggestion that perhaps those “priest” were actually Communist infiltrators. Neither did you comment about Fr Geoffrey Feiger.
I am not a Catholic but my children were Christened in the Catholic Church and my daughter and grandson attend the Catholic Church.
I simply believe in the Trinity and seek to be immersed in the Love emanating from that. Having no allegiance to a denomination gives me greater freedom of thought and worship, IMO. I suspect some are too quick to defend the church because of their lack of trust in themselves and their beliefs. Any perceived attack is viewed as a threat.
Rashputin, I have no idea what you are saying so I suspect you may indeed be the Mad Monk himself, had you not misspelled his name.
Well, looks like there is a difference of opinion. One poster said that Fr. Cutie was "a very minor part" of the Magisterim even when he had 'departed from the Faith'.
What if the bishop is 'teaching' in union w/ the Pope but living otherwise? Are they still part of the Magisterium?
Even so, that then assumes that only the Pope is infallible and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Then how does one know whether that is true? Because the Pope and those who agree with him say so? Isn't that a bit of a logical fallacy?
Another poster had mentioned "a few bad popes", which would seem to be a problem. Under this definition, only those bishops who agreed with those "few bad popes" were 'The Magisterium" and everyone else was wrong.
The Magisterium is happy to tell you that God is the ultimate authority, and they're only his servant."
Well that's fine. I suppose the rub comes in if you're saying that 'The Magisterium' is the only group that can know the ultimate authority of God and communicate that to me, "a few bad popes" notwithstanding? How do you know who the 'bad popes' are if they are assumed to be infallible and only those who agree with them are authoritative?
"Ordination doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, wisdom, or holiness, sorry. Or, as one past member of the Magisterium put it, "The streets of hell are paved with the skulls of bishops."
That was another poster's opinion, not mine. It appears that there is some disagreement and confusion around who is a member of 'the Magisterium' and who is not?
"Individual bishops don't have a charism of infallibility, and the certainly don't have one when they evaluate candidates for the priesthood."
Are you saying that they aren't part of 'the Magisterium' even if, by definition, they are "teaching in union with" the Pope? How do you identify these people so that you know whom to obey and whom to ignore?
Take it up with Jesus who gave the fledgling Church the authority. That's all the argument that I need.
Any news on how Scripture can only be authoritative where it assigns ultimate authority to 'the Magisterium' who then serve as the 'ultimate authority' for interpreting the rest of Scripture?
The Church had the authority long before the NT was written and the Bible chosen. Your Bible is the product of the Church, not vice versa. You're welcome.
I would like to interject something here that may clear up some of your confusion, boatbums. Panzer is ultimately right in that Cutie was forced to resign, however, as I recall, that isn’t all that happened.
When his adultery was discovered, IIRC, he was asked to end the relationship by his local bishop, and to report to a retreat house of some sort, whereas afterward, he would/could/might be reassigned to another post. Sound familiar?
It should, because this is how the pedarist priests were handled as well, so there is no inconsistency in that regard. It’s a shame that at least Cutie has enough “guts” (for lack of a better term) to say, “I’m not going to stop seeing this woman”, (and for that, fir disobeying his bishop, he was forced out), but the majority of the pedarist priests didn’t have the temerity, or at least honesty, to admit the same about themselves.
Also, if I may point out, when viewed in this way, the abuse scandal can be seen for what it truly was: not a conspiracy of coverup, but a (yes severely misguided) attempt to rehabilitate the abusers.
This is offered as a clarification of your post here. Indeed, I submit, if one views the facts objectively, one can only make the conclusion I make above. If you do not wish to do this, I cannot stop you, or anyone, from looking for and finding “conspiracies” under every rock you look, but nite this, I will not debate this.
Thus, the last response in this regard is yours, but please do not take my silence or silence in general from any Catholic as “proof” of some “conspiracy”. Speaking for myself I’m tired if pointing out the obvious above and see no reason to debate it any more. I simply post this for objective digestion and analysis.
All this relates back to my post #32 and I stand by that. I have backed it up with examples and with a listing of the pertinent Communist Goals which relate to it. I am not trying to compare the Communists to Calvinists or anyone else. I am not recommending a better or worse command structure. I simply made my point, gave examples of it, and described how it is being misused by those who want to destroy Christianity and the Church.
Some of you want to expand my argument beyond what it is. Some seem to take offense where there is none. Some remind me of the Salem Witch Hunt which makes me doubt your own depth of belief for otherwise you would see this for what it is and not be offended nor feel that I have disparaged the church so let me be clear - Communism = Evil, Church = Good.
God bless you all and to all a good night. Has someone already said that, perhaps Santa?
I am now on Sabbatical.
Even so, that then assumes that only the Pope is infallible and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Then how does one know whether that is true? Because the Pope and those who agree with him say so? Isn't that a bit of a logical fallacy?
These are good questions and I for one thank you for asking them. Not only no-catholics but many catholics themselves do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes the Magisterium. Let's begin with basics.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is defined as "the Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion". In other words, Our Lord gave His Church the authority to teach the faithful about what is expected of them, and that is what the Church has done consistently from the start.
The Magisterium of Catholic Church teaches the faithful in two ways.
1. Solemn Magisterium - is Church teaching which is used only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. This includes dogmatic definitions by councils or Popes teaching "ex cathedra"
2. Ordinary Magisterium - is the second form of Church teaching that is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared.
References In Scripture to the Magisterium of the Church - Acts 15:6-8, Acts 15:28, Matthew 16:15.
Examples of the Solemn Magisterium of the Church (also called "ex cathedra teaching"): - The decisions made during the General Councils of the Catholic Church. Papal encyclicals on "The Immaculate Conception" (1849) and "Defining the Dogma of the Assumption" (1950).
Examples of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church - Universal teaching of the Church such as other papal encyclicals (when not written in "ex cathedra" form), universal references such as the Summa Theologica, and writings of Saints that are continually utilized by the Church and passed from Pope to Pope without objection.
Another poster had mentioned "a few bad popes", which would seem to be a problem. Under this definition, only those bishops who agreed with those "few bad popes" were 'The Magisterium" and everyone else was wrong.
I was the one that posted the comment. Now understand as the Teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church, you can see that a few bad popes in no way effected the teachings of the Church.
This information should also answer the additional questions you posed.
Any news on how Scripture can only be authoritative where it assigns ultimate authority to 'the Magisterium' who then serve as the 'ultimate authority' for interpreting the rest of Scripture?
"I was the one that posted the comment. Now understand as the Teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church, you can see that a few bad popes in no way effected the teachings of the Church."
How do you know that the concept of 'ex cathedra' is appropriate in the first place?
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.