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.
I suppose that comparing the Catholic Church and the Communist party is just an implication free association the same way comparing non-Catholic Christians to David Koresh is since, after all, he interpreted Scripture to suit himself and that IS the norm among non-Catholics. So, there you have it, the same sort of value free association. Non-Catholic Christians are like David Koresh, plain as the nose on your face. It's just a nice, implication free, random, example of what non-Catholic Christians are all like since they insist that they're each capable of interpreting the Word with no guidance from any little ole' church in the wild wood or anywhere else. So, let me be clear Scripture = Good, private interpretation of Scripture = Bad.
Dan, if I understand your question, you are asking when the Magisterium interprets scripture. Is that correct?
First of all, I agree that Mr. Cutie should have been, and was disciplined for his sinful acts. He was NOT being faithful to either his vows or the laws of God. His guilt is not mitigated by anything.
My statement had to do with why one type of sin was punished by his Church while others that had sinned far worse had not. God ensures ultimate punishment and without the sacrifice of Christ on the cross for our sins none of us would be able to escape Hell. Some act that God calls "sin" are not considered punishable according to secular laws but there must still be disciplinary action from the church when its members are involved. Much more so are the leaders within the church accountable and their discipline must be even more actionable. However, sins that are considered crimes within a society as well as sinful within God's laws must be dealt with both within the church and without by the temporal law.
Finally, I am not in any way implying that justice imperfectly applied must be held back. Only God knows the heart of mankind and only he, along with the sinner, knows the truth about wrongful actions. Society must enforce its laws and especially those where innocent victims are involved. The leaders within the church owe at least as much to their membership.
No, I'm asking how Scripture can only be authoritative where it is assumed to assign the ultimate authority for interpreting Scripture to 'the Magisterium'?
Source please.
I think that is a valid point. For one of their own "Church Fathers" to say that, "the streets of hell are paved with the skulls of bishops", admits a peculiar truth that there can really be no sure infallibility of the magesterium. The "gift" of infallibility is nowhere mentioned in Scripture and, since they are the only ones who claim they alone have this gift, it begs the question if even that statement can be infallible.
I appreciate your attempt to clear things up. I just have a real problem comparing adulterous adults engaging in their sin and criminal adults victimizing children as equal. It's fine and good for the leadership of the Catholic Church to seek to discipline their clergy in hopes of repentance and restoration. That is a clearly Biblical mandate. But when it is CRIMINAL child sex abuse and the guilty party is disciplined "in house" without notifying authorities - even secreting away the abuser so that criminal charges could not be brought - that cannot be a strictly church internal affair any longer.
So, I am sorry I cannot agree with you that there was not a cover-up or conspiracy since I think it has been proved to be exactly that. The multi-BILLION dollar settlements prove it. The re-offending priests and bishops moved to other parishes to repeat their crimes proves it. The recent criminal trials of clergy involved with child rape in Pennsylvania proves it. The clergy sex abuse problems in Ireland, Belgium, Germany, etc. proves it. I really could go on, but I think my point has been made. I'm not trying to rub it in.
I fully understand the mindset of a Catholic who has been taught all his life that the Catholic Church is THE church Christ founded and that the Pope is the divinely appointed heir to the seat of St. Peter and that the Magesterium together with the Pope have a God-given authority to proclaim doctrine and dogmas that MUST be believed in order to be a "Christian". I understand the deep need to believe that such a hierarchy is infallible, without fault, unable to ever make a mistake and set up to be THE guide to eternal life. I understand it, but I do not agree with it.
I fully understand your claim to having addressing the issue and being tired of "pointing out the obvious". Well, it may be obvious to you, but I think it is akin to putting ones head in the sand. I know it is very difficult and nearly impossible to confront the truth of what is going on and to admit that it has been going on for a long, long time. Putting our trust in fallen humans and human institutions is opening ourselves up to just such disillusionment. Only in Christ is our trust safe. Only in the Lord is our salvation.
It is my understanding that Liberation Theology was created by Modernist theologians in the 20th century. The Jesuits were heavily involved.
That comment should be attributed to Cronos, not me. It should be noted that Jeremiah Wrights church was the Trinity United Church of Christ. The Church of Christ is a Protestant denomination but it is not Southern Baptist. That doesn't mean BLT was not started by and involved with the Southern Baptists. I think Martin Luther King's church was Southern Baptist. BLT was spread throughout all the black churches.
However, BLT was started as part of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. It was part of the Marxist effort to destabilize our society and create division between the races. The Feminist Movement was part of the same attempt to divide our society. The Homosexual Marriage Movement at the moment is also part of that tactic. All that plays hand-in-glove with what I am saying about the church and its infiltration by those whose intent is to divide and conquer.
I'm sorry for being so quick off the gun.
"And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Acts 8:30-31
"And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16
Of course your apology is graciously accept. I was surprised by your reaction considering all the other exchanges we have had when we were in agreement.
After interacting with many of our fellow freepers who only say this, I start to see too many barbs in everything, so I am sorry again for mis-reading your post and jumping on you
“bbb” is of course what I put — that guy used the word Catholic instead. Such blind hatred is pretty much a-ok on the RF — and these aren’t the worse. That’s the reason most of us Catholics who stick on this “religion” forum tend to get short fuses!
I researched it way before I even asked you for your source. Buddy, if this is the best you got, you need to retract your statement that it was started in the Southern Baptist Church. I would HOPE that this isn't a sneaky way of flailing at the Southern Baptists. Per your link:
The Rev. James Cone is the founder of black liberation theology. In an interview with Terry Gross, Cone explains the movement, which has roots in 1960s civil-rights activism and draws inspiration from both the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, as "mainly a theology that sees God as concerned with the poor and the weak."
So MLK, Jr. was an American Baptist who happened to live in the South and Malcolm X was Muslim. Rev. Cone attended the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He actually asserted that the Southern Baptist Church was a "whites only" church, so I highly doubt he was influenced by it.
Sounds like sola scriptura and the Bereans.
Doesn’t sound like Magisterium to me.
Seems to me that the only thing worse than making a mistake yourself is believing someone else’s mistake unquestioningly.
My responsibility is to be sensitive to the correction of the Holy Spirit in my own spirit. To assume that the Holy Spirit can’t do that in me but wants me to rely on His ability to do it in someone else is a huge mistake, IMO.
Seems to me that that’s how cults are formed and perpetuated.
It very much is like how cults work. Someone convinces others that they alone have the truth, they alone should be followed and anyone who dares think for themselves gets kicked out. But not until the fear of eternal damnation is threatened as the consequence and any and all friends and family cuts them off as well. Few people have the courage to do it and even more so if that cult is all they have ever known.
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.