Posted on 05/10/2013 3:30:05 PM PDT by NYer
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I would be shocked if sex-only-after-marriage was the majority here. Wouldn’t you, too?
And yet it's Catholics (alongside liberal Protestants) who are Biblical skeptics and worshipers of "science." Visit any "traditional" Catholic forums and even there any insistence that Revelation trumps "science" is met with accusations of "Protestantism."
Its idea that faith is separate from good works, and that predestination operates without regard of good works based on declarative faith alone has created a man without an obligation beyond an economic debt. Child rearing then ceased to be a work of obedience to the first commandment given man, and became a matter of economic expediency; marriage became a contract voidable upon mutual consent.
Protestant antinomianism is a logical inference from the antinomianism of the "new testament" and the church fathers. To condemn antinomianism while simultaneously proclaiming that "the law" is a "curse" or a "pedagogue" that has been "done away with" is the rankest hypocrisy.
Ultimately it is chrstianity's rejection of the Torah (and the Noachide Laws) that leads inexorably to antinomianism. Although Protestantism's assertion that the Biblical ceremonial system was abolished and replaced with nothing is far more intellectually consistent than the Catholic/Orthodox position that the Biblical ceremonial system was abolished (and is now forbidden) and replaced by a new, "mandatory" post-Biblical one.
It is possible for the Church to be at fault in matters of individual behavior of her prelates. The Church was not at fault in the matters of faith and moral teaching neither then or now.
That is, of course, wrong when it happens; however, I am skeptical that you correctly discern the nuances of any posted opinion every time you see one.
Protestant antinomianism is a logical inference from the antinomianism of the "new testament" and the church fathers.
Indeed the Church teaches that the mechanical and legalistic reading of the revealed law is incorrect; neither should the commandment to multiply and fill the earth be taken legalistically. It is in fact part of the apostasy of both rabbinical Judaism and Protestantism to view the Divine Revelation in legal terms. It is of course, wrong to accuse Protestants of antinomianism; if my original post created that impression, I haste to correct it. To wit:
Christian obligation is not to check off paragraphs in an instruction manual, -- for that is how Protestantism views the Holy Scripture, but rather nurture, through the sacraments that the Mother Church gives us, an internal and pure love of God, who was killed by his enemies out of His love for us. It is that failure to understand marriage as a sacramental work of love directed at mutual salvation of the spouses that leads to the modernist error and the perversion of marriage, -- which both the rabbis and the Protestant pastors share. But antinomian they are not.
any insistence that Revelation trumps "science" is met with accusations of "Protestantism."
That is, of course, wrong when it happens; however, I am skeptical that you correctly discern the nuances of any posted opinion every time you see one.
Go to a Catholic forum, even a "traditional" one. Or read the comments posted at the ends of articles on traditional Catholic web pages (such as the page whose criticism of Pope Francis was posted a couple months ago). There you will see people who advocate a return to the Middle Ages who complain that fighting evolution is an unnecessary fight that distracts from re-instating the "social kingdom of J*sus." And you will read accusations of "Protestant" almost constantly, along with "that's a Protestant thing; it doesn't concern us."
I've noticed that there are two types of FR Catholics: those who are raving, fanatical evolutionists/higher critics, and those who are not but who never provide a counterpart to their higher critical brethren. Why don't they? If it is still permitted to interpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis as historically true and if there are Catholic FReepers who do this, why do they never say anything? Fear of being labeled a Protestant? Or because Genesis 1-11 is a "Protestant thing that has nothing to do with us?"
Just why is Genesis 1-11 so uniquely "unimportant?" Is there anything in Genesis 1-11 that actually teaches Protestantism or damages Catholic dogma? So what's the deal?
I mean it. What's the deal?
Indeed the Church teaches that the mechanical and legalistic reading of the revealed law is incorrect; neither should the commandment to multiply and fill the earth be taken legalistically. It is in fact part of the apostasy of both rabbinical Judaism and Protestantism to view the Divine Revelation in legal terms.
Actually, the Roman/Latin chrstian worldview is extremely legalistic, as it has been influenced by pre-chrstian Roman legalism. Legalism is actually something the Latins and Hebrews have in common (what they disagree on is whether it is the Biblical or a post-Biblical legal code that should be followed). Contrast this with the Eastern Orthodox model, which is more "medical" (the church is a hospital in which chrstians live out their lives undergoing treatment for their spiritual diseases). The idea of the chrstian legal/ceremonial/ritual system as treatment clashes with the Latin view of it as the "new commandments" of the "new law."
Christian obligation is not to check off paragraphs in an instruction manual, -- for that is how Protestantism views the Holy Scripture
I can't answer for Protestantism, but Rabbinic Judaism most assuredly does not regard the Written Torah as a "checkoff list." Jews are just as aware as Catholics that the Torah is not "systematically" organized. However, it was still written in its entirety by G-d and dictated to Moses letter-for-letter, and it says exactly what it is meant to say.
Many of the Commandments are only alluded to in the Scriptures, some of them barely at all. But the Jewish Written and Oral Torahs exist as an organic whole and have since Mt. Sinai. The Jewish Scriptures contain nothing but consonants--no vowels, no punctuation, no trope. These three things come from the Oral Torah. In other words, the Written Torah has the consonants, the Oral Torah has the vowels. Thus without the Oral Torah (also given to Moses at Sinai) the Written Torah couldn't even be read! We wouldn't know for sure what the actual words were! The Written Torah is the keyhole and the Oral Torah is the key.
Contrast this with the Catholic/Orthodox churches whose "written bible" is based on (and assumes the correctness of) the vocalization and punctuation which Jewish Oral Tradition assigns to the original texts which those churches translate. The chrstian bible blends the key and the keyhole into a single thing, so the only way to defend oral tradition in chrstianity is to denigrate the written bible. Because the Oral Law is absolutely essential in even making out the very words the Written Torah contains, there is no need in Judaism to "defend" it by denigrating the Scriptures. This is something only the authentic possessors and explicators of Torah can say.
but rather nurture, through the sacraments that the Mother Church gives us, an internal and pure love of God, who was killed by his enemies out of His love for us.
The Protestant concept of the crucifixion is simple and easy to understand: J*sus on the cross experienced a vicarious damnation on the behalf of every individual so that the person who accepts this is "saved" and has no need to a ritual/ceremonial system of any kind. The Catholic/Orthodox have no single simple understanding of any kind (explanations run the gamut from "christus victor" to Anselm's "satisfaction theory" to the idea of a "ransom" payed to the Devil to the "mouse trap" theory), none of which make any sense whatsoever. No Protestant will ever understand why the death of Chr*st does not in and of itself "save" the individual without the need of any intermediaries or rituals. Jews will never understand what this conversation is about because Torah Judaism is a simple statutory religion with none of the never-ending complications about "salvation." Judaism and Protestantism are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but both are internally consistent. Liturgical chrstianity is indeed historically the "authentic" form of chrstianity, but that doesn't change the fact that it is riddled with internal inconsistencies which is illustrated by the fact that Catholics/Orthodox preach "Judaism" to the Protestants ("you have to perform works!") and "Protestantism" to the Jews ("J*sus died for your sins! You can stop doing all that stuff!")
I was devastated when I first learned that historical chrstianity never taught that J*sus "took my place in hell" so that I would never go there. The chrstian religion simply makes no sense apart from this Protestant understanding, however recent and unauthentic it is. Actually, I think I have finally figured out what the death of J*sus actually accomplished: it gave some people an excuse to start a new religion!
It is that failure to understand marriage as a sacramental work of love directed at mutual salvation of the spouses that leads to the modernist error
Confront evolution and the documentary hypothesis before you talk to me about "modernist error."
yes
Catholics refer to Genesis a lot, but we do not consider the issue of literal historicity of the 6 days, 2 trees, 4 rivers, etc. as solvable or defining our faith. Leaving aside the liberal wing that doesn't think of the Old Testament being anything more that a collection of myths (and do so contrary to the dogma of scriptural inerrancy), we believe that Genesis 1 is an inerrant account as pertains to man's relationship to God. It is not, however, a manual of geology or of astrophysics, not intended as one, and it is foolish to read it as if it were one. It is, indeed, a characteristically Protestant fight.
the Roman/Latin [Christian] worldview is extremely legalistic
We are a large organization filled with heretics or potential heretics, so we have rules. But we do not have a legalistic soteriological world view, no. He who imitates Christ will be saved, He who does not, won't. Human nature is such that in order to imitate Christ one better do what the Church proposes, especially the sacramental life. The rest are details.
Rabbinic Judaism most assuredly does not regard the Written Torah as a "checkoff list."
I know, this is why I said "Protestantism". But Judaism is legalistic nevertheless, just not in a Bible-literal way.
We wouldn't know for sure what the actual words were!
That is important for the fundies to make a note of...
Linguistically, though, this is not exactly true; while reading unvocalized Hebrew takes practice, as the experience of everyday life in modern Israel shows, it is not at all incomprehensible. Absence of spaces, by the way, is mitigated by -- I forget what they are called, -- something "sofit"? -- special shape many consonants take when ending a word.
The Protestant concept of the crucifixion is simple and easy to understand
Yeah, but it does not make it the correct one. All the diverse atonement theories together describe something that is really an ineffable truth; to reduce it to simple formula, like your "He took my place in Hell" is silly unless taught to children. Perhaps what "devastated" you was that no one baby-talked to you past certain age?
Ergo, there must be SOMETHING faulty that allows SELECTING her prelates then.
-— Ergo, there must be SOMETHING faulty that allows SELECTING her prelates then. -—
Who chose Judas? Jesus didn’t promise us sinless clerics, or even good ones.
That was my point.
Sex before marriage = fornication.
Yes: promotion and selection of individual priests up the hierarchy can be driven by human error, which the Holy Spirit then corrects. My point is however, that Protestantism is altogether a grave theological error, so that good people or bad cannot produce a good fruit while remaining distinctly Protestant. The result is gross materialism (listen to Joel Osteen and count minutes till he promises you a garage or a swimming pool), loss of selfless faith, belief in ridiculous fables and outright superstition, sex-driven life, fear of the future and deliberate childlessness, — in short, the broken society that we have today.
When; by DEATH?
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
But your chosen religion, which claims infallibility in SOME areas; manages to select sinful ones.
WHY doesn't the Holy Spirit keep that from happening?
Does He WANY folks to leave because of bad leadership?
Is seen by me as a "HEY!!! Look over there!" moment.
Infallibility, not impeccability. And infallibility with respect to instruction in faith and morals.
Looked at it a different way. Despite the fact that some popes have been great sinners, no pope has ever promulgated a doctrine contrary to constant Church teaching.
WHY doesn't the Holy Spirit keep that from happening?
You'd have to ask Him. But I don't see any logical contradiction or difficulty. There have been sinful popes and saintly popes. Why should we expect otherwise?
Does He WANT folks to leave because of bad leadership?
The best argument against Christianity has always been Christians. But we shouldn't expect all Christians to be sinless. We are all works-in-progress. Non-believers seem to think that we all claim to be angels. I don't know any Christians who do.
Even within the 12 hand chosen by Jesus were traitors, deniers, doubters and the overly ambitious. St. Paul too had thorns in his flesh and wrote of the evil that he kept doing.
How hypocritical that some demand that all Catholic clergy live impeccable lives while denying that such a thing is even possible when Mary is discussed.
Peace be with you
Which goes to show that when beating a Catholic, any club will do. That's proven on a daily basis around here ;-)
When them moles pop up; ya just HAVE to WHACK them!
The idiot that composed this list apparently thinks that being lampooned by poets, losing a war or being too fat to fit in a coffin are moral failures.
Yes we had bad popes. The correction of the Holy Spirit is simply that they left no legacy. Can you name an encyclical by any of them and explain what error is taught in it? You cannot because they did not teach anything.
So, on balance: we have a universal loss of faith, the only Protestant sect that is growing is Mormonism with its silly fables, people no longer reproduce, — that is Protestantism. Of several hundred popes one or two had mistresses, — that is Catholicism. You figure out what is important to you.
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.