Posted on 06/17/2014 4:24:37 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
The names, ages, and causes of death of all 796 children who died at St. Mary's Home ... in Tuam, Co. Galway from 1925 to 1960 have been published in full, below.
The list is long, and reading it is a horrifying heartbreaking experience - though nowhere near as horrifying as the short lives of the children who died, or as heartbreaking as the sheer number of lost little lives.
When she began her research, Catherine Corless ... the local historian who set out to uncover the truth about the bones buried at the site of the former Mother and Baby Home, had no idea the number of deaths would be that high.
As she told Irish Central's Cahir O'Doherty ... she was simply looking for records - something neither the Order of the Bon Secours nuns, who ran the home, nor the Western Health Board, were able to help her with.
"Eventually I had the idea to contact the registry office in Galway. I remembered a law was enacted in 1932 to register every death in the country.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at irishcentral.com ...
That's fine, but I did not know that. Daniel is free to classify my posts however he pleases, but they are not bigotry objectively.
make derogatory statements towards ALL "Protestants" on a regular basis
Right. I do. Thank you for pointing out that they are to ALL and not personal attacks. It is your theology that is laughable, not your persons.
it doesn't mean I have obfuscated anything
Well, how do you think Luther's thesis of salvation by with alone squares with the second half of Chapter 2 of the Letter of St. James? Give it a try and I will have, I am sure, a fine example of Protestant obfuscation of scripture. Not of dogmatic disagreement with the Church dogma, but obfuscation of a clear inspired text.
One was by you, which was after another poster insisted there was never even a bit of anti-Protestant bigotry on FR by Catholics while claiming/complaining about anti-Catholic by Prots. As pointed out, the former was a claim to omniscience, while the poster continually refused to provide his definition of bigotry.
As this went on and on, and as I do save my posts as a rule, i took time to look there and on FR somewhat, and provided a list of things among which i thought a reasonable person would find some things sounding bigoted, if consistent with he saw as bigotry from the other side, but absent a definition or any examples of anti-Catholic bigotry this was denied.
Right. I do. Thank you for pointing out that they are to ALL and not personal attacks. It is your theology that is laughable, not your persons.
Whether any were personal i cannot say, but the one candidate i supplied was definitely to all,
Protestants are by inclination vandals, and should be eradicated from the face of the earth just for that, -- and soon they will be a dark historical memory in Christendom, just like the iconoclast have become. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=2884#2884
I dare say your medieval RC side came out there, though you corrected your slip up after a bit,
I should have said "ProtestantISM" meaning not people but ideology...To the extent that an individual Protestant subscribes to this aspect of Protestantism, he is a vandal by inclination. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=2884#2884 .
But in hindsight, lacking any clear definition or examples, this omniscient assertion of complete absence of Cath. anti-Prot bigotry was probably not worth the time to deal with it .
Haven't you read all the comments given to you over the years that answer your presumed "poser"? There is no need at all for obfuscation OR ignoring of what Scripture says. In fact, I've seen nothing but Catholics' OWN attempts to obfuscate and explain away all the REST of Scripture which disproves the faulty assumption Catholicism makes to insist salvation is by faith AND works based on a few misinterpreted verses.
Contrary to your conclusion, Luther did a FINE job of teaching the place works have in the life of a Christian. It's not something I have ever denied, either. Perhaps if you had read and paid attention to them over the years instead of thinking ahead of ways to attack and blame, you wouldn't continue to make the same false accusations.
Here is what Luther said about the subject of faith and works, from http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt
Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.
Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools.
Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.
And, from Reformation faith and works, it is further explained:
Eph. 2:10 A regenerated sinner becomes a living soul; he lives a life of holiness, being born of God: he lives, being delivered from the guilt of sin, by pardoning and justifying grace. All is the free gift of God, and the effect of being quickened by his power. It was his purpose, to which he prepared us, by blessing us with the knowledge of his will, and his Holy Spirit producing such a change in us, that we should glorify God by our good conversation, and perseverance in holiness. None can from Scripture abuse this doctrine, or accuse it of any tendency to evil. All who do so, are without excuse. — Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible
James 2:14 In order to a proper interpretation of this passage, it should be observed that the stand-point from which the apostle views this subject is not before a man is converted, inquiring in what way he may be justified before God, or on what ground his sins may be forgiven; but it is after a man is converted, showing that that faith can have no value which is not followed by good works; that is, that it is not real faith, and that good works are necessary if a man would have evidence that he is justified. Thus understood, all that James says is in entire accordance with what is taught elsewhere in the New Testament. — Albert Barnes (1798-1870), Notes on the Bible
Jas 2:14 From Jam. 1:22, the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice. He now applies to those who neglect this, under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught that "a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." This some began already to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (Jam. 2:21, Jam. 2:23, Jam. 2:25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples, which St. Paul had used, Rom. 4:3, Heb. 11:17, Heb. 11:31, refutes not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. — John Wesley
James 2:14-26 6. We are taught that a justifying faith cannot be without works, from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Those who would have Abraham's blessings must be careful to copy after his faith: to boast of being Abraham's seed will not avail any, if they do not believe as he did... [2.] Those works which evidence true faith must to works of self-denial, and such as God himself commands (as Abraham's offering up his son, his only son, was), and not such works as are pleasing to flesh and blood and may serve our interest, or are the mere fruits of our own imagination and devising. — Matthew Henry (1662 – 1714), Commentary on the Whole Bible
Jas 2:14-26 Those are wrong who put a mere notional belief of the gospel for the whole of evangelical religion, as many now do. No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. A bare profession may gain the good opinion of pious people; and it may procure, in some cases, worldly good things; but what profit will it be, for any to gain the whole world, and to lose their souls?...True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of the whole heart. — Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible
Jas 2:17 If it hath not works, is dead - The faith that does not produce works of charity and mercy is without the living principle which animates all true faith, that is, love to God and love to man. — Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832), Commentary on the Bible
Jas 2:14-18 Even so faith. Faith that has no power to bring one to obedience and to sway the life is as worthless as good wishes which end in words. — The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. It is like a lifeless carcass, a body without a soul, Jam. 2:26 for as works, without faith, are dead works, so faith, without works, is a dead faith, and not like the lively hope and faith of regenerated persons: — Dr. John Gill (1690-1771), Exposition of the Entire Bible
“If the works which living faith produces have no existence, it is a proof that faith itself (literally, ‘in respect to itself’) has no existence; that is, that what one boasts of as faith, is dead.” “Faith” is said to be “dead in itself,” because when it has works it is alive, and it is discerned to be so, not in respect to its works, but in respect to itself. — Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jas 2:17 So likewise that faith which hath not works is a mere dead, empty notion; of no more profit to him that hath it, than the bidding the naked be clothed is to him. — John Wesley
Even so faith; that which they boasted of, and called faith. Is dead; void of that life, in which the very essence of faith consists, and which always discovers itself in vital actings and good fruits, where it is not hindered by some forcible impediment; in allusion to a corpse, which plainly appears to have no vital principle in it, all vital operations being ceased. It resembles a man’s body, and is called so, but in reality is not so, but a dead carcass. — Matthew Poole (1624 -1679)
It sounds to me like Luther and the Reformers had a pretty good handle on the subject of works in the life of a believer. I've seen the way some Roman Catholics explain away and obfuscate the myriad verses that tell us salvation is a gift of God BY His grace THROUGH faith and not by our works and they don't at all square with what Christians have always believed about Christ.
I'll take that as indication that you were going out of your way, making deliberate effort to "offend" me personally, in that other note, which you have cross-linked to.
There is admission to as much, in the above quote, at the top of this note, highlighted.
Yet I was not as much offended, as I was very much amused in that instance, due to the last line of your note -- which words of your own have otherwise been featured up-thread, and in your here reply too, to which I am responding. That additional portion was accurately enough identified as example, for expression here at FR of "anti-Protestant" Catholic bigotry, silly as it was. ;^')
As for the particular portion of [silly] comment which was highlighted (as seen below) and by others here, was turned around to see if it would considered to be bigoted statement if aimed at Catholics, instead of "Protestants";
I was struck by the apparently unintended notes of humor there, whether you intended that or not (I think "not") for this;
is rather hilarious, more so at the ending than the opening, while that beginning portion is nothing really much more than self-reverential prideful posturing, the pose assumed while gathering up the venomous phlegm (intended to cause offense or otherwise be insulting, by design, but is still somewhat laughable in and of itself, speaking of "pitiful") which in the end (due to the high winds of what could be called 'historical reality') blows it right back into the face that spat it.
I don't have to do anything...it happens automatically, as surely as wind blows somewhere all the time...
But let's have a closer look at the phlegm, (everybody put on the nitrile gloves, cuz' this stuff can be a bit toxic, coming as it did from the [ahem] reservoir of abundance that it did, before exiting a human mouth) eye protection recommended.
Superstitions? ...not only superstitions, but "Protestant" ones?
Right around here is when I just have to bust out laughing out loud ...what in the world...no wait...that's why the phlegm is on the face which it is now, for I myself am not particularly superstitious, and one can scarcely point to a so-called "Protestant" superstition which is typically a part of those sort of persons' faith, or by reams of sophistry & intricately spun & woven (and cherished!) "obfuscations" give place for and make excuse for superstitions to be found nestled within their theology, and are not much displayed in literal & physical sense either, in "Protestant" and/or other-than-Roman Catholic, Christian church buildings and sanctuaries.
There may be "superstitious" iconoclasts in this world, but more logically, for a person to be either, precludes a person from being anything much of the other.
That this sort of phlegm flinging (over "pathetic" superstitions, no less!) came from a notoriously vociferous "anti-Protestant" Catholic comes along in wider context of there being categorical denial that there is any such thing as expressions of "anti-Protestant" Catholic bigotries (and even 'Catholic' hate, or expressions of hatred for "Protestants") often seen on the pages of the 'religion' sub-forum here on FR, does make many of the more self-aware but possibly less self-reverential around here wonder --- can *some* people around here, even hear themselves talk?
The claim there are no Catholic expressions of bigotry around here (not one iota! --we have been told), and the concurrent and parallel notions that 'Catholics' are always correct and right in pretty much all things ---- thus justified in whatever condemnations they may wish to spew out at those whom do *not* self-identify as Catholic, whether the condemnations come by way of carefully constructed criticisms (the better to stealthily condemn all things "not" Roman Catholic, along with condemnation of persons here whom dare venture criticisms for "things" Roman Catholic, in particular) and those persons not 'Catholic' --- only possibly themselves correct in much of ANYTHING --> when or if they agree with whichever Catholic it is who is doing the talking at any one moment, is painfully enough self-evident (by the very existence of the attitudes and prejudice) on this forum, and sadly enough, is much as "the Catholic faith" is itself, which faith, though does hold and adhere to many truths, those truths are at place & junctures well combined with a plethora of 'little white lies', the better to keep it and hold it to be, exclusively regarded as (alleged to be) "Catholic".
We are on this forum subjected to relentless daily trumpeting of RCC claims to their singular wonderfulness, buttressed then by (tiny little) crashing waves of rhetorical attack (usually just brief snide comment) against anything not seen as 'Catholic' -- but if it is perceived to be in the least 'good', it is grabbed up and said to be theirs and everybody owes them some form of continual reverse reparations for it, whatever it is, even if the RCC was formally, previously against it, and maybe still is, according to which Catholic *expert* may be doing the talking ...paging Micheal Voris, drop ye olde hairbrush, and pick up the white courtesy phone, you have a crank call on line 1... along with all the defensive excuse-making, which when drilled down into can often turn into being more or less like if there is anything ever "bad" it's just bad people and/or sinners doing the sinning (not The Church™!)-- except when sinners are seen in other churches -- well then, that's PROOF i tell 'ya, that that church over there is not a 'true' church. On and on it goes...double standards covered by blankets (of excuses) which are shot through with many holes, as can be seen plain enough when the thumb-sucking navel-gazing ends, and the blanket held up to the light.
And no...it wasn't knitted up like an Afghan in the first place...and all those little holes all over the place were not intended to be there from the get-go, for we have been told up one side and down the other for years -- there are "no holes" in the apologetic. "If you keep insisting there are, well then, that just proves you are a "hater"! "Just like we (Über-Catholics) have been saying for years. You are proving us to be right by your very telling us that we are wrong" "Only haters sees holes."
We've heard it all a million times, we've uncovered many or most of the inherent falsehoods which are portion of the mixture of the glue, which holds the whole mess together. Crafted (manufactured, hand-of-man messing and muddling with the things of God) over the centuries, with some particular errors well blended in with even truth itself (which is what makes it so very painful --and difficult to fairly enough separate the truth from the fictions, while harming not that which is otherwise true) then covered over with slathers of sophistry enough to turn the faults themselves into being included in what is said must be believed.
But, according to annalex -- "Protestants lie...to cover up...superstitions"????
BWAAAHAAAHAHHHAAA, oh that's a good one, pull the other leg, you're killing me BAWAAAHAHAAA!
It's an actual term used in the past BY papists. Imagine that! Here's an idea...instead of finding offense or being offended by terms others use, why not incorporate it into your tagline like I have done. It helps to take the sting out of it - if you are feeling stung, that is. :o)
Very good analogy! This "patchwork quilt/afghan" has had so many patches added over time that the quilt barely resembles the original anymore. It has become almost an entirely NEW religion today and, though the label may say "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church", the construction placed in front of us every day on these forums would NOT be recognized by Sts. Peter and Paul nor, I dare say, by the first and second century Christians.
Why so defensive? All I did is post the definition so that you understand what you’re doing.
People sometimes use words without knowing the meaning.
You felt the need to explain its “offensive” nature
You seem confused. I didn't explain anything. All I did was post the definition.
I tried to help you deal with that defensive persecution complex.
It's interesting that posting the definition of a word to you suddenly turns you into a psychoanalyst.
Everybody got it wrong for 1,500 years, then brother Luther came along and got it right. Lord, help us.
None was a personal attack; I barely can tell one protestant from another, let alone have any opinion about their persons.
I never claimed anything in general about Catholics on FR; quite possibly some Catholics posts are bigoted as well. But I insist that acute dislike and contempt for Protestant theology and methods is not bigoted by definition, so long as the poster points out the facts he dislikes. Of course the same is true with respect to Catholicism, or the race relations or what have you. Negative opinion in itself is not bigotry. It becomes bigotry when the opinion is formed in absence of knowledge.
Yes I made a few sharp posts, but when it appeared personal or not substantiated, I would rephrase or apologize, as your examples show.
Right, that is perfect examples of Protestant obfuscation, when the simple fact remains that the Bible says one thing and your central doctrine says its opposite. The very length of your “explanations” shows dishonesty.
Ah, good. Have a good day.
“Such humility!”
Yes. I often fail to maintain humility in the face of willful, obdurate ignorance and/or stupidity. I know that this is a grievous failing, and I know that the stupid cannot help it, so I usually cut them all kinds of slack. It is when they insist, forcefully, that their stupidity is wisdom that they get my goat. Mea culpa. I will answer to God for that.
The willfully ignorant, likewise, arouse a desire to help them, but the attempt to do so is usually met with wrong-headed, wrong-hearted nastiness. My sympathy for them quickly erodes.
“Because any example of such bigotry must be crap and cannot possibly meet the high criteria you have for what qualifies as “bigotry?”
No, because I recognize bigotry when I see it. Frequent reality checks down the decades continue to affirm the accuracy of my opinion. Your opinion is erroneous. It’s as simple as that.
For all I know you may be an excellent judge of, oh, racial bigotry for instance, but not on this subject.
“You can’t give a yes or no answer”
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no.
“because you already DO realize that crap goes on here by your fellow Papists a lot of times”
That notion derives from your blind spot WRT religious bigotry.
“What started this so-called challenge of yours was your adamant and outraged insistence that anti-Catholic bigotry ran rampant here”
Tell the TV audience—is that a lie, have you forgotten, or did you never know?
What started this decade’s iteration of this discussion was my calm assertion—since borne out by the failure to produce contrary evidence—that anti-Protestant bigotry does *not* run rampant here.
The strategy of Satan’s side in this debate has been to try and reframe it as you describe. That would have the effect of putting the burden of proof on me, which is why Satan’s side decided that lying would advantage them here.
“Catholics were being picked on by “Protestant” Freepers with impunity”
There is no need to put the word “Protestant” in quotation marks, unless you mean to imply that those arguing Satan’s position here are not Protestants at all. So, what would that make them?
“and you poor persecuted Catholics NEVER lashed out with such against Protestants.”
No, there again you utilize Satan’s strategy of restating my position into something more easily discredited.
My policy is to avoid using the word “never” as much as possible. What I said was that nothing Catholics had said even approached the offensiveness of what Protestants had said, OWTTE.
“Daniel1212 FreepMailed you a list and you balked at them.”
I recognized that none of them constituted, or even approached, bigotry. Try memorizing this phrase: “legitimate difference of religious opinion.” Don’t be too upset that you don’t understand it. We can hope *that* will come later.
“refuse to see what a sane, objective, sufficiently intelligent person does.”
Some Protestants on FR lack the slightest scintilla of objectivity on this subject.
“How laughable that you say you now will deign to consider whether such a posted comment qualifies as bigotry!”
Well, *somebody* has to try and open your eyes, and I have a thick skin.
“I guarantee that if a non-Catholic had said those words you would have jumped on it like white on rice”
Those on Satan’s side of this debate have tried various childish stratagems in the effort to trick me into just that. In all cases I have replied honestly that the examples you hoped would provoke me did not constitute bigotry.
“No doubt because they came from a Catholic TOWARDS a Protestant, it will NOT be seen as an example of bigotry”
No doubt I will consider the matter honestly and objectively.
The accepted definition of bigotry is this: “Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred.” (I went with Wiki because this definition has undergone at least some public review.)
Let’s consider the statement you offer in this light.
“It is also possible that the anti-Catholic hounds of the mass media just did a thorough and honest investigation without any bias whatsoever and are now reporting it. But somehow I still think that ducks quack, Protestants lie and obfuscate to defend their pitiful superstitions, and the left wing media keeps doing what it is designed to do: produce hoaxes.”
Does this statement reflect fear, distrust or hatred of other people?
Not in and of itself. Those things have to be read into it by the observer.
Not stopping there, though, let’s look a little closer.
An assertion that the statement reflects fear can be dismissed out of hand. There’s just no “there” there.
An assertion that it reflects distrust, however, would at first blush seem to have a bit more substance. After all, the speaker obviously believes that at least some of the Protestants’ interpretations of Scripture and resulting beliefs are mistaken. That might be taken as distrust of their judgment.
Why, though, is that not a legitimate difference of religious opinion? Every believer thinks that his religious beliefs are correct—or at least more correct than others—or those would not be his beliefs. I don’t see that it’s likely to spill over into the real world. There’s no indication that the speaker does not extend to others the right to be wrong. Absent that, the charge of bigotry is not supported.
Lastly, how about “hatred?” That’s one of the most popular accusations in America today. Any failure of enthusiastic endorsement can only be due to hatred, as long as the subject is one of the left’s pet causes.
But does this statement really reflect hatred? The object is “pitiful superstitions.” Does that sound like something the speaker hates, or something for which he has contempt? It might even reflect pity, especially given that the word “pitiful” was chosen.
A Protestant might say, “It’s still offensive,” and I would agree that a reasonable person might be offended. But contempt and pity are not hatred, and this does not support the charge of bigotry.
You might try again, but I’m getting awfully tired of this and might not answer.
Like I didn't see THAT coming! What you continue to miss in this endless argument about justification to salvation in a Christian's life is that Luther, NOR the other Reformers, invented the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works - it was something believed from the very start of Christianity and amply attested to by the early church "fathers". Why don't you look to WHY the Roman Catholic religion changed their doctrine to stating a person was saved by faith AND works? It didn't always hold to that. Doesn't it concern you that they DID change? We have sacred Scripture to inform our tenets of the Christian faith and it is to that which we can always return when disagreement is found. That IS something that God intended for His holy word.
You need to read James. You know the apostle that Luther hated because he said faith without works is dead.
"False but accurate."
"Protestants obfuscation"?! I doubt you know what the term even means. Are you now saying you are only into "sound bite" and twitter feed theology or that if an idea cannot be condensed into 140 characters or less, you won't consider it? The sheer irony of your comment is unmistakable when we consider the endless libraries of Catholic church canons, bulls, catechisms and "apostolic" letters and constitutions created over the years to explain Roman Catholicism's differences with what Scripture plainly says and their reasons why they contend it doesn't mean what it says. If "length" of explanation is a key to its dishonesty, then you have much to condemn in your own religion.
As any student of the Bible knows, Scripture interprets Scripture. You cannot remove a passage from its context, audience and purpose, divorce it from other verses that expound on terms and further explain points and then expect a clear basis for a doctrine from a single or a few verses. Especially not the doctrine of justification - the basis of our Christian faith.
Go ahead, annalex, believe that your works save you. Believe you must merit eternal life and God OWES it to you after you've jumped through all the hoops your religion mandates. I'll continue to pray that the Lord opens your eyes and heart to the truth of His glorious grace and you discover what living an abundant life of faith is all about.
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.