Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
Well, maybe you aren’t taking me LITERALLY and just “vaguely” literally, or “implicitly” reading between the lines I am actually posting to you. I don’t know.
It’s really not good; it’s really not worth it.
For either of us.
May God bless...
Thank you, D-fendr. I’m beginning to remember why I left FR in the first place. It’s a terrible shame, but it is what it is. There are just some places that I don’t belong, and while I have earnest questions for Protestants and Catholics alike, perhaps this thread isn’t the right place for me, at least, not right now. Thanks for reaching out, though. You take care, too!
God be with you, 'til our paths cross again.
I'm not going to call you a liar, but you are certainly guilty of sloppy or dishonest scholarship. I happen to own the book you cited and it does not contain what you say it does. I have included the entire chapter so you can see what it actually does say.
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE CONSISTENT BELIEVER.
The intolerance of the Church towards error, the natural position of One who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude, makes her forbid her children to read, or listen to, heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truth by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers. And whatever outsiders may think of the correctness of his belief and religious principles, they cannot have two opinions as to the logic and consistency of this stand he takes. They may hurl at him all the choice epithets they choose for being a slave to superstition and erroneous creeds; but they must give him credit for being consistent in his belief; and consistency in religious matters is too rare a commodity these days to be made light of.
The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fullness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit. And if he believes, as he should and does believe, that revealed truth comes, and can come, only by way of external authority, and not by way of private judgment and investigation, he must refuse to be liberal in the sense of reading all sorts of Protestant controversial literature and listening to all kinds of heretical sermons. If he does not this, he is false to his principles; he contradicts himself by accepting and not accepting an infallible Church; he knocks his religious props from under himself and stands--nowhere. The attitude of the Catholic, therefore, is logical and necessary. Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense?
A Protestant may not assume this attitude or impose it upon those under his charge. If he does so, he is out of harmony with his principles and denies the basic rule of his belief. A Protestant believes in no infallible authority; he is an authority unto himself, which authority he does not claim to be infallible, if he is sober and sane. He is after truth; and whatever he finds, and wherever he finds it, he subjects it to his own private judgment. He is free to accept or reject, as he pleases. He is not, cannot be, absolutely certain that what he holds is true; he thinks it is. He may discover to-day that yesterday's truths are not truths at all. We are not here examining the soundness of this doctrine; but it does follow therefrom, sound or unsound, that he may consistently go where he likes to hear religious doctrine exposed and explained, he may listen to whomever has religious information to impart. He not only may do it, but he is consistent only when he does. It is his duty to seek after truth, to read and listen to controversial books and sermons.
If therefore a non-Catholic sincerely believes in private judgment, how can he consistently act like a Catholic who stands on a platform diametrically opposed to his, against which platform it is the very essence of his religion to protest? How can he refuse to hear Catholic preaching and teaching, any more than Baptist, Methodist and Episcopalian doctrines? He has no right to do so, unless he knows all the Catholic Church teaches, which case may be safely put down as one in ten million. He may become a Catholic, or lose all the faith he has. That is one of the risks he has to take, being a Protestant.
If he is faithful to his own principles and understands the Catholic point of view, he must not be surprised if his Catholic friends do not imitate his so-called liberality; they have motives which he has not. If he is honest, he will not urge or even expect them to attend the services of his particular belief. And a Catholic who thinks that because a Protestant friend can accompany him to Catholic services, he too should return the compliment and accompany his friend to Protestant worship, has a faith that needs immediate toning up to the standard of Catholicity; he is in ignorance of the first principles of his religion and belief.
A Catholic philosopher resumes this whole matter briefly, and clearly in two syllogisms, as follows:
(I.)
Major. He who believes in an infallible teacher of revelation cannot consistently listen to any fallible teacher with a view of getting more correct information than his infallible teacher gives him. To do so would be absurd, for it would be to believe and at the same time not believe in the infallible teacher.
Minor. The Catholic believes in an infallible teacher of revelation.
Conclusion. Therefore, the Catholic cannot listen to any fallible teacher with a view of getting more correct information about revealed truth than his Church gives him. To do so would be to stultify himself.
(II.)
Major. He who believes in a fallible teacher--private judgment or fallible church--is free, nay bound, to listen to any teacher who comes along professing to have information to impart, for at no time can he be certain that the findings of his own fallible judgment or church are correct. Each newcomer may be able to give him further light that may cause him to change his mind.
Minor. The Protestant believes in such fallible teacher--his private judgment or church.
Conclusion. Therefore, the Protestant is free to hear, and in perfect harmony with his principles, to accept the teaching of anyone who approaches him for the purpose of instructing him. He is free to hear with a clear conscience, and let his children hear, Catholic teaching, for the Church claiming infallibility is at its worst as good as his private judgment is at best, namely, fallible.
Religious variations are so numerous nowadays that most people care little what another thinks or believes. All they ask is that they may be able to know at any time where he stands; and they insist, as right reason imperiously demands, that, in all things, he remain true to his principles, whatever they be. Honest men respect sincerity and consistency everywhere; they have nothing but contempt for those who stand, now on one foot, now on the other, who have one code for theory and another for practice, who shift their grounds as often as convenience suggests. The Catholic should bear this well in mind. There can be no compromise with principles of truth; to sacrifice them for the sake of convenience is as despicable before man as it is offensive to God
Again, Jesus never gave direct quotes from any of the disputed books, never said the words "it is written...", "thus sayeth the Lord...", "the word of the Lord...". Whereas dozens and dozens of times Jesus did so with the mutually recognized Old Testament books. Besides all that, simply alluding to, having a parallel of a thought or language or speaking of a particular ancient writing in and of itself does NOT automatically presume Divine authority. In Jude, some believe the Book of Enoch was quoted, but that book isn't in the Bible OR the Deuterocanonicals, is it? Some early church fathers quoted from them, but that was not what made them scripture. They quoted from other non-canonical books too, and they are never considered as Scripture either. The Council of Trent did not consider them as Scripture merely because some quoted from them.
But, hey, go right ahead and believe what you want. I'll stick with what I know is God's inspired word, his inerrant and infallible word.
Hi BB, This is actually incorrect. You can always choose to view the most recent posts (as opposed to most recent threads) by clicking on the "comments" tab at the top of the forum.
The "activity" tab hasn't worked for quite some time, but "comments" (posts) and "articles" (threads) both work fine.
That’s an excellent chapter, thanks for going to all the trouble to post it. It also clarifies and gives an enlightening perspective to the arguments on these threads.
Well done.
You may want to do a little research on that Tex. The Eastern Orthodox differ with the Roman Catholics on what even IS the Apocrypha.
The Apocrypha are books of the Old Testament included in Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles as deuterocanonical (added to the earlier canon), but excluded from the Hebrew Bible and from most Protestant Bibles. It is not certain why the term apocrypha (hidden things) was originally applied to them, but they were considered less authoritative than the other biblical books because of their relatively late origin (c. 300 BC - AD 100). Except for 2 Esdras, which was in Latin, they were part of the Septuagint. The other books placed after the Old Testament in the Revised Standard Version are the following: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to the Book of Esther, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch and the Letter (Epistle) of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Hebrew Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon), the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
Roman Catholic Bibles also list 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh as apocryphal. The Greek Orthodox Bible omits 2 Esdras but adds 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151, with 4 Maccabees as an appendix. The Apocrypha are important sources for Jewish history and religious developments in the 1st and 2d centuries BC.
With regard to the the type of post you corrected, I recently came across a quite similar false documentation in history, The Syllabus of Errors.
You’ve likely heard of it. Here’s John Henry Newman’s letter destroying it:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section7.html
You’re in good company.
:)
The type of post I corrected is far too typical on these threads. They are the ones in which those with an agenda will race to post and piece of stinking garbage they think will further their cause without regard for integrity or truth. Are people really so naive as to not realize that anything that can be found on the internet can be fact checked on the internet. Perhaps they expect that everyone will be as intellectually lazy as they are.
My thinking on this whole Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal place in Scripture and the arguments used to demand their acceptance, only proves that the Council of Trent did this to dispute the claims of the Reformation about the Roman Catholic Church adding false doctrine to Christianity not affirmed by Scripture and, more importantly to them, remove the reliability of and recognition of the infallible nature of Holy Scripture. That is why people today don't trust the Bible, think it's made up of fairy tales or trust more in the "Church" to be the infallible authority over and above Holy Scripture from God. And we know EXACTLY where that kind of thinking originated.
Thank you for bringing these writings to my attention. What wonderful and edifying treatises on the beauty, serenity and profoundness of the Catholic faith. I will enjoy reading them in their entirety.
As I believe I am like most Catholics, I have never read them nor even heard of them.
They are very obscure works for the common Catholic today, though I don’t know how widely they were read in their own time.
I easily found the first two, but have not been able to verify the quote from St. Alsponsus De Ligouri so I was not able to read it in context. There are several places where one can download “The True Spouse of Christ”, in it’s entirety, however, there doesn’t seem to be 352 pages and the quote which is attributed to this book is not found in a search for it.
Quite interestingly, I found it readily enough on dozens and dozens of protestant and Anti Catholic websites.
So on that particular one, I will have to cede to you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is from your own personal copy since you have so adequately given the proper citations.
Let us look at what you have posted here which you find so condemnatory of Catholicism and the Church.
**** “Once he does so (joins the Catholic church), he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )*****
It would seem that protestants object to the thought that a Catholic would relinquish his own reason in favor of what the Church teaches. Now, of course, this is only for those things which the Church declares as binding on her members. Not every minute detail of life is dictated by the Church.
Let’s examine however, what happens when one doesn’t. When one supposes that one is better able to judge what is right and what is wrong, then it is a short leap to believing that all manner of sin is okay.
After all, in the judgement of many professed Christians, abortion and gay marriage are okay. Many professed Christian business men thing nothing of cheating their employees of a fair wage, or safe working conditions. Many Christian men and women reason that they can divorce their spouse because they are bored with them or no longer in love with them or for whatever REASON they feel justified in making.
Now, let’s think what Mr. Stapleton means here. Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
Now, I don’t have to use reason to know that Jesus means that when I accept the truth that I am a sinner and He, Jesus, is Truth, sets me free from the wages of my sin.
Have I committed some error by accepting this without reason?
In the same way, if I am a woman wrestling with what to do after becoming pregnant with a child I had not planned on having and/or did not want, I do not have to use reason to know that abortion is a sin, it is murder and no amount of reasoning on my part can change that.
Yet, there are “good” Christians, and yes, even Catholics who use their own judgement as to what is best and find that abortion is not evil when compared to other consequences from having an “unwanted” child.
Yeah, that using one’s own reasoning worked great for that aborted child.
Or how about Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens or any of the other more prominent atheists out there right now. They use their intellect to reason themselves and others out of a belief in God.
If one’s reason and judgement leads one to think that good is evil and evil is good or that there is no God, then using reason is not a virtue it is a vice.
*****All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”*****
Do protestants not do this with the Bible? Why is it shocking or something to be condemned that one who believes that the Catholic church is Christ’s church, should do the same?
Protestants may enjoy thinking that means we are stupid or OH NO!!!! sheep as Jesus calls us, but I declare my communion with His church with gratitude, grateful that the Holy Spirit has removed all sense of human pride from me. I no longer live for myself, but Christ within me, Christ as my Good Shepherd, Christ present for me in His Church.
****“...outside the pale of Rome there is not a scrap of additional truth of Revelation to be found.”****
I have seen nothing yet, from any protestant that did not come to him via the Church. Though most will never admit it, all of their common beliefs were the beliefs of the Catholic church first. In fact, rather than add anything to Revelation, they have taken away from it. And in doing so, they have opened the door to all manner of heretical beliefs.
*****“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-——questions of religion-——to an authority located in Rome.”****
If we belong completely to Christ, then everything in our life must be geared toward Him and our relationship to Him.
There is no more important question to know the answer to than “Is there a God and if so, who is He?”
If I am truly serious about that question, then I must also take seriously how it is I can know Him, love Him and be with Him. If I believe the church is Christ’s church, then why would I trust any other authority on such a “momentous question”?
And, through the grace of God and His goodness, I have three supports on which to rest my questioning mind and heart, Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
I do not have to lean unto my own understanding, but rather trust in the words my Savior said to the Apostles, “As the Father sent me, so I send you.”
****“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God’s Church on matters of faith and morals-——this is what all must give..”****
“But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
I refer back to what I said regarding personal reason and judgement.
****“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”****
The operative words here are “according to the teaching of the church”. Again, if I am a true Catholic, one who believes in the Church as Christ’s church, I have no problem with this. When the pope speaks in a way that is binding on the faithful, I can trust that the Holy Spirit has led him to that declaration.
*****“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” - “Henry G. Graham, “What Faith Really Means”, (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )*****
“He who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me and he who rejects me, rejects the One who sent me.”
Enough said. As you believe in the authority of Scripture above all else, I believe in the authority of the Church to protect, proclaim and defend the truth.
When the Apostles declared at the Council of Jerusalem that Gentiles would not have to be circumcised to join them, it was accepted as if Jesus Himself had declared it, as Truth.
That hasn’t changed with His Church and I humbly accept those Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom.
As for the last bit. I couldn’t find this anywhere but on certain websites claiming that this is contained in the book by St. Alphonsus. From what I could see, this was a book written for nuns about how to live the life of a devoted religious. Notice too there is no imprimatur for that book.
I won’t comment on what I wasn’t able to independently verify.
St. Alphonsus was one to use lofty and extreme language in his writings. Without having read it or seen it in context, I won’t comment.
I apologize for the length of this post.
I encourage anyone with any interest in seeing what is actually written by these men to take the time to seek them out and see why they have written what they have written.
Explore the theology behind them rather than be intimidated by the bits and pieces used here as scare tactics. Learn about them from their true source and not in the abbreviated and redacted form some would present them in, so as to try to use them as a club to bash what they reject instead of promoting them as the encouraging words of one who loves Jesus and His Church.
****The type of post I corrected is far too typical on these threads. They are the ones in which those with an agenda will race to post and piece of stinking garbage they think will further their cause without regard for integrity or truth.****
It is a case of taking a little bit from here and a little bit from there and cobbling together a “frankenstein” religion that they use to scare all the poor ignorant townfolk.
All of these are easily understood and defended once they are read as the author intended and not excerpted and redacted into a “chopped and formed” nugget of bigotry.
One thing I learned from looking up these passages is that they all go to the same Bible study group.
It makes you wonder why they spend more time in those groups preaching against the Church than studying the Bible.
Interesting. Thanks!
They believe and they are saved, so I guess there’s nothing for them to do while biding their time here waiting to be raptured.
I mean really, what else is there to study on?
One or two passages tells them they are all good, so what use is the rest? What more is there to do?
Your argument, may I remind you, was that no Catholic is supposed to "blindly believe", yet these statements certainly express this clearly enough. And let's not forget Unam Sanctum or other such "bulls" and dogmatic proclamations over the centuries not to mention the Catechism. So while this reference is being clarified, why not work on the others. I know it may be difficult to pass up the opportunity to impugn an opponent's credibility or scholarship, but do try to consider the actual point of this and that all is not lost IF a mistake was unintentionally made.
>>>>>>>I copied that quote from another person’s post, and it SHOULD have been familiar since it has been posted here three times
So any discrepancy is not your fault, but some other mythical poster’s error?
It seems that impeaching your sources is fruitful, when one is searching for 1 your meaning and 2 the truthe
I certainly hope that everyone reading this thread will go to the links given and follow them to their sources. Those so-called “Bible studies” appear to be something else entirely at times.
>>>>>>>I copied that quote from another person’s post, and it SHOULD have been familiar since it has been posted here three times
So any discrepancy is not your fault, but some other mythical poster’s error?
It seems that impeaching your sources is fruitful, when one is searching for 1 your meaning and 2 the truthe
I certainly hope that everyone reading this thread will go to the links given and follow them to their sources. Those so-called “Bible studies” appear to be something else entirely at times.
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.