Replies

"Actually, this is not what shows superficial or dishonest research, and as i am the one that originally posted this then let me respond to you both."

Actually it is a brazen attempt to draw a conclusion from the parsing of an entire chapter using a context and intent not present in the original material. I expected far better from you.

I will son address this charge, but actually NL, it is you who are leaving things out, as your charge was not simply that of your usual out-of-context assertion, but was that of of specifically and repeatedly denigrating poster as in “you are certainly guilty of sloppy or dishonest scholarship” because “I happen to own the book you cited and it does not contain what you say it does,” and “that passage is NOT contained within the book quoted,” and calling it “the falsified version.. “ and now you mean to tell me that after falsely charging someone with either negligence or deception on that basis, and that was manifestly a basis, you are just going to continue your diatribe without even apologizing? What should you be considered worthy of further exchange? And unless you do, do not bother to respond.

But as your additional charges to me.

:And in context Stapleton teaches that once one decides to trust Rome, there is no more need to seek for revealed truth, as Rome has become his source and supreme authority, which was the issue."

Even that is not a complete portrayal of what Fr. Stapleton wrote or intended. You originally omitted the title of the chapter drawing the reader to a conclusion that the Church demands obedience without reason when the entire Chapter provides a reasoned argument to trust the Church in matters of faith. That is a twist that even the New York Times would applaud.

Actually, it is Stapleton who states “he can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door,” and if you who read the my post you can see the quote was was distinctly qualified by me, that once he once he joins the Catholic church “he has no further use for his reason,” which level of faith was and remains the issue. The fact that one is leaving reason once he joins the church (and is given “the superior light of revelation and faith,” and wherein he must believe things without the immediate help of reason) presupposes a prior use of reason, but the subject was the basic requirement of Catholics to thus obey.

In addition, my post to Boatbum's post was on the basic requirement of Catholics to follow with Christian obedience their pastors, was without commentary. In other posts as other times i have supplied material on when Catholics can dissent. I did not know the whole scope of boatbum's contention, but no one TMK was arguing that the Church demands obedience without reason before they enter, or that the required submission after that is not done by full consent, which is what you misunderstood me before as arguing.

But i do apologize for not taking the time to add more explanatory comments, which would have clarified the conditions of such requirements, as i have done so in the past, though it is my experience that nothing is satisfactory to some Catholic posters if it in any way impugns upon their exaltation of Rome.

I seriously doubt that you read the entire book or even the entire Chapters you cited. These snippets are available, completely out of context and without a sympathetic representation of original intent on any number of anti-Catholic websites. That is sloppy if not dishonest scholarship.

So in the light of the manifestation of your unfamiliarity with the book, being ignorant of the text you charge was absent and falsified but which was 4 chapters ahead of what you quoted, and of your failure to see it in the attribution which i supplied, your response is to malign the poster who did the research and posted both chapters in attribution? And who had read enough of it as to add the qualifying statement that this leaving of reason was after one joins the church?

And again, the post was on the basic issue of the need for Catholics to obey, and was to a Protestant, and the statements were carefully attributed (though i a link to Stapleton as well would have helped), and are fitting, and in my next post ,which was to the same poster, i mentioned the official requirement for implicit obedience was limited to infallible decrees, and then i confirmed to you in my next post that Roman Catholic have freedom for some degree of dissent in the majority of what she teaches and believes, and which explanations went beyond what i have seen you state in response to this issue here.

Similar is your treatment of the THE TRUE SPOUSE OF JESUS CHRIST; OR, THE NUN SANCTIFIED BY THE VIRTUES OF HER STATE.(Note; you truncated the title too) You mislead the reader into believing that this is a teaching to all Catholics when in fact it is a treatise for Nuns and other religious. The quote you cited is not in the work, which is only 177 pages (not the 358+ in your citation) and the call to obedience is to emulate Mary's obedience to the Holy Spirit. The book, along with many of his other writings can be found at http://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/pdf/liguori-true-spouse-of-jesus-christ.pdf.

Thou doth protest too much and too soon. I did not shorten the title, which is another, if minor, false charge (rather than hastily jumping to an accusatory conclusion, you should have said the title you supplied is a truncated one), and which infers i did something deliberately deceptive, as instead i gave it as i received it, not being cognizant of any other, and this shorter, primary title is found in Catholic resources themselves.

And despite your protestations, again, these quotes were simply various verses on the subject of obedience to a Prot, providing examples of to one poster on how it was, and without commentary, (I” have nor been following this thread much, but i think these may be relevant to your post”) :, and I hardly think anyone here understood this one as applying to laity now. It clearly refers to one's confessor, and Liguori is famous as a spiritual writer, and i assume that for present and former Roman Catholics here it would be apparent, as it was to me without reading anything more, that it refers to those in religious vocations. And again, my next comments after this post clarified that implicit obedience is what is required for infallible decrees, while some Catholic writers themselves unclear statements as regards obedience being required of Rome.

As for your absolute statement the statement by Liguori is not in that work, and that it is only 177 pages, what you found is not proof, as there is more than one version (with a Second Edition Revised) and printings, with different numbers of pages (one has with 300 pages, and another old Protestant work has the quote form page 445) and i have found online versions some are missing content that others have. And Google book searching shows the text in its book searches, “Obey blindly; that is, without asking reasons. Be careful, then, never to examine the directions of your confessor....that in obeying your confessor, you obey God; force yourself, then, to obey him in spite of all your fears. And be persuaded that if you are not obedient to him, it will be impossible for you to go on well; but if you obey, you are always secure. But, you say, if I am damned in consequence of obeying my confessor, who will rescue me from hell? What you say is impossible; for, it is not possible that obedience, which is the secure way to heaven, should be for you the road to hell." — St. Alphonsus De Liguori, The complete works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori: the ascetical works: Volumes 10-11, which is also offered as The True Spouse of Jesus Christ in the previous link, so that shows it shows it coming from de Liguori, although Google books does not supply the viewing of it except by searching parts of the quote.

The quote, “But you say, if I am damned, in consequence of obeying my confessor, who will rescue me from hell?” is also found in “God the teacher of mankind: or, Popular Catholic theology, ...: Volume 3 - Page 292, by Michael Müller, who indicates he was familiar with Liguori (p. 290). And i found Liguori makes much the same point in “The vocation to the religious state”, p. 45,46, which expresses the nature of obedience he exhorts for those in religious vocations clearer:

“He, then, who wishes to enter religion must resolve to renounce altogether his own will, and to will only what holy obedience wills. God preserve any religious from ever letting fall from his mouth the words / will or / .will not I But in all things, even when asked by Superiors, what he desires, he should only answer, / wish that which holy obedience wills. And, provided there is no evident sin, he should in every command imposed on him obey blindly and without examination; because the duty of examining and deciding the doubts belongs not to him, but to his Superiors. Otherwise, if in obeying he does not submit his own judgment to that of the Superior, his obedience will be imperfect. St. Ignatius of Loyola said thai prudence in things of obedience is not required in subjects, but in Superiors; and if there is prudence in obeying, it is to obey without prudence. St. Bernard says, "Perfect obedience is indiscreet" (De Vit. sol.); and in another place he said, " For a prudent novice to remain in the congregation is an impossible thing;" and adding the reason for it, he said : "To judge belongs to the Superior, and to obey to the subject" (/bid.).' (http://books.google.com/books?id=0jtGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA46&ots=abaEOZuwV3&dq=%22Obey+blindly,+without+asking%22+Liguori&output=text)

Thus rather than the text being absent as per your manner of research, what is best evidenced is that it is a genuine Liguori quote.

I asked a number of questions earlier on this thread that have not even been acknowledged. Perhaps you would like to respond:

Again until you apologize for your slander, why should these be replied to? But i will answer these in the light of your stone throwing. .

-Do you believe or expect anyone else to believe that God needs to lie to reach Catholics or that He would approve of these deceptions?

No, and i myself try to avoid extreme claims, and work to substantiate things. And these posts at issue are not willful deceptions unless they are used to assert that Roman Catholics must give implicit assent to all that Rome teaches, which i clearly clarified was not the case, or were fabrication, which is not the case. However, as you are the one who lied, first by denigrating a poster as sloppy or deceptive by posting a supposedly non-existent, fabricated quote when it was you who was negligent, and then by arguing it was all about misrepresentation when it was not all that it was about, and inferring concluding i i then you must ask yourself this question and the next as regards defending Rome.

-Who is the “Father of Lies” and who do you think these falsehoods actually serve?

Falsehoods are counterproductive, and while things like exaggerated numbers of those killed in the inquisitions are wrong and unnecessary to condemn them, you need to ask who authored the forgeries and propaganda, even if in part, which were used by Rome, such as the Pseudo-Isidore decretals and the Donation of Constantine.

-Why is it that there needs to be and are so very many false assertions made about Catholicism?

Ask Catholics who made the above, and also make them about men like Luther (who confessed faults of his own) and which need correction, but it does happen on this side, and i think it probably is because they are ignorant of facts, which is much due to Rome's failure as a teacher on the practical level, as vast multitudes or Roman Catholics are confused as to what doctrine of Rome. But Rome herself supplies what is needed to expose her false teachings, while i agree that fallacious arguments are counterproductive, as are reactionary Catholics who are too quick to judge others who oppose Rome, and who go to extremes in their zeal to defend Rome.

-Why is it necessary to go to the extremes of having to hide these lies within falsified documents and attributions?

Ask the ones like yourself who makes false charges of lying or negligence, due to their own negligence to read an attribution, and who fail to apologize for it but instead misrepresent what the specific charge was which was responded to.

-Why is the intensity of this hatred so great that there had to be a list of banned websites and sources within the Religion Forum when there is to corresponding listing of Catholic sponsored anti-Protestant sites and material?

Why is the intensity of this hatred against Protestant so great that your false charges took place, and a Catholic site is denigrate as a dumpster simply because it supplied something that was used against Rome? As for the banned websites, i think that is because, as you have repeatedly shown, Roman Catholics doth protest too much, due to their church being much their salvation, while we show more tolerance.

-Why are there so very many anti-Catholic pejorative terms and monikers when there are almost none by Catholics against other faiths?

Why do over protective Catholic even consider using “Rome” or “Roman church” to be offensive?

-Why is it that you and so many others are so very eager to accept and repeat these falsified factoids about the Church without verification?

No statement i have provided was shown to be false, the only question is what book the Liguori statement comes from. Meanwhile, why is it that you and so many others are so very eager to accuse your opposition of falsifying when they are verifiably not false?

-Have you ever considered why Catholics continue to come to this cesspool of lies and go to the trouble sifting through the garbage to sort fact from fiction over and over again?

Have you ever considered why certain Catholics call things a lie when it is used against their church even when the statement is verifiably true, and is accessible for anyone to examine.

We are waiting for your apology.