Posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:14 AM PDT by Cronos
I want to thank Archbishop William E. Lori for reminding me once again why I'm an ex-Catholic ("Fight for freedom," June 27). With the so-called "Fortnight for Freedom," the church leadership is deliberately and cynically using a mixture of patriotism and religion in a blatant and manipulative attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.
I can't seem to recall any recent news about Catholic churches being bombed in the United States or attempts to bar American Catholics from attending mass. I do know that the Catholic Church has been using its "religious freedom" for decades to aid and abet child abusers, to recently attack nuns in the United States who are at the forefront of what used to be one of the church's primary missions to aid and comfort the poor and needy, and that the American church has over the past few decades formed an alliance with some of the most strident and politically active right-wing religious groups in the U.S. Archbishop Lori even received an award in May from a coalition of some of those groups.
I am proud to be an American, and I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights. I support freedom of religion, and I support freedom from religion. And, at this moment in time, I am also very proud and happy to be an ex-Catholic.
Sandy Covahey, Baltimore
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Oh for Pete’s sakes. You are not being threatened nor was he for those kinds of posts. He is no longer with us due to his AFer activity plus ignoring mod instructions to stay away from certain subjects.
I am a NY Catholic, (born and raised in NYC, now on Long Island) and Hell itself would literally have to freeze over before I voted Dem.
Of the other Catholics I know who attend Mass at least weekly primarily vote as I do. Among other Latin Mass attendees such as myself, I do not know a single lib. We are all solid conservatives.
The Christmas/Easter crowd, sadly, is less reliable. This group consists of people too lazy to get out of bed on Sunday morning and those who are angry with the Church because She won’t bend on divorce and contraception. These swing about 50/50 either way, and I’d guess this group to be the largest of the three.
Finally, there are many millions here in the NY/Metro area who do not attend Mass at all and are merely cultural Catholics. In my experience, this group consists almost entirely of bat-poop crazy libs and are the polar opposites of the Latin Mass people in just about every way imaginable. I’d say this is the second largest group.
Add ‘em all up, and what you have is a Dem-voting majority in NY. That said, I feel compelled to say that not ALL NY Catholics are “as liberal as they come.”
Regards,
PS: I’d have to agree with you that the Catholic vote in this area could easily swing an election. We are working hard to try to convince that Christmas/Easter crowd to swing the right way this time around.
>> “I’m not expecting you to accept Catholic teachings, but at least you won’t look so foolish trying establish the premise to any of your future arguments against her.” <<
.
Oh!
Now we get it, Pelousey is actually a “Good Catholic.”
Sola Scriptura as it is practiced by those who take it seriously was not first discovered by the Protestant Reformers, but is exampled by a number of the early fathers and by examples in the Bible itself, and we can take up that discussion if you like.
But what you have referred to in terms of a completely autonomous and individualistic approach was not the invention of the Reformers. We who are historically conscious reformers differentiate the two with the terms “Sola” versus “Solo” Scriptura. Solo Scriptura invites a complete amnesia of all that went before or outside of the given interpreter. It is truly a byproduct of Enlightenment subjectivism and is the old fuel that still burns in the postmodern subjectivist relativist deconstructionist mind.
Whereas Sola Scriptura fits within the scheme of church learning and history, even the church’s authority to teach. For the Reformers, it was informed by not only Scripture, but by the positive examples of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and even the irrepressible Bishop of Hippo, to name only a few. It does not presume to give every individual license to interpret in a void of accountability. It merely insures that the accountability works both ways, i.e., the church at large is obligated to heed its teachers and overseers, and to remember the lessons learned from the past. But likewise, God is not so weak he cannot communicate clearly in his word to every one of his children, and there come times when the leadership must be held to account by the church at large. The Reformation was such an event.
You mentioned the Old Believers’ revolt. They are the epitome of Reagan’s quip that he didn’t leave the Democratic party; they left him. There is an analogy here I would like you to consider. In the sixties, the flower children came along and had the arrogance to think they were the first generation to care about war, poverty, injustice, etc. These are like the Enlightenment “hippies” that elevated human autonomy to perverse extremes.
But lately we have the Tea Party, running around waving their Constitution booklets in the face of their wayward leaders and demanding accountability under the law as given by the Founders. This where the Reformers were coming from. They went back to the founding document and found it did not square well with where current leadership was headed. In other words, they used an objective form of truth, the written word, to try and rein in the subjective excesses of their leadership.
Note well the difference. The Enlightenment, because it elevated reason to be equal to or greater than the operation of faith, laid the groundwork for modern subjectivism. Whereas it was the Reformers who labored to call believers back to the objective rule of the written word, just as Paul himself does here:
1Cor 4:6 “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.”
… “what is written” being a commonly used catch phrase for Scripture.
Likewise, getting back to Sola Scriptura in the modern era is really an effort to restore the balance between faith and reason. Augustine and Aquinas differed on faith versus reason. In terms of modern subjectivist theory, Aquinas has a recognized role in giving reason a greater role than any who had gone before him, a role equal to faith. Whereas Augustine clearly had retained the early emphasis on the primacy of divine revelation, and said things that are positively painful to modern autonomists, such as “to know, you must believe.”
Thus it is really Aquinas, through his life project of reconciling Athens and Jerusalem (especially Aristotle and Christian theology) who opened the door to the Enlightenment’s exaltation of reason to Reason.
Therefore it is a post hoc causation fallacy to say the Reformers caused the autonomy of the Enlightenment, and that somehow Sola Scriptura is a manifestation of said autonomy. The Roman church in the medieval period had begun to exercise enormous political power, which ran contrary to rise of the nation state. The break was ripe to happen on a multiplicity of grounds and when it did happen, was far more complex and spectacular than can be explained by the posting of 95 theses on a church door.
So while I am willing to hear anyone try to make a case for some view contrary to Sola Scriptura, I am going to insist the case be directed, not at a straw man like SolO Scriptura, or worse, at proponents of bizarre theologies of dreams and visions that are clearly opposite to SolA Scriptura, but at the actual belief of Sola Scriptura as propounded by those who both teach and practice it, none of whom discredit the value of the fathers, the ecumenical creeds, the teaching ministry within the church, and the mutual accountability of all believers to each other under the divine word.
well, no, it was not the invention of the REformers per se, but it was a Pandora's box that they opened up. With the idea that one could pick up a Bible and come up with one's own theology it has led to S's and unitarians among others
Solo Scriptura invites a complete amnesia of all that went before or outside of the given interpreter. It is truly a byproduct of Enlightenment subjectivism and is the old fuel that still burns in the postmodern subjectivist relativist deconstructionist mind. -- I would dispute that it is a byproduct of Englightenment (in my mind the "e" dates from the 1700s..) because of the presence of the radical reformers, unitarians, polish brethern etc. at the time of Luther and Calvin
Whereas Sola Scriptura fits within the scheme of church learning and history, even the church’s authority to teach. -- not really, an individual would let's say reach a conclusion, but that had to be discussed in council and besides it being held to the gold standard that is scripture, it would also be held to "is this what was always taught or at least not contradictory to what has always been taught?"
Cyril of Jerusalem did discuss on the matters of the Trinity but it was held up as true by the three means I said above: 1. is it true to scripture, 2. is it in line with tradition and 3. does church in council under the grace of the Holy Spirit accept it? Sola scriptura takes only the first into account
God is not so weak he cannot communicate clearly in his word to every one of his children, --> it's not a weakness of God but a weakness of man. It's like teaching your pet hamster to do something. You have the intelligence but little hammy doesn't...
and there come times when the leadership must be held to account by the church at large -- imho that is a different matter. yes, leadership to be held to acount, but that is not ss or anti-ss
Not really. You can claim that about Luther to an extent, but not Calvin or Zwingli or the radical reformers, they literally threw out the baby with the water.
and that somehow Sola Scriptura is a manifestation of said autonomy. -- rather I state that the variegated beliefs and "anything I want I can make a new religion" are derived from ss.
Whereas it was the Reformers who labored to call believers back to the objective rule of the written word, just as Paul himself does here: -- not really, the Reformers went back to their own interpretation of the Written Word -- case in point, Zwingli and Luther's clashes over the Eucharist (which I mean to get back to you on) -- they each had their own interpretation of the Written Word and wanted that interpretation as the one to be upheld
"none of whom discredit the value of the fathers"? -- really? In prior debates with non-c's when one even mentions the father's in addition to scripture, it is immediately seized on as a reason to reject the point.
cases --> there is no evidence of Apostolic succession in the scriptures but these 'fathers' of yours promote their own apostolic succession. and There is also verifiable history that shows a lot of your history is bunk...How many of your church father's records are forgeries by your church??? and in the same thread "But by then your church fathers had established a religion based on Clement's writings as well as their own that mimicked Clement's stuff.". And other posters would say Or maybe a church father has to be dug up to find some warped explanation. and "Read what Justin and all the Early Church Father’s taught and you will come into a deeper understanding of Christ’s sacrifice and how we are to worship." I can read the Bible and come into a deeper understanding of Christ’s sacrifice and how we are to worship. I don't need to read commentary on it.
"the ecumenical creeds" ==> You don’t seem to know what the gospel is. It’s not there in your previous posts. It’s missing from your creeds. etc. etc.
your posts are refreshing, but are completely unlike anything that the previous non-c posters have said before, hence my reference is to them, not to you.
We all have our misconceptions. Just as I did not intend my analogy of the window to suggest a Peeping Tom I can accept that your reminder of the authority and responsibility of the moderator was not a threat. FYI - I had taken some Claritin for an allergy problem and, as my family often reminds me, those make me grumpy and irritable.
Peace be with you
And you.
No one has suggested that, and certainly not me. Like many of those who frequently post to these threads making anti-Catholic and false statements about the Church, Nancy Pelosi is an excommunicated Catholic, ad jure, latae sententiae, by her own acts.
The Catholic Church is often referred to as "her" because of her status as the bride of Christ and the noun gender protocols of Latin, the language of the Church.
Peace be with you.
NY does not necessarily equate to NYC.
I grew up in WNY, Upstate.
I have yet to meet a Catholic from that area who does NOT vote liberal and that includes extended family and quite a number of co-workers, who are faithfully practicing Catholics.
I have met Catholics from Central NY who are conservative, but there is still a astonishing number of those who are liberal, admit it, and decorate their front lawns with Cuomo and Schumer signs come election time.
I’ve heard from their own lips recently “ I’m as pro- life as they come BUT.......”
And these are also faithfully practicing Catholics. We live close to the local Catholic parish and see who attends when for mass. These are NOT twice a year-ers. They are more than once a week and still vote liberal and admit it.
Something is getting lost somewhere between The Vatican and the laity.
NO! And if you read some of threads many times i have corrected the Catholic tendency to lump all that calls itself "Christian" as Protestant, and defined it according to core salvific beliefs and its supreme authority. while pointing out that cults such the LDS also operate under sola ecclesia. And i know of no one on my ping list that is of the above 3.
Secondly, if they bring up a point on any thread you'all are on that says to the effect that the Trinity is a man-made construct, wouldn't or shouldn't you'all object?
If i saw them do so, i should if others have not (and others also likewise), and i have corrected wrong statements or beliefs, but not necessarily when an RC brings it up from the past as a tactic to divert heat away from Rome, that being the subject at hand. And certainly not all RCs jump on a poster who posts something that is contrary to Rome if such a one is engaged in a thread supporting Rome versus us, in contrast to some Catholic caucus threads. Meanwhile, my web site which my home page links to makes my beliefs fairly well manifest.
in contrast as given above, when Kosta's view was against orthodoxy, I called him out.
It is commendable you did there, and BB commended you, which is the only response i can see, but i doubt if you came near the amount of debate i had with the man, and which was not simply about evangelical exegesis but things we both concur on.
I see that, though it id not seem to go far, unlike mine.
I’m sorry to hear it, metmom, though truthfully, it doesn’t surprise me. Central/Western NY is governed by the appalling bishops of Albany (Hubbard) and Rochester (Clark). I don’t know which one is worse; it’s a close call.
Both bishops allow and preach things in direct opposition to Vatican policy so it doesn’t surprise me that your family think they’re in the clear.
Combine poor catechesis with the extremely liberal political outlook of many in those areas, I can certainly see why your family have turned out the way they have. It isn’t easy being a conservative in ANY part of NY, trust me.
Oddly, the dioceses downstate are somewhat more orthodox, though of course they sure can come up with some humdingers on occasion. Still, these downstate bishops can’t hold a candle to the heterodoxy and outright dissidence of Bishops Hubbard and Clark.
I feel sorry for your family; they aren’t getting the straight scoop from the men charged with shepherding them. Hopefully, when these two retire, the Holy Father will assign more orthodox bishops to their dioceses. Bishop Clark just turned 75, I believe, so his retirement is imminent. Bishop Hubbard is 74, so he’s got another year or so.
I wonder what your family’s reaction would be if they got a traditional, orthodox bishop calling the shots. I will pray that they see the light.
Regards,
I thought you aren't supposed to make a thread about another Freeper. Just because you pick a thread from two years ago or another that I had NO input at all on, it doesn't mean I agree with those who do not believe in the deity of Christ and the triune nature of our God. I HAVE defended the truth of Scripture on that subject many times. If you want to play that game, I can probably find hundreds of threads where you picked sides with an atheist/agnostic against non-Catholics or where you failed to make a "peep". That's not how it works here. If asked about the subject, I have never had any qualms about defending my beliefs. But, I don't have to answer to you. I answer to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and Him only. If I choose to make comments on a thread, look at those comments to see what I believe, don't judge me from silence and assume from it that I agree with what another person says. I'M NOT ON TRIAL HERE. Take your petty little pity party somewhere else!
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.