Skip to comments.'Fortnight for Freedom': One more reason to be an ex-Catholic
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 ...
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
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.
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!
There is more than one Catholic on FR that needs to read your post.
I can’t tell you the amount of flack I’ve received from Catholics on what I’ve related as on the ground, grassroots Catholicism that I’ve seen, heard, and experienced and I’ve all but been outright called a liar about it.
Courtesy ping to others in the know.
And thanks for letting me know as i do not want anyone on it who does not want to be so. You were part of a second list which does not get pinged as much, and i think it was a result of your involvement in a previous thread. Sorry.
FWIW, WNY politics has been notoriously corrupt for as long as I can remember, which is far longer than I wish I could remember.
I think the problem is more of superficial Catholicism than anything else. It is one thing to be discouraged by local conditions and the actions of some individuals within the Church, and it is all together something different to ignore the history, traditions and comprehensive beauty of the real doctrines of the Church and turn your back and walk away from it. Those who love their Church are not so quick to give up on it.
I'll ask you this? What do the Apostles, St. Paul, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Origen of Alexandria, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Augustine of Hippo all have in common? The answer is they are all dead. They all endured and suffered great challenges and trials in service to the Gospel and we have all benefited greatly from it.
But we are alive and it is now up to us to carry that message and continue to preserve and spread the Greatest Story Ever Told. Those of us true to those same Gosples must be willing to do far more than suffer a few liberal busy bodies, wayward clergy members, unqualified DREs (Directors of Religious Education) and even a completely corrupted parish or diocese in service to that cause. The Holy Spirit calls us all to missions, perhaps fixing your local Church was yours. Its never too late.
Peace be with you.
To speak the Truth is to speak in love. How are you going to match up Revelation 14:13 with Martin Luther’s Sola Fide?
You can’t and no one else has replied. How can you base
your salvation on heresies? Explain someone, Make Revelation 14:13 fit Sola Fide.
A Calvinist Presbyterian minister recognized the Truth.
Everyone here should too.
~ ~ ~
King James Version (KJV)
And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
For years, as a Calvinist preacher, I recited this verse in every funeral graveside service. I believed and taught Sola Fide and discounting any place for works in the process of our salvation. But then, after my last funeral service as a minister, a family member of the deceased cornered me. He asked, with a tremble in his voice, What did you mean that Bills deeds follow him? I dont remember my response, but this was the first time I became aware of what I had been saying. This began a long study on what the New Testament and then the Early Church Fathers taught about the mysterious but necessary synergistic connection between our faith and our works.
I can sympathize with you here. You dare to state what Lumen Gentium and the CCC states , though it is variously interpreted, and thus differ with a somewhat different type of Catholic who seems to prefer to shoot first and ask questions later, and suddenly (following his amazing conclusions) you are “Sola Fide” who started an anti-Catholic thread and “need to change” and “come home,” and (from another poster) you are not qualified to discuss the Church as an ex-Catholic!
You wouldnt find it so difficult if you didnt reject most of Gods Revelation so the very means to Gods grace.
“you’re not going to get any converts with that tone. Talk of the positives of God’s complete revelation in the sacraments and in the Divine Liturgy if you want people to change. Otherwise its just mouthing off.”
~ ~ ~
This is so old, Protestants have the same objections, you
can’t show them. They’re stuck, it will take God in the
2nd Pentecost and it is soon, maybe next year.
Think what you said “God’s complete revelation.”
OP, I wasn’t “mouthing off”, don’t be rude because you left the faith and can’t give a convincing reason why or persuade others to leave the faith. Come home, you can.
If you knew the faith, you wouldn’t have left.
Oh daniel, reply to Revelation 14:13. Sola Fide is
a lie. No one here has answered.
Why did the man who came up with Sola Fide try to throw out the book of James? It must of been James 2:24. Defend “Faith Alone” using those two verses. Confirm “faith alone” using Revelation 14:13. Be brave brother, be
Ex-Catholics are bitter about their choice, more so than Protestants. It’s pride and both won’t look at history, only to object to it.
Are these posts of yours REALLY directed to cronos?
Are you aware that you are talking to a practicing Catholic?
Are you also aware that he is NOT the author of the thread?
I tried to persuade my brother to have a very quiet Mass with just him, my other brother, me, and our spouses with a quiet interment at the cemetery, and then invite the extended family for a luncheon and a reunion.
I know that the Mass would have been very comforting for my Catholic brother and he seemed to need this ceremony, but I did not think it was appropriate or respectful to subject the believing and practicing Catholics among the extended family and friends to a religious spectacle celebrating the life of an **avowed** , unrepentant, and open atheist, and an unrepentant and openly non-practicing Catholic.
Honestly,...I don't think this is what my parents would have wanted. Given that extended family and friends knew my parents standing with the Catholic Church, I believe they attended only to be polite to my brother.
Metmom, if you are getting flcak, I think the problem may be one of perception. When you see your family, you see “practicing Catholics” who inexplicably vote for a clearly Socialist, pro-abortion liberal even though they claim to follow what they believe to be the “Catholic position” on things. I’m sure this is frustrating for you, as it is for me.
As a Catholic myself, when I hear about your family, I “see” Catholics who have been led astray by the very men who were assigned to guide them, and whose souls I fear are in danger because of it. The bishops in charge of these dioceses have much to answer for, IMO.
In all honesty, and even though I regularly rail about the blindness of Catholics who simply do not see (or who do not wish to see) the illogic in their voting habits, I actually pity them. If only they heard the REAL Catholic positions on things, they might think differently, because there is no question that it is Conservatism and not Liberalism that is in line with AUTHENTIC Catholic teaching. The bishops need to hammer home the danger of voting for pro-abortion candidates EVERY WEEK if necessary, and they need to embrace the principle of subsidiarity to handle other domestic problems.
Now if we could get those pesky liberal bishops to preach on THAT instead of the “social justice” claptrap...well, we might just see a change in voting patterns.
Try to take heart! There is a small but growing number of traditional Catholics who are on fire both spiritually and politically, and I assure you, they are as Conservative as all get-out.
No, works for salvation is the lie. We are saved by the grace of God THROUGH faith and NOT of works. You have been answered many times but no one can make you understand this truth. As to Revelation 14:13 saying our works are what saves us is purely and simply a FALSE reading of scripture. If these "prophets" are telling you this, they are preaching a false gospel and we know in the end-times there WILL be such false prophets. You would do well to shun them and not try to help spread their false gospel. You should notice that in verse 13 it says:
"and their works do follow them"
They do not go before them, to prepare heaven and happiness for them; nor do they take them along with them, and use them as pleas for their admission into the heavenly glory; but they will follow them, and will be found to praise, and honour, and glory, and will be taken notice of by Christ, and graciously rewarded by him, at his appearing and kingdom. (http://gill.biblecommenter.com/revelation/14.htm)
Scripture does not contradict itself because it ALL comes from the Holy Spirit, it is God-breathed. You are reading INTO the verse something it does not say. Now you can stop saying "no one here has answered" you.
“Are you aware that you are talking to a practicing Catholic?
Are you also aware that he is NOT the author of the thread?”
~ ~ ~
Thanks metmom, sorry Cronos, I thought you were the anti-Catholic.
Let us keep talking about the faith. the anti-Catholic regulars at FR need our help. Daniel is trying to defend “faith alone”, following a heresy that came from a man who rejected the true faith.
Daniel, the Church never taught “Sola Fide”, your pride
sticking with a heretic. Post some of Luther’s quotes, a
holy man, no way.
Not to kibitz, but this whole automatic dismissal mechanism appears to be an institutional form of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. It would be like saying any Baptist who unrepentantly drinks or swears or commits a sexual sin is therefore not a true Baptist, and we dont have to account for their continued claim to be Baptist. Instead of the messiness and heartache of taking ownership of the problem, we could just ignore it.
But in the more conservative Reformed fellowships (and some others), excommunication can never be automatic because it is necessary for the good of the church to consciously and deliberately go through the Matthew 18 disciplinary process. The congregation becomes witness and party to the process, weeps over the brother or sister publically at odds with God, and comes to appreciate the profound danger of trying to keep one foot in the world and the other foot in the church.
But if that Matthew 18 process is abandoned in favor of a quieter, more painless method, and one that yields no tangible quality of punishment, then such punishment is both illusory in nature, and ineffective as a means of educating the churches, and is doomed to fail in changing caviler attitudes towards the high calling of Godly living.
“and their works do follow them”
THEY do not go before them, to prepare heaven and happiness for them; nor do they take THEM along with them, and use THEM as pleas for their admission into the heavenly glory; but they will follow them, and will be found to praise, and honour, and glory, and will be taken notice of by Christ, and graciously rewarded by him, at his appearing and kingdom. (http://gill.biblecommenter.com/revelation/14.htm)
~ ~ ~
Hi boatbums, it’s your response to Rev 14:13 not Daniel,
Good Lord, using the reverse. Who said anything about “before”, the verse doesn’t say “before”, it says “follow”, as in the results of....
Who is “THEY” and “THEM” in the excuse to reject faith and works? Does the bible commentator mean “they” are works, we don’t take “them” to Heaven? Wrongo, we don’t get into Heaven without them, God’s grace, faith and our good works.
Protestants will not let go of “faith alone.” They know
it’s source, Luther and still believe it!
Here, once again, Our Lord explains it simply to Protestants. He’s teaching you, preparing you to accept
the faith and hoping you will let go of the heresies.
After the Great Warning, no more Protestantism or schisms.
Jesus speaks of three heresies in one paragraph.
1. faith alone
2. the altar call, accepting Jesus into your heart one time
as your personal Lord and Savior justifies you
3. prosperity gospel (most, not all non-Catholic Christians are understanding this is a lie and reject it)
April 1, 2012
message to Kevin Barrett
...But not all that call themselves by My name shall take part as My bride. Only those that overcome shall be allowed to sit with Me on My throne to rule the nations with a rod of iron.
Oh hear Me, My people. Why do you listen to the hirelings and false teachers and prophets? Did I not say in My word that not all that say to me Lord Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, save those that do the will of the Father who is in heaven? Then why do you still go about doing your own will and tell yourselves that you are My bride? My people, you have been lied to by the enemy of your soul. Seek Me in these things. Surely I will reveal My truth to you. I love you, My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My throne with Me. But unfortunately only a remnant shall overcome. For too many have listened to the lies told by the false shepherds and prophets. They speak of how you each are already cleansed and adorned in righteousness simply by your belief on My name. These are all lies, My people. For does not My word say that he who DOES righteousness is righteous? Yes, My people, you are made righteous by your faith in Me, but it is fulfilled by your obedience to My voice. It IS NOT imputed to you by a one-time confession of My name. Oh, My people, you have been lied to. Read My word for yourselves.
Why listen to those that fatten themselves by fleecing My sheep? I have not sent many of the shepherds that are out there. They have sent themselves for their own glory and their own profit. Oh, My people, did I not say in My word to judge them by their fruit? Then where is the fruit, My people? Oh, but those that have itching ears care not about the fruit. They want to be told all is well and that they SHALL PROSPER if they simply believe on My name and My promises. Lies, lies, lies, I tell you.
Okay, it was a paragraph and a half in the message to
Kevin Barrett. I divided it up for easier reading.
Even easier, Jesus tells you “faith alone” is a lie in
two sentences. “DOES” is a “work” an action.
My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My throne with Me. But unfortunately only a remnant shall overcome. For too many have listened to the lies told by the false shepherds and prophets. * They speak of how you each are already cleansed and adorned in righteousness simply by your belief on My name. These are all lies, My people. * For does not My word say that he who DOES righteousness is righteous?
“completely unlike anything that the previous non-c posters have said before”
Well, I have only read just a few of these c v prot threads and I find many points I have in common with my fellow ss proponents. However, as I have not been party to the older debates you cited, I can’t comment on the general knowledge of other participants concerning the patristic and creedal records of Christianity. We all come to the table as we are (cue the organist to start playing Just As I Am)
I make reference to the early data because 1) I believe it is edifying in itself (all truth is Gods truth), and 2) I believe it tends to support the Reformers’ contention that the medieval Roman church had drifted significantly from its primitive Christian roots.
However, none of this alters the fact that all of us are fallible, which leaves a problem of error checking, and this is really the core struggle between us. It is late, and I have to get to bed, but one point I want to respond to is this. You and I agree that God is not so weak he cannot communicate with his own, but I believe we mean different things by that. Yes, we are fallible, but God is able to overcome even that. And you and I even agree on that.
The key division between us is how does God overcome our fallibility. A scheme of Sola Ecclesia uncritically accepts that some small elite has become the one infallible voice of God to man, and everything must be filtered through their lens, even the Bible, or chaos will ensue. But any particular claimant to that infallible authority must credential their claim with an a priori claim of infallible authority to state that their credentials are good. This leads to an infinite regress, and thus defeats the purpose of error checking. As a matter of definition, the elite can never be wrong, so no matter how objectively different their claims are from primitive Christianity, there can never be serious accountability.
Whereas Sola Scriptura externalizes the God-breathed word as a universal objective reference point, gives it top priority to prevent deadlock with lesser authorities, and then trusts God to make it work. But you say, what about our fallibility? And I say, yes, we both have that problem. Because you are a fallible hearer of your own majesterium, and you might get it wrong, and you are a fallible reporter of your own majesterium, and you might pass wrong information over to me, and so your majesteriums purported infallibility buys neither of us anything in terms of a guarantee of knowing the truth, because it still has to pass through fallible us.
But perhaps you then say I should believe you anyway, because God will overcome our fallibility as long as the source is true and God is involved. But then I say, well, the Bible is true, and God is involved, so why couldnt that work as well as your idea? Or perhaps even better than yours, because the infinite regress is avoided and therefore mutual accountability remains in tact?
My daughter is telling me to go to bed. Sigh.
And thank you too. The links you provided should give me many hours of reading to do. These conversations are such a good opportunity to learn.
Paul rejected the true faith? Who knew?
Ephesians 2:1-10 2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ by grace you have been saved 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
message to Kevin Barrett
...My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My throne with Me. But unfortunately only a remnant shall overcome. For too many have listened to the lies told by the false shepherds and prophets. * They speak of how you each are already cleansed and adorned in righteousness simply by your belief on My name. These are all lies, My people. * For does not My word say that he who DOES righteousness is righteous?
~ ~ ~
I am sad, you reject your own prophets. Jesus is trying to reach you. How can Our Lord say it more simply?
“Faith Alone” is not from God, it came from Martin Luther.
The “works” Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2:9 are by our own doing, something we do apart from God’s grace.
Verse 10 goes right over your head. We must follow Christ in doing “good works.” You posted another verse in the Gospel that shows “Faith Alone” is heresy.
King James Version (KJV)
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
Actually, the heresy or oft-repeated canard among RCs is that sola fide equates to a faith that is alone, when it distinctly does not.. Rather it means that while faith and works go together like light and heat, it is precisely faith that appropriates justification, as seen in Acts 10 and allowed in the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire, but by not by a kind of faith that would remain alone. See REFORMATION FAITH + WORKS.
And in reality, what Roman Catholicism fosters is the very thing that her apologist accuse sola fide of promoting, that of easy believism, as due to Rome's promoting of herself and her powers and merits, Catholics trust that she can get the most nominal of Catholics into glory (eventually, though Ratzinger speculates that purgatory may involve "existential" rather than "temporal" duration; something one experiences, but experiences in a moment), and whom she treats as members in life and in death (but when they converted to become conservative evangelicals is the greatest concern shown).
Also, as Jamieson, Fausset and Brown provide,
that they may The Greek includes also the idea, They are blessed, in that they SHALL rest from their toils (so the Greek). and So B and Andreas read. But A, C, Vulgate, and Syriac read for.
They rest from their toils because their time for toil is past; they enter on the blessed rest because of their faith evinced by their works which, therefore, follow WITH (so the Greek) them. Their works are specified because respect is had to the coming judgment, wherein every man shall be judged according to his works. His works do not go before the believer, nor even go by his side, but follow him at the same time that they go with him as a proof that he is Christs.
Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord from henceforth, etc. Here observe, (1.) The description of those that are and shall be blessed - such as die in the Lord, either die in the cause of Christ, or rather die in a state of vital union with Christ, such as are found in Christ when death comes. (2.) The demonstration of this blessedness: They rest from their labours, and their works do follow them. [1.] They are blessed in their rest; they rest from all sin, temptation, sorrow, and persecution. There the wicked cease from troubling, there the weary are at rest. [2.] They are blessed in their recompence: Their works follow them; they do not go before them as their title, or price of purchase, but follow them as their evidence of having lived and died in the Lord; and the memory of them will be pleasant, and the reward glorious, far above the merit of all their services and sufferings.
Rather than Rv. 14:13 contradicting sola fide, it supports it (but not purgatory), as it is not any kind of faith that saves, but one that effects works. And as faith is known by what it effects, so believers are judged by God to be believers on account of their works as and rewarded accordingly as "worthy." (Mt. 25:23,33-40; Rv. 3:4) But evidence to the contrary of the straw men of this fringe Catholic is either ignored or blithely dismissed (and who also resorts making things personal in order to do so). And thus he is.
Your reasonable replies are a welcome addition here.
I know what you believe from what I have seen you write over the years and I know the error of that belief. I guess you believe that all the Apostles were not part of a visible church in one together?
That they all may be ONE, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be ONE in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.  And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one-John 17:21-22
The Church is Both Visible and Heavenly, dear Sister just as we know Christ's Divinity from His Visible human nature
Here is excerpts from very good article that explains this well..
A. Ecclesial Docetism
In Catholic ecclesiology, the ground of the Churchs unity is Christ, who is both spirit and flesh. We are united to Christ by being united to His Mystical Body through the sacrament of baptism. We are more deeply united to Christ and the Church through the sacraments of Confirmation and the Eucharist. An act of schism separates a person from the Church, and hence from Christ, because the Church is Christs own Mystical Body. Catholicism is sacramental, in that it looks for the spiritual through the material, just as we know Christs divine nature only through His human nature. We do not, as in gnosticism, attempt to bypass the material, and try here in this life to skirt the sacramental and see directly the divine nature or take the Gods-eye point of view, because that is presently beyond us as material creatures. If we want to know our status in heaven, we inquire concerning our status in His Mystical Body on earth. This earth-to-heaven direction of faiths epistemology is seen in what Jesus says to the Apostles: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.35 The visible and the invisible are bound together because of the incarnation, wherein what is done to the flesh of Christ is done to the Person of Christ. That is precisely why excommunication has teeth; it truly cuts a person off from Christ.
Consider one common Protestant position, according to which all Christians are equally united to Christ by faith alone, and therefore equally united to the Church. I have described this position above as the pin-cushion model. According to this notion of the Church, schism does not do anything to the unity of all Christians, only to the outward manifestation of our otherwise intact spiritual unity. This is a de-materialized (i.e., spiritualized) ecclesiology that in this respect is both gnostic and docetic. Since the incarnate Christ is both spirit and flesh, the visible unity of His Mystical Body is not merely an outward expression of the Churchs real spiritual and invisible unity, just as sexual union is not merely a physical expression of the inward/spiritual unity of husband and wife. Sexual union truly should be a bodily expression of a spiritual union. But sexual union is not merely an outward expression of spiritual unity; it is itself a real union of husband and wife. Likewise, the visible unity of the Church (including hierarchical unity) is a real unity of the Mystical Body, not merely an outward expression of the real unity which is spiritual and invisible.
The root problem here is a kind of dualism that treats the spiritual as the really real, and the material as a mere context for the expression of the spiritual. This reduces the Mystical Body to a spirit having some visible members, an invisible pin-cushion with some visible pins. Wherever schism is treated as not separating a person (to some degree) from Christ, there the Church is being treated as fundamentally and intrinsically invisible, with some visible members. Denying the essential unity of the visible hierarchy treats the Mystical Body of Christ as though it is not actually and essentially a Body, because visible hierarchical unity is essential and intrinsic to a body. If a body ceases to be visibly hierarchically one, it ceases to be. This is why a human being cannot survive disintegration of his body. So if visible unity is only accidental to something, that thing is not a living body; it is, at most, only the appearance of a body. Hence those who claim that the Mystical Body of Christ is invisibly one and visibly divided are treating the Body of Christ as though it were merely an apparent Body, not an actual Body. That is why this position is rightly described as ecclesial docetism, because docetism is the heresy which claimed that Christ only appeared to be a man.
That does not mean that we must fall into some kind of ecclesial Eutychianism. Eutychianism, which is also called Monophysitism (meaning one nature), was condemned at the Fourth General Council, the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. According to the Monophysites, Jesus humanity was absorbed into His divine nature such that He no longer has a human nature, having only His divine nature (hence Monophysitism). Docetism and Eutychianism both deny that Christ has a human nature. For that reason, both docetic and Eutychian notions of the Mystical Body of Christ treat the Church as in itself invisible, spiritual, and immaterial, only visible in the sense that it makes use of embodied human believers in much the same way that the Logos (i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity), according to a docetic conception, perhaps made use of material elements in order to appear as though having a physical body, but was not actually made up of those material elements, nor were they parts of Him. Chalcedonian Christology, with its affirmation of two distinct natures united without mixture in one hypostatic union, entails that the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is in itself visible and hierarchically organized as one corporate entity.36
The charge that Catholic ecclesiology is Eutychian asserts that the Catholic claim [that the visible Body of Christ is essentially one] mistakenly attributes to the visible aspect of the Church what is only true of the invisible aspect of the Church, and in that way falsely attributes what is only true of the divine nature of Christ to His human nature, as Eutychianism does. But this charge is based on the mistaken notion that visible hierarchical unity is not intrinsically essential to a living human body. The real distinction between Christs divine nature and His human nature does not imply that the Mystical Body of Christ is not necessarily visibly one any more than it would imply that Christs physical body could continue to exist even if all its parts were separated. Rather, because Christ truly possesses human nature, His Mystical Body is necessarily visibly one in its hierarchy, just as his physical body is necessarily visibly one its hierarchy. A living human body is essentially visibly one. If it ceases to be visibly one, it ceases to be. Hence, its visible hierarchical unity is essential to its being. That is why the Catholic doctrine that the Mystical Body of Christ is essentially visibly one in its hierarchy is not Eutychian.
B. What Does Ecclesial Docetism Look Like in Practice?
The spirituality and visibility of the Church are no more opposed to each other than the soul and body of a man, or, better, than the divinity and humanity in Christ. . . . It is because it ignores this inseparable twofold character of the Church that Protestantism, Lutheran and Reformed, has never succeeded in resisting the temptation to distinguish, by opposing them, an invisible and sole evangelical Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, visible, human, and sinful Churches.37
In practice, ecclesial docetism entails ecclesial consumerism, because it eliminates the notion of finding and submitting to the Church that Christ founded. In the mindset of ecclesial docetism, what one looks for, insofar as one looks, is a community of persons who share ones own interpretation of Scripture. In ecclesial docetism the identity of the Church is not determined by form and matter, but by form alone. Which form? The form of ones own interpretation of Scripture. This reveals why there are so many different Protestant denominations, worship centers, and ecclesial communities, none of them sharing the three bonds of unity with any of the others. Just as the practical effect of docetism is a Christ of our own making, disconnected from the historical flesh-and-blood Christ, so the practical effect of ecclesial docetism is a Church made in the image of our own interpretation, disconnected from the historical Church.
This is expressed doctrinally as a denial of the materiality or sacramentality of apostolic succession. Ecclesial docetism redefines apostolic succession as preservation of form, i.e., preservation of the doctrine of the Apostles. But without the material component of apostolic succession, the individual becomes the final interpretive arbiter of what the apostolic doctrine is. And so the church-shopping commences. And where there is a great variation of demand, a great variation of supply arises. Church is reduced to a consumer-driven enterprise, based on each persons own internal perception of his own spiritual needs and how the competing organizations, institutions, or communities meet those needs. This turns church into something egocentric rather than God-centered.
Another necessary effect of ecclesial docetism is apathy regarding visible divisions between Christians, communities, and denominations. If the unity of the Church is spiritual, insofar as each believer is invisibly united to Christ by faith alone, then pursuing visible unity is superfluous, even presumptuous in its attempt to outdo Christ.38 If there is no essentially unified visible hierarchy, then while there may be certain pragmatic reasons for ecumenical cooperation, as there are within political parties, there can be no divine mandate that there be no schisms among us. Ecclesial docetism redefines the term Church to refer to an invisible entity into which all believers are perfectly joined no matter to which visible institution (if any) they presently belong.
Herein lies a noteworthy point. Ecclesial docetism conceptually eliminates the very possibility of schism. It does so not by reconciling separated parties, but by defining unity down, as something merely spiritual, and so de-materializing schism as something invisible, and spiritual, i.e., merely a deficiency in charity.
That is an overrated virtue.
It is true that, while disparaging fallible human reasoning with its private interpretation as being unable to provide more than a fallible human interpretation (and thus no full assurance of truth), and as resulting in doctrinal chaos, yet the decision of the RC to assent to Rome is itself a a fallible human decision, and he must engage in interpretation in discerning what magisterial class a RC teaching belongs in, as there is no infallible list of all infallible teachings, and RCs disagree on how many there are (out of multitudes of candidates). Including what parts of Trent are infallible, as well as V2, and if and where the CCC can err.
They also have great liberty to interpret Scripture in seeking to support RC teaching as they understand her, and in which they also differ. I just went thru many posts with an RC who insisted that Cornelius and co. were forgiven and regenerated before baptism, contrary to Augustine, Aquinas, Ratzinger and other RC scholarship.
The RC will argue that their "living magisterium," being "living," clarifies itself, however here also you can also often find lack of clarity and inconsistency, and disagreement as to what is officially supported teaching.
While the RC magisterium certainly provides parameters that prevent disagreement on core truth and limit it in others, yet they can only do so for their church, and under sola ecclesia disagreements and divisions over significant issues are also a reality.
Meanwhile, each SS-type church has their own magisterial office which also provides parameters that overall work to prevent disagreement on core truth and limit it in others, though they also see significant disagreement and division.
But rather than doctrinal chaos, historically sola ecclesia churches have overall been unified in many core salvific truths and stood against those who deny them, such as cults which also work out of sola ecclesia, as well as against teaching as doctrines the mere "tradition of the elders." (Mk. cf. 7:3-16)
Of course the real question is, Scripturally how were writings to be established as being Divine and truth preserved, and assurance of faith obtained? The premise of Rome is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary for these, but Scripture attests that most of the writings we hold as Scripture were established as such before there was a church in Rome, and truth preserved, and assurance of faith was realized in the light of Scripture substantiation in text and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12.) And that Scripture is abundantly evidenced to have been the standard for obedience and for testing and establishing truth claims.
And thus Christianity began in dissent from those who were inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, as expressed in post 96.
This allows for competition, but requires the church to manifestly be that of the living God, in order to overcome evil with good, not handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. " (2 Corinthians 4:2)
It is true that the Lord Jesus did not leave a Bible, as in a completed canon, but a church, yet He left a church that was established upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, the Scriptures being the supreme authority as the assured Word of God, and versus one that infallibly defines that it is assuredly infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its criteria, which is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and which renders its own declaration of infallibility to be infallible, as well as anything thusly declared in support of it.
And Catholics CANNOT let go of the concept that others follow men as has been ingrained into them to do.
Read this very carefully.....
I'm typing really slow so that you can get it.......
I do NOT care what Luther had to say. I do NOT follow him. I do not believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ because he verbalized it, I believe it because it's clearly spelled out in Scripture.
Can I be any more clear than that, or do I need to shout?
Yes, Christians know the source of salvation by faith. It's called the Bible, the Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed Word of God that HE gave us.
Don’t waste your time posting excerpts from your false prophets to me.
I don’t read tht kind of trash that comes from the pit.
The problem with this polemic is that Scripturally speaking, (Ja. 2:17,18) the REAL Catholic position is not simply the official line, but how it is interpreted, and what is effectually conveyed, which can be quite different than how some assert the former teaches, as has been shown earlier on this thread (40, 68, 89,)
And thus you have the Traditional Catholic groups and schisms, and the many examples of Rome treating notorious, unrepentant sinners as members in life and in death (resulting in defenders of the strict interpretation having to argue they all could have secretly repented before the took of the Eucharist, or before they died). .
Often what is seen in addition to those who have never heard of sola fide meaning faith alone as being what precisely appropriates justification, but not a faith that will not effect the obedience of faith, is the idea that SS means other sources have no place in determining truth.
Sometimes this is due to the disparagement of so-called church "fathers" (which the apostles were) expressed by evangelicals in response to Catholic esteem of them "above that which is written" (1Cor. 4:6) and as being unduly being determinative of Truth, but this exclusion of all else is not historically case, and which would be a fringe position even now, but all such extraBiblical sources are subject to the assured Word of God, the supernaturally established Scriptures.
► From Alister McGrath's* The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. James R. Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings
*Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London
► THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION - Page 2 (Heinrich Bullinger: Calvinist confession; adopted by the Reformed Church not only throughout Switzerland but in Scotland (1566), Hungary (1567), France (1571), Poland (1578), and next to the Heidelberg Catechism is the most generally recognized Confession of the Reformed Church.)
Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.
► From evangelical authorities Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie:
By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things.
First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says.
Second, the Bible is [formally and materially] sufficient: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants the Bible alone means the Bible only is the final authority for our faith.
Third, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible.
Fourth, the Bible is perspicuous (clear). The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean as Catholics often assume that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance.
Fifth, Scripture interprets Scripture. This is known as the analogy of faith principle. When we have difficulty in understanding an unclear text of Scripture, we turn to other biblical texts. For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In the Scriptures, clear texts should be used to interpret the unclear ones. http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
Of course, Scripture only mean what Rome says it is and means, and likewise she judges the CFs more than she is judged by them (Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium) and thus in response to arguments from antiquity, is the oft-quoted classic response from Manning,
"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine." (Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, "The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation," (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-2280; www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt)
Let's kibitz a bit longer. Catholic is a definitional thing. A Catholic is one who is in communion with the Church. Those whose actions and words establish that they are not in communion cannot be or remain Catholic. It is no different than if I were to simply declare myself an NFL quarterback or a Navy SEAL, or Kalif Sheik Mohammed made a statement today saying; "Although I have not changed any of my core beliefs or practices and have not repented of any of my sins I am today declaring myself a Catholic." He would be no more Catholic than Nancy Pelosi.
Many people are very confused by the whole concept of excommunication. It is not always a formal procedure and its purpose is not punitive. Matthew 18:15-17 concerns disputes between Church members, not necessarily sins. However, when we consider that sin hurts not just the sinner, but all members of the Church excommunication can be considered the beginning or recognition of the need of the "Matthew 18" process.
Peace be with you
That is circular reasoning and complete nonsense. As Churchill once begged; "Can a man stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle?"
Any Biblically based doctrine is only as good as the fidelity of its translation and, absent an infallible authority, that fidelity cannot be established without the input of those who possess knowledge of what legal scholars call "original intent". Ironically, that original intent is only found in the Traditions of the Church and in the Early Church Fathers, whom Protestantism discounts because of their Catholicity, which were the wellspring from which the Bible was produced.
Peace be with you.
No, it’s not the same.
One is just someone claiming so without any valid basis.
Those like Pelosi and Kennedy were baptized Catholics, which according to other FRoman Catholics, leaves an indelible mark on the soul of that baptized individual. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic, you know.
The RCC then claims authority over them and counts them as part of the1.2 billion strong that certain Catholics like to claim the Church is comprised of.
You can’t possibly seriously expect us to believe that all of those 1.2 billion strong are faithfully practicing, church following Catholics? Your church is sure willing enough to consider them Catholics to the point of giving the likes of Kennedy a Catholic funeral.
And I’d lay money on the fact that they give Pelosi the same when her time comes.
Of course, if the Catholic church does not do anything abut those who you claim have ex-communicated themselves, it is beyond unconscionable and reprehensible on the part of the Church.
People are baptized Christians; is why RCs understand any baptized Christians coming into Catholism need not be baptized again - there’s no such thing as a “second baptism,” nor do RCs see any need for it.
A funeral is not for the dead, but celebrations that enable the Christian community to mourn as well as to hope by focusing on the mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ. The dead are not presumed to have been judged and found not worthy but are entrusted to God's mercy and are awaiting their final judgment. Catholicism is, after all, predicated upon forgiveness and redemption.
Peace be with you
>> “A funeral is not for the dead, but celebrations that enable the Christian community to mourn...” <<
“Let the Dead bury their dead”