'Fortnight for Freedom': One more reason to be an ex-Catholic

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.

I'm reminded of the correction and exhortation Paul gave to the Corinthians in his first letter to them. He spoke specifically of hearing about their almost bragging over having a member of their assembly who was having a sexual relationship with his own father's wife. Now we don't know if it was the guy's own mother or his stepmother, but BOTH would be unthinkable sinful behavior even among the unsaved. Paul said to them in I Corinthians 5:1-13

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

I wonder how Paul would have advised them had they been a parish among the mega-church organization today that claims one billion+ members? There is wisdom in having local churches lead by pastors and elders who have as their guide the Holy Scriptures to tell them right from wrong and how God expects them to deal with members whose lives bring shame upon the Body of Christ.

This is yet another schizophrenic argument by anti-Catholics. Out of one side of your mouths you mischaracterize and complain about the Inquisition bore that 500 years after the fact and then out of the other side of your mouths you mischaracterize and complain about the Church not conducting high profile and wide ranging trials of Catholics to see if they are Catholic enough all the while protesting that the eventual earthly punishments are not severe enough. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you have standing in this issue other than pharisean or that this was the reason you failed as a Catholic? It seems to me you would be protesting a more judgmental Church even more forcefully.

Oh, dear NL, must EVERYTHING be so melodramatic? Perhaps in your effort to neutralize whatever criticism is earned by the actions or in-actions of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic religion, you have totally missed the point! The point has been all along that the Catholic Church has NEVER seemed to get church discipline correct and I believe it speaks to the lie that they claim to be THE church of Jesus Christ. It seem this church has teetered between two extremes almost since its inception and, rather than follow scriptural guidelines for how to deal effectively with church discipline, they have become schizophrenic. At one time it was kill all the "heretics" or "enemies of the Church" and now it is the one big tent policy where those who were at one time counted as apostates and schismatics are now welcomed with open arms in a clumsy attempt at "ecumenicalism" and "peace". Maybe if they would go back to Scripture and follow the actions prescribed by the Apostles, they could get it right for once.

You mistake my criticism as "my" expectation of how the Catholic Church SHOULD treat its people and you call it schizophrenic that I complain about the horrors of the Inquisitions while also complaining that the Church is not strict enough today. But, you see, that is NOT at all what I am getting at. What it boils down to, and which I doubt many in the Catholic Church will ever to come realize, is this is just ANOTHER example of so very many that the religion that boastfully claims exclusivity to the name of Christ and that says it ALONE is the ONE, TRUE, CHURCH established by Jesus Christ is no such thing at all. The true church, the real Body of Christ would NOT have conducted itself in this way. It proves that the true church of Jesus Christ is and always has been a SPIRITUAL union made up of individual believers that are and always will be the "wheat" that can be separated from the chaff. The "sheep" will have always been sheep and always different than the goats. The Shepherd knows his sheep and THEY KNOW HIM and they hear HIS voice and will not follow another. And He gives to them eternal life and they shall NEVER perish.

This is why I could not remain in nor return to Catholicism. The truth is no longer there if it ever was there - though I have to believe it must have been at some point - truth has to exist before there is a lie. It's probably a good idea to leave the pseudo-phsychiatry to the professionals rather than try to glean motives behind every comment someone makes. Mine are clear and not anything I have ever sought to hide. It is that Christ has set us free - His yoke is easy and His burden is light and we will find rest for our souls. I want all people to understand the Gospel of the grace of God that all who believe on Christ will have everlasting life and they do not have to be in bondage to a religious system that metes out grace like some kind of frequent shopper points.

In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. (Ephesians 3:12)

No one said i did know that he did not repent, though while you could resort to postulating that occurred, yet the evidence is against it.

The Scriptures requires that souls “should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance,” (Acts 26:20) yet T.K. evidenced none of that but just the opposite. Thus the burden of proof is upon those who try to justify that he was granted a church funeral because he repented, and there is no reason why this should be kept secret, and Kennedy had ample time and ability to manifest repentance.

Instead, in the recent letter to the Pope which was read at his graveside, he insolently asserts he “never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings” of his church, and tried to be a faithful Catholic, etc.. The closest thing we get to any kind of contrition is the ambiguous, “I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path,” before he goes on to to defend his wonderful works, including universal health care. Not a word of remorse about supporting abortion or promoting homosexual rights, or indolence and a welfare state.

Nor did the pope censure him at all in his response, but “the Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord.” (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/29/ted-kennedy-to-pope-benedict-i-am-writing-with-deep-humility/) And which testimony i previously supplied.

Nor am i alone in challenging Kennedy’s presumed repentance, as other Catholics did as well, including on FR (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2327783/posts), but i do not find your opposition to them or to me surprising, or warranted.

...all they do is point fingers without knowing if someone has repented of grave sin and accuse Priests, Cardinals,Bishops, etc.. of not teaching the faith properly by taking of what some of them say out of context or expecting them to condemn someone without knowing if they repented even during their last breath of life.

Your attempts at damage control is contrary to your attempt to deal with liberal RCs by relegating them all as excommunicated, which was part of your attempt to dismiss my statement that “under the Roman model of sola ecclesia, formal divisions and schisms are also apparent. Her interpretation of Tradition, history and Scripture has significant differences with other Catholic groups and churches and others who operate under her sola ecclesia model.”

You tried to minimize the substantial issues within Catholicism and then tried to deal with disagreements within Roman Catholicism by focusing on "latae sententiae," which you used to dispense liberal Catholics, when in fact i was mainly referring to permissible disagreements within Roman Catholicism due to the need for interpretation, in addition to the divisions within Catholicism under sola ecclesia.

And when i in response i provided substantiation of just some the differences with Catholicism, as well as how latae sententiae is open to interpretation, and that the interpretation Rome examples is to overall to treat liberal Catholics as members in life and death (despite the official line), you resorted to your typical dismissal of evidence with, “all you do is try and create a web of confusion that only panders to those who hate the Catholic Church,” and by trying to justify allowing souls like Pelosi others living in grave sin to receive Eucharist by saying they might “have gone to confession,repented and became worthy,” which a baseless assumption contrary to the facts. The conflict and confusion within Catholicism is not my doing, but your problem, and cannot be dismissed either by attributing a false motive or by special pleading.

You then attempted to deal with my substantiation of the reality of the interpretive broadness of the criteria for excommunication by asserting that such “have no effect about what the Church dogmatically teaches,” labeling it “dishonest and cunning,” when in reality i had already explained to you and substantiated that “what Rome says and effectually conveys manifests interpretation, and this can seem to be two different things,”as part of the interpretative complexity in applying what the Church dogmatically teaches. And thus i responded that it was your “your minimization of the differences between Catholics, and the wishful simplistic portrayal of excommunication, and of Rome's strictness thereof as if words alone constitute teaching.., that can be said to be dishonest,” and then i provided more evidence of the interpretive complexity and what is overall effectually taught.

Of course, then you complain about the length of posts which is much due to substantiation, and charge thing are taken out of context when they are not, and substantiation is necessary due to the misleading portrayals of Catholic conservatism and unity, which is how this began. And i have corrected critical error here by Prots.

First of all, using the words solo ecclesia is very vague and I understand that you use it so that you can build up your web of straw arguments and spin about the Catholic Church in which circular arguments can be used between your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture and your PERSONAL interpretation of Holy Tradition and the Magisterium.

Instead of using the term solo ecclesia ,I suggest you understand what is said in Dei Verbum in understanding the 3 legged stool of the Catholic Faith

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Excerpts..

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

As for the rest of your post,I find it odd that someone would go through such lengths to convince themselves and others of thinking they know what they are talking about.

It really shows the weakness of arguments IMHO.

I have always found that simplicity reveals truth and that those who feel the need to have lengthy explanations only do so to hide the fact they are unsure, or purposely not being truthful about the topic they are talking about.

Also, I can see how someone conversing with these sort of people can get caught up in multiple responses for days that would take away from living out the Christian faith and winds up in reality being a trap set by the evil one to do just that.

So, that said, I will not bother responding to you since I see the danger.

You may have the last word.

Your response is another poor attempt to avoid what is evidenced by blithely dismissing such such as straw or circular arguments, when in reality it is shown that it is your version of Rome that is misleading, and which in defense of a church in which Catholics also must and do engage in interpretation of Tradition, Scripture, and of the teaching of their church itself, while the assurance of her claims relies upon circularity.

the words solo ecclesia is very vague

Which attests to a lack of familiarity with this debate, in which Sola Ecclesia is often used in contrast to Sola Scriptura for as often explained here, while under the latter Scripture alone is the supreme sufficient authority on faith and morals, by which all is judge, it being the assured Word of God, under the former the church is effectively the supreme authority.

Instead of using the term solo ecclesia ,I suggest you understand what is said in Dei Verbum in understanding the 3 legged stool of the Catholic Faith.

Sola ScripturaI is not “solo” as if Scripture was all we may use, or as if formal versus material sufficiency (which provides for the church, etc.) was all that is meant.

In addition, I did understood the premise of the so-called 3 legged stool, but your argument shows a superficial understanding of what constitutes the supreme authority, as while Rome can assert that Tradition and Scripture are what the Church looks to for doctrine, in reality the Church of Rome is the supreme authority, as these sources only constitute and authoritatively mean what she infallibly says they (as well as history) do.

For regardless of challenges, she cannot be wrong (when speaking infallibly), as she has autocratically defined that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria, which thus renders her own declaration of infallibility to be infallible, as well as whatever she may interpret for support.

Nor is the veracity of her teachings dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, nor is that allowed to give full assurance of faith, nor are the arguments and reasons behind her infallible pronouncements themselves necessarily infallible, but according to her infallible interpretation (or decree) only her supreme magisterium can be right in any conflict. And by which premise assurance is found.

Thus when faced with challenges, no less an authority than Manning states,

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.

This is certainly sola ecclesia, and which premise she also shares with cults such as the LDS who likewise “interpret” their tradition, Scripture and history, which, however contradicted, must be accepted by her adherents under the premise of assured veracity.

Reason is appealed to in making a fallible human decision to give assent of faith to Rome, and interpretation may be employed in discerning what category a teaching of Rome falls into, and its precise meaning, but once a souls believes in Rome then the Catholic is encouraged “like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors,” (Vehementer Nos) and not engage in seeking after religious Truth, thus examining both sides of a question or reading much of Protestant literature. And in fact, at one time it was forbidden for such a lay Catholic (as i assume you are) to engage in debate with such a one as i, and which has its wisdom.

In Scripture however, while noble souls engage in interpretation, (Acts 17:11), no mortal or office was promised or assumed the assured formulaic infallibility of Rome, but assurance is provided upon what is written, (1Jn. 5:13) and Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims, as being the assured Word of God, (2Tim. 3:16) with souls being persuaded through “manifestation of the Truth.” (2Cor. 4:2)

As for the rest of your post,I find it odd that someone would go through such lengths to convince themselves and others of thinking they know what they are talking about.

Resorting to mind reading and your protest of the substantiation which is against your portrayal of Catholicism is understandable, while once again it is apparent that i do know of what i speak, thanks be to God (though more was learned), and which remains.

All anyone has to do is look at the first post at the start of this thread to understand the motives behind most of the responses we get when disputing "canned" replies that so often is "all they got". I really am astonished that there are some people who actually assume we can be silenced by an appeal to the "authority" of the Church and we will relent of all our objections because the Church has spoken. This "three-legged stool", that some insist is wholly logical and sufficient to address all questions pertaining to the truths of the faith, would have had to of always been there for it to be workable. Yet we know the same model was there when Jesus came and was no more effective than the one that exists today in theory.

Like you have stated before, there WAS a magesterium during the time of Christ with the Apostles, but it was that of the "Seat of Moses" and was comprised of the religious leaders within Judaism. We know that they ALSO had their "traditions" in addition to the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. But this "three-legged stool" was no more the true authority than the one that claims the same role today. Just as Jesus reprimanded those leaders for imposing their traditions and authority ABOVE the word of God, so we do today as did the Reformers of yesteryear. Whenever ANY group tries to usurp the authority of God's word, God makes sure others step in and steer the ship back on course. God's word is above the mechanizations of men.

The Church is said to be the foundation, support and upholder of the truth, NOT the inventor of the truth. And whenever the truth is superseded in favor of the traditions and pride of men and the Gospel is perverted, God sends those who WILL lead in truth. That is why you and I were able to STILL hear the truth and receive it and why many here give the same testimony as we do. We are allowed this platform to speak the truth of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit is who will open eyes and hearts to understand it. That's all we can do and I hope you are encouraged to continue speaking up for the grace of God and against false teachings that lead to the broad path of destruction. Jesus got plenty of flack for doing it, we should expect nothing less.

Well said, for as often said, Christianity began in dissent from those who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6).

And who alone could lay claim to having historical decent, and whose conditional (as submission to man always is) authority the Lord upheld. (Mt. 23:2 etc.) And under which writings were est. as being Scripture and Truth was preserved, which we are told we need an assuredly infallible magisterium for, but which they were not.

But like Rome in presuming a level of assured veracity and authority above what is written, they challenged the unsanctioned (by them) authority of the Itinerant Preach of Nazareth who reproved them by Scripture for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And thus Truth and the believing remnant was preserved, as God has often raised up true men of God from without the formal magisterium to reprove it, and thus the church began and thus it has been preserved.

And the authority of such men of God is not dependent upon magisterial sanction, though such are sppsd to confirm them, but is established by conformity to Scripture in text and in power, with Scripture itself being essentially established as Divine due to its Heavenly qualities and attestation, which enabled further complimentary additions in conflation with it, and in principle provides for recognizing a canon of such.

And as Scripture abundantly substantiates that it is the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims, so the assurance of the authenticity of church of the living God is not based upon it infallibly declaring you the OTC, so that its proofs are assuredly valid, but upon Scriptural substantiation. “For the kingdom of God is not in word [self-declaration], but in power. “ (1 Corinthians 4:20)

May i and all who are in the body of Christ manifest this much better.

"I think that is an all too typical reaction, by one who has himself exampled a tendency to reject and even falsely charge with falsehood even substantiated Catholic material which exposes the nature of claims of Rome, to an interpretation thereof.

If you are going to accuse me of lying try to be more direct in your language and cite some examples. You may garner sympathy from the anti-Catholics and even tacit approval from the mods, but don't get style points for finessing the rules in the process of sliming a Catholic.

Sorry for missing this post from 2 days ago, but it once again appears that you have a short or selective memory, besides playing the victim. For what i am primary referring to, and which was mentioned (and ignored) as recently as May 21 in response to another charge of error, was that of what i reproved you for before, and which was ignored by you and the mods (which false charges you expect to disallow), which was that of your specifically and repeatedly denigrating a 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 “like why you would continue to post a LIE after is has been thoroughly refuted in this very thread. That passage is NOT contained within the book quoted”, calling it “the falsified version.. “

However, while some of your other complaints had some degree of warrant, however magnified, for which there was response, yet the fact is that as a reading of this post (and this one) substantiates, it is you who were guilty of sloppy scholarship (as per your definition) and of making false charges, and for which there was never a word of acknowledgment or apology.

And which we are still waiting for, and as it also is a relevant example as per your charge here of " finessing the rules in the process of sliming" one who dared to post something that impugned Rome.

I could provide other examples of overreaction, through both sides can exhibit such, but some are more extreme, and we should take heed that "with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. " (Matthew 7:2)

Whereas words such as "false" "wrong" "error" do not impute motive and are therefore not "making it personal" - they can cause the thread to be derailed into back-and-forth sniping between individual Freepers. Making the thread "about" individual Freepers IS a form of "making it personal."

Both of you need to move this discussion away from focusing on individual Freepers and back to focusing on the issues.

From the Religion Forum guidelines:

Forms of "making it personal" include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread "about" individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question.

The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent.

Words such as "false" "error" "wrong" "inaccurate" "misstatement" do not attribute motive and are not "making it personal."

Other words push the envelope of motive but are not synonymous with "lie" for purposes of modding the RF. However, they can be "making it personal" if applied to another Freeper, personally, in such a way the discussion becomes "about" the individual Freeper instead of the issues. Those words include "misrepresentation" "detraction" "disinformation" "distortion" "hyperbole" and "doublespeak."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

“”The Church is said to be the foundation, support and upholder of the truth, NOT the inventor of the truth.””

..And how do you say you’re part of the upholder of Truth within that Church and remain in unity with other protestants who differ from you and band in unity if they are part of the Church who is upholder of truth? You all can’t be right! Christianity is not buddhism with many truths

By your statement You seem to know very well that there can only be ONE truth and ONE Church.

Why don’t you proclaim this and argue with someone like metmom and others who differ from you in the same fashion you argue with Catholics since you claim to know the Church you believe in holds the truth?

Could it be you are not confident that you don’t really know that the Church you believe in holds the truth?Thus, it would seem to make sense why you don;t have a problem with the differences of beliefs between you and someone like metmom and others because you might not really be sure of what you believe in?

Perhaps you should think deeply about what you write and what is being said,dear sister.

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.