Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $78,656
89%  
Woo hoo!! And now over 89%!! Less than $9.4k to go!! Less than $600 to the yellow!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by cothrige

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • “Ted Cruz gives me the willies”: Camille Paglia analyzes the GOP field—and takes on Hillary Clinton

    07/30/2015 7:11:17 PM PDT · 84 of 89
    cothrige to driftless2

    Paglia is not a candidate, and I am not saying that I would vote for her. But I did like reading her opinions in this because I think they reveal things that other people won’t let you in on. And, when not talking directly about political opinions she does bring forward some very sound criticisms and ideas about the issues and candidates. Even when she is talking ideologically, or saying something tinged strongly with such, she is still interesting and entertaining. At least she was in this interview. But, no, I would not vote for her.

  • “Ted Cruz gives me the willies”: Camille Paglia analyzes the GOP field—and takes on Hillary Clinton

    07/30/2015 4:59:16 PM PDT · 81 of 89
    cothrige to driftless2
    Paglia gets some things right and many things wrong... In her favor is she's no totalitarian leftist like most Democrats today. And she was fair-minded describing Scott Walker. But I won't take her pronouncements on politics too seriously.

    Personally, I enjoyed reading this, and the other parts of the interview, because I do think she gives some valuable insights and commentary. Her ideas about Hillary are a bit surprising, and very direct, and even her criticisms of the Republicans are worth reading because they can show some of what the other side is seeing in them. Good to know. And unlike many on the Left she seems less intent on giving a "politicised" point of view, with a view to flattering her own perspective. She may be very wrong on a lot, but I do get a sense of intellectual honesty in her answers, and that makes her interesting.

  • The Vortex—Stolen Property

    07/11/2015 6:50:58 PM PDT · 64 of 71
    cothrige to metmom
    There was evil and inexcusable acts done by both sides and it’s always a power and control thing. And frequently, religion is used for the justification of it.

    Yes, always very human motives, e.g. power, politics, etc, and when something can be used to support the action, especially religion, then it will be used. But, as we can see in the person of Henry VIII himself, when religion gets in the way, it is thrown aside and remade in a way which will no longer be a problem. Religion may matter to this or that person, but politics usually matters more.

    And it’s WRONG when done by both sides, and both sides need to admit their own culpability in it.

    Well, for me personally, I think everybody who did these things has been dead for ages, and their culpability went to the grave with them. I don't really care about culpability in things like the Inquisition, or Elizabeth I's actions, or whoever. They did nothing to me, and so that is that. I really only care about historical accuracy, and that usually means not looking to blame churches, since they rarely really do these things or drive them directly. Politics is the problem, then and now.

    It is like the IRA. A while back, when that was all over the news, reporters and people would go on and on about the Catholics vs the Protestants. Complete crap. That had nothing to do with anything. It was Irish vs the English. The republican movement was, from very early on, multi-faith. Many significant Protestants were involved from the start. They wanted the English rulers out just as the Catholics did. Anyone remember Parnell?

    If the tired old Catholic/Protestant hatred trope were really the truth then there would have been no wars between countries before the Reformation. Oops. Not quite. Plenty of Catholic kings have fought other Catholics, and some even fought on the side of Protestants later on. People go to war because they will get something out of it, and people persecute other people for the same reason. Governments, and other similar human organizations, just honestly have never been that pious, ever. Catholic kings and queens have been corrupt and warlike, and so have Protestants. As much as we want to think our churches just turn people around and make them perfect saints, and so any future conflict can only be some other group's fault, it just isn't true.

    It is all political. That is what motivates kings and parliaments, not religion. And when it looks like religion that usually means some politician is using faith to justify what he wanted to do politically. So, we should stop blaming each other, and our mutual churches, and start blaming the politicians.

  • The Vortex—Stolen Property

    07/10/2015 10:10:37 PM PDT · 44 of 71
    cothrige to ConservativeMind; Salvation
    So many Catholics don’t recall the Spanish Inquisition.

    I’m okay with the deaths of those Catholics because Catholics were okay with the deaths of those in Spain.

    These kinds of discussions always strike me as a bit off. I am not saying that this side or that side did not do something wrong, or that Galileo wasn't mistreated, or that the Inquisition wasn't bad (perhaps horrible), or that Henry VIII wasn't a lecherous murderer, but it all misses the point a bit. People want so badly to see everything as a religious issue, and in so doing completely forget that they are also just people. History is not moved entirely by faith, or even largely in all honesty. In most events like these politics is the real mover rather than religious belief itself, and this is applicable to both sides. People kill people because they feel threatened by them, and when your religion is also part of the state apparatus, as it was most often back then, that means people will die for preaching "heresy." It happens, and religion is involved, but it hardly means that Protestantism teaches people to kill Catholics, or vice versa. It is just people doing what people do, and we really should keep that in mind. After all, all those Protestants who were killing Catholics in England under Henry VIII and his children were often born and raised as Catholics, and the Catholics returned the favour at the earliest opportunity.

  • Sandro Magister's Press Credential Removed by Vatican - Blamed For Breaking an "Embargo"...

    06/16/2015 7:30:59 PM PDT · 10 of 11
    cothrige to marshmallow

    I find it amusing that under this pope who wants mercy for all habitual public sinners none can be shown for a journalist who prints a document early. And it is also quite interesting that the Vatican is able to react so quickly to correct this action, unlike clarifying repeated heretical quotes attributed to the pope by a journalist who is not only not punished, but is given more interviews to print instead. Very strange that.

  • For Pope's Environment Encyclical, an unusual line-up of presenters [tr]

    06/10/2015 2:15:09 PM PDT · 4 of 8
    cothrige to choirboy
    As for the binding force of these documents [Encyclicals] it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority.

    That is speaking of infallibility, not magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is not itself necessarily infallible, and it would be to this authority which most such encyclicals would belong.

  • 7 Biblical Arguments Against 'Grave Soaking'

    06/08/2015 6:26:41 PM PDT · 47 of 50
    cothrige to johngrace
    Nowhere does the Catholic Church use Official WORSHIP OF Saints or Mary.

    Actually, the problem with this is that words have changed meaning, or at least been adjusted, and the Church is very, very old. At one time one could have said that we worshiped saints, but at that time the word did not mean quite what most use it for today. That is why we still speak of a saint having a cult, another word which has shifted some. We adore God, and worship (which would be to say revere using more modern words) saints. Adoration is much higher than worship. What is strange, to me, is that most people today will quail at saying they worship their children, but will tell everyone how they adore them. Talk about reversing the meanings entirely.

    Whenever we go to a departed saint for something instead of directly to Jesus we violate Scriptures like 2 Timothy 2:5 and John 14:6, since we only have one designated mediator . . .

    This was a very interesting quote too, as it entirely misunderstands what a mediator is, scripturally speaking. The word 'mediator' refers to one who mediates a covenant between God and man, which no Catholic has ever thought any saint has done. If this were the real meaning of the word then asking your friends to pray for you would also be forbidden as it would still be looking for a mediator. Fortunately, the Bible tells us again and again to pray for one another, and therefore is fully in support of intercession, which is what prayers to the saints are about. Not mediation.

  • Ahead of Pope Francis’ Visit, a Musical Schism in the Philadelphia Archdiocese

    06/06/2015 10:40:32 PM PDT · 8 of 8
    cothrige to markomalley

    This is why so many people flow out of the Church every year. Churchmen are so busy trying to make her relevant that she is increasingly becoming anything but.

  • Patrick Stewart defends ‘gay cake’ bakery (in Northern Ireland; refused gays)

    06/05/2015 10:25:30 AM PDT · 8 of 37
    cothrige to Olog-hai
    Stewart demonstrates a basic wisdom in his statement that "It was not because this was a gay couple they objected, it was not because they were going to be celebrating some kind of marriage, it was the actual words on the cake they objected to, they found them offensive." He recognized that discrimination, as applied legally, is about persons, not ideas, which is how I have argued businesses should operate here in America. People cannot refuse to sell cakes to white supremacists just because of who they are, but they could refuse to write something bigoted on a cake, and I think any court would defend that principle. Focus on the words and not on the people and you may stand a chance. Sadly, though, that did not hold true in N. Ireland, but I would like to think we have still not managed to fall as far as they have over there, at least not yet.
  • Why Lowering the Age of Confirmation Makes Sense

    06/04/2015 6:58:23 PM PDT · 26 of 28
    cothrige to NYer
    The majority of Eastern Catholic Churches administer the sacraments of initiation at the same time. Only the Latin Church has doled them out over a period of years. . The "don't understand" argument is quite ridiculous. We all remember that question in our Baltimore Catechism: "What is a Sacrament?" R: A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. (although mine said 'conveys grace'). We need those graces to stay on course throughout our life.

    I believe that the Eastern method in this case is a very good indicator of the validity and ancientness of this practice. The Latin practice is obviously the aberrant one and so needs to be amended. There simply isn't any good reason to continue with it, beyond making sure many people are deprived of God's graces just when they are confronted by many obstacles which create a need for it.

    I must admit, though, that I have no memory of the Baltimore Catechism, having been reared in the Anglican tradition. The phrase which always returns to my ear is, therefore, the standard one there, along the lines of "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." If parsed carefully it might betray its anti-Catholic bias just a bit, but it flows rather nicely, doesn't it? That is one thing that was always good in the older Anglican rites and services, the English. I still pine for the last response of the Sursum Corda as used in the traditional Anglican Mass. After the priest's call to lift up our hearts our reply was "It is meet and right so to do." You just can't improve on that. We have never come close in the English of the Catholic liturgy. I think we should have just lifted the entire section from the BCP, including the "And with thy spirit" and the priest's continuation which speaks of "our bounden duty." It is all so really good, but, oh well . . .

  • Why Lowering the Age of Confirmation Makes Sense

    06/03/2015 7:47:02 PM PDT · 17 of 28
    cothrige to VermiciousKnid; Cry if I Wanna; Fido969; NYer

    I will honestly never understand why people think one should “understand” this sacrament in order to receive it. This is historically unsound reasoning. There is no more reason for this in confirmation than there is in baptism, and any argument about understanding and age of reason for the former would apply equally well to the latter. As a matter of fact, entire Protestant churches have ordered their sacramental life around this principle, as opposed to the Catholic understanding. What I would love to see is a return to the proper method with the sacraments of initiation being given to newborns. There is just no good reason for withholding God’s grace from our children.

  • Robert Gates to Boy Scouts: Surrender Your Principles

    05/27/2015 8:27:20 PM PDT · 25 of 32
    cothrige to NYer; All

    What the Boy Scouts really need is to improve their image, and to demonstrate their patriotism for a new generation. Basically, they need a timely rebranding. To that end I propose that they should adopt a name change, and from this point on should call themselves the Obama Youth.

  • Cardinal Tagle: Church should not look to 'idealized past' with nostalgia

    05/26/2015 9:29:33 PM PDT · 46 of 46
    cothrige to pbear8

    It is a diocesan church, and I can find nothing on the website which suggests that the priest is affiliated with any order. As far as I know it is the only parish in our diocese which the bishop allows to celebrate the traditional Mass.

  • Pope Francis Says the Devil Is Keeping Evangelicals and Catholics Divided: 'We Are One'

    05/26/2015 8:54:55 PM PDT · 29 of 37
    cothrige to Theo
    I also have issues with certain Roman Catholic FReepers who belittle those who follow Christ apart from the Roman Catholic Church.

    I don't doubt there are plenty of those around, though on this thread what I see is a long list of rather belittling attacks on Catholics.

  • Cardinal Tagle: Church should not look to 'idealized past' with nostalgia

    05/26/2015 7:52:08 PM PDT · 44 of 46
    cothrige to piusv; steve86; pbear8; virgil
    Do not try to follow everything the first time, just enjoy the prayer experience.

    Absolutely. When I get there I really don't think I will worry a lot about very specific translation issues. I figure that those questions will answer themselves over time, assuming I feel comfortable and continue to go. From what you and others are saying I am much less anxious than I was. I am looking quite forward to making it out for a Mass at some point in the coming few weeks.

    Again, I cannot thank all of you enough for the advice and guidance. I really doubt I would ever have worked up the nerve to consider making the drive out without such information as you have all contributed.

  • San Francisco Protesters Redefine Catholicism

    05/26/2015 7:34:49 PM PDT · 10 of 12
    cothrige to NYer

    Reminds me of something I heard Geraldo Rivera say some years ago on TV when asked about his heritage. He responded that he was “half Jewish and half Catholic.” An interesting idea of what it means to be Catholic.

  • Cardinal Tagle: Church should not look to 'idealized past' with nostalgia

    05/26/2015 9:35:14 AM PDT · 37 of 46
    cothrige to piusv

    Hey, I somehow did just that. I had to go back through and look it up. Thanks for that as well. It is always great to be able to ask a question and get so much advice and guidance. It shows how helpful Freepers and Catholics can be.

  • Cardinal Tagle: Church should not look to 'idealized past' with nostalgia

    05/25/2015 9:23:51 PM PDT · 34 of 46
    cothrige to steve86; virgil

    Thank you both so much for all the help and information. It really has been a comfort to hear the advice. It certainly sounds like I should put aside my anxieties and just go and find out how it feels for me. My doubts and concerns have so far restrained me, but what you say lends me much more confidence. Thank you very much.

  • Cardinal Tagle: Church should not look to 'idealized past' with nostalgia

    05/25/2015 7:35:47 PM PDT · 30 of 46
    cothrige to virgil

    Thanks for the information, that seems very helpful. I will have to see about making a trip out there soon and check things out.

  • Cardinal Tagle: Church should not look to 'idealized past' with nostalgia

    05/25/2015 4:38:38 PM PDT · 26 of 46
    cothrige to virgil

    Your post above caught my attention and I wonder if you might be willing to entertain a question. Where I live every Catholic church is absolutely rife with modernism and irreverence; it is truly ugly. But, there is, at the moment, a traditional Mass offered just over a hundred miles away each Sunday. I would be willing to drive the distance but I must admit I am intimidated. Having never been to a traditional Mass I am worried about expectations.

    For instance, I get the impression that traditional Catholics are much more worried about style of dress than are others. Would I be expected to actually wear a suit? And my wife does not like dresses and I don’t believe she even owns one at this time. Would she be expected to wear such? And what about colors? Are some acceptable and others frowned upon? And with three boys the same concern applies. I am a poor working class guy and do not have closets full of suits and ties for my children. So I am concerned about whether I would even be able to attend such a church if expectations are that high. Can you offer any advice and information to an interested person such as myself?

  • Denver's Archbishop Aquila Restores Sacraments to Original Order

    05/25/2015 4:18:45 PM PDT · 13 of 20
    cothrige to Biggirl
    Going back to the “roots” of how the Church did the first 3 sacraments, in the first few centuries.

    I wish we would go back even more completely and restore the sacraments of initiation to infancy. We already baptise infants and so it makes no sense to me to withhold God's further graces from those who are already within the Church.

  • Ireland Goes Gay

    05/24/2015 5:42:45 PM PDT · 56 of 62
    cothrige to WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
    Yes, but you have to be extremely vigilant in finding the right church, and the right Priest. There are still some strong men in the Church, fighting for the Faith.

    Absolutely there are, but that doesn't shift the need to recognize what is going on and why the Church has ceased to be effective witness to moral truths. Until the Church more fully reflects the devotion and reverence that we find now only in tiny isolated places she will be unable to influence people in these matters. You cannot have moral authority and be less than fully true to what you claim to believe.

  • Ireland Goes Gay

    05/24/2015 5:36:08 PM PDT · 55 of 62
    cothrige to NYer
    Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error?

    I am sorry, but that is quite simply just ridiculous. Nothing about the gates of hell promise suggests that the leadership of the Church will always be guaranteed perfect prudence and wisdom in all matters of faith life. The Church has certainly never suggested such a reading.

    You admit that popes can sin, but that only scratches the surface. Popes can sin, and they can be bad leaders. They can promote error personally, and encourage ineffectual teaching and leadership in others. And other prelates can do the same. Look at Germany where the entire leadership of the local church looks headed for schism. Does God promise that the Church in Germany will never commit error? Nope, not at all. And what of the Church in Europe? Could it fall into error? Yep. Any of this and more is possible without the gates of hell prevailing.

    The reality is that there are no promises from God that the Church will not collectively fail to promote a proper and true Eucharistic faith. And any honest appraisal of the recent history of the Church will be forced to admit that. Yes, there are very specific dogmatic protections, but since I have never argued that any dogmatic errors have been committed that does not have any bearing. The truly vile and nonsensical argument is that nothing the Church does is ever less than perfectly sound, which naturally leads those who can see to assume that the gates of hell prevailed and so the Church itself is a lie. A very dangerous suggestion.

  • Ireland Goes Gay

    05/24/2015 11:49:08 AM PDT · 46 of 62
    cothrige to NYer

    Unfortunately, these stories generally leave aside the true foundational problem in the event, at least as concerns the Catholic Church. It is often noted that there were weak bishops and pastors who failed to educate or lead their sheep towards the appropriate faith-based response. Usually we are given examples of poor education by Catholic institutions that, it is implied, has led to outcomes such as this. But these approaches all miss the most basic truth element behind these problems, and that is, regardless of who says what and when, the Church no longer has any moral authority.

    I would ask people to think about it this way. If you knew a man who beat his wife, and cheated on her constantly, would you go to him for advice on virtuous living? The most fundamental aspect of the Church’s life is the Mass. The liturgy is the core of the deposit of faith and the center of our daily life. And yet, how does the Church treasure that, the highest element of its worship and the presence of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ among us? Well, simply put, it doesn’t. It is a throw away. The liturgical life of the Church is a shambles. It is virtually impossible to find something that even comes close to impersonating reverence in a Mass these days. And, given the miserable conditions of the life of worship in this Church, how does the hierarchy respond? Silence. Or, more often, with open contempt for the sacred. And this in regards to what these very men hold up as the zenith of our spiritual life.

    What this means is that the Church has become an institution which ignores or even despises that which it claims to hold as its most fundamental belief. Would you trust an organization like that? Would you listen to anyone from that institution for advice on how to live according to the faith? No, of course not. And because the actual example set by the Church is how to ignore your beliefs and act only according to your financial or secular interests there is no possible hope that it can offer any actual leadership regarding moral issues. This is why there is no point, ultimately, in looking to the Church when it comes to abortion, marriage, euthanasia, etc. Until the Church can rediscover its Eucharistic faith and actually begin to restore its worship to the place it now only gives only lip-service there is no reason to even consider it as a compass for moral teaching. It just has nothing to contribute in those discussions.

  • "He (Pope Francis) knows very well what he is doing"

    05/13/2015 7:43:17 PM PDT · 25 of 34
    cothrige to 9thLife
    As I'm so fond of saying, it must amaze anyone with a lick of sense how people who condemn the media when it runs a headline in adoration of their political enemies or about unemployment numbers will absolutely curl up in its lap and be spoonfed its feces when it tells them what they want to hear.

    How exactly is reading an interview the same as being "spoonfed" something by the media? Does that mean that if I watch the president give a speech via CNN I am not actually hearing what he thinks, but am only being given CNN's ideas? Skepticism is one thing, but this strikes me as an easy way to simply bury your head in the sand and never get any information which might threaten your preconceptions. Hardly very healthy, in my opinion.

  • Pope Francis Allows Priests to Begin Pardoning Women and Doctors Who've Performed Abortions

    05/07/2015 10:17:08 PM PDT · 80 of 96
    cothrige to ScottinVA
    OK, but does “go and sin no more” still apply, or do these abortionists simply get a blanket pardon for all future abortions too?

    Interesting question. But, how is it any different than what non-Catholics do when they confess their sins directly to God? Do they get a blanket pardon? It seems mighty easy to just sin like crazy and then pray a quick "Sorry about that" and then go sin some more.

  • Pope Francis Allows Priests to Begin Pardoning Women and Doctors Who've Performed Abortions

    05/07/2015 7:36:50 PM PDT · 75 of 96
    cothrige to Mrs. Don-o
    Catholics understand that only God can forgive sins.

    Actually, Jesus would disagree with you on that one.

    When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

    We see more evidence of this fact in the healing of the paralytic as recorded at Matthew 9.1-8. There, after Christ demonstrates his power to forgive sins (which the Jews called blasphemy) we read how "the multitude seeing it, feared, and glorified God that gave such power to men."

  • Bishop to Restore Traditional Order of the Sacraments of Initiation (Catholic Caucus)

    05/03/2015 9:54:23 PM PDT · 14 of 15
    cothrige to Slyfox

    I don’t really understand the need for people to understand the importance of a Sacrament, or have some particular knowledge about it, in order to receive God’s graces. If that were so, then the Church should have rejected infant baptism long ago. I would personally love to return confirmation to immediately after baptism, regardless of the age of the child. Knowledge will come in time.

  • Will Pope Francis Break the Church?

    04/21/2015 10:18:15 AM PDT · 9 of 15
    cothrige to Buckeye McFrog
    The Church has survived many bad Popes over it’s 2000 year history. Many far worse than this guy. My observation is that he’s misguided. Some in the past were simply malevolent.

    I have heard this a lot, and I don't disagree with the facts of it, but I do think it misses some of the key differences between today and those past popes. For one, those many past bad popes did not have a modern global multimedia system to benefit them. It took ages for things to get around, and when it did it usually wasn't the daily musings of a very dubious man like we have today, but official proclamations which were more strictly handled. Secondly, the world was different. There was a largely orthodox and sincere body of believers which would have to be convinced. Sure, many were ready for "progress" but most probably were not interested, and would have stood against false hoods being preached from the highest office. Today, however, we have a world begging and ready for this stuff, including most of the people in the pews.

    I am not saying that the Church will be broken, per se, but I do think we have to be ready for the potential of massive, incredible upheaval and damage. It could be really bad. Much worse than anything that could have been perpetrated by truly evil popes hundreds of years ago. We should be prepared.

  • Why Orthodox Christian Easter Is Later than the Catholic One

    04/09/2015 8:32:34 PM PDT · 24 of 52
    cothrige to theBuckwheat
    You may reject the fathers of the Council, which is perfectly fine by me, but that really isn't what you said. You argued that Constantine, not the Church, established the observance, and that is simply historically false. Not even the Council established it, as demonstrated by the letter from that synod to the Egyptian Church. Secular authority has nothing to do with the origins of Easter or any of the Church's feasts.

    You also seem to have a hangup regarding passover vs Easter. Just for informational purposes Easter is only the English name given to the feast, which in Greek (the language of the Church which gathered in that Council) is Pascha, or Passover. If you read the Latin documents of the Church you will never find the term Easter or Oster or any German names at all, and so supposed Pagan origins for the name are hardly relevant to what we as Catholics do or believe. It is just the name in our language for that day and feast, nothing more.

    As for paganism and the major feasts, that is all built on assumptions based on correlations but no actual evidence. Sure, there are periods of the year which have supposedly drawn multiple people to celebrate various festivals on them, but that demonstrates nothing other than a shared human interest in the seasons and cosmos. That the equinoxes, solstices and other such times might have been observed by many peoples in common demonstrates no shared origin. After all, according to many anthropologists and such people we can find Celts, Romans, Greeks, Germans and American Indians all recognizing these events and developing various myths around them, but that hardly means that the Amerindians of Cahokia were actually worshiping Roman gods. If these various peoples all celebrate some sort of ritual or festival on an equinox it certainly cannot imply that they derive this from one another, and therefore neither can it be reasonably assumed that early Christians were following pagans in what they did.

    And, if you don't believe me, then just ask yourself why the Jews would be engaging in pagan worship by observing Passover? It is that feast, after all, which is the model and origin of our Easter, and not some Roman pagan festival.

  • Why Orthodox Christian Easter Is Later than the Catholic One

    04/09/2015 6:42:28 PM PDT · 11 of 52
    cothrige to theBuckwheat

    Sorry, but the observation of Easter is much older than you seem to suggest and you have flipped the roles of those who affected how we celebrate it. At the First Council of Nicaea the fathers discussed the feast and disagreements regarding its dating clearly demonstrating it was already ancient at that time. Constantine had nothing to do with it, the Church did.

  • Modernist Press Tapes Modernist Priest’s Confession

    03/15/2015 5:22:14 PM PDT · 6 of 6
    cothrige to BlatherNaut

    This is a very strange subject for confession. What was this person pretending to confess here? I have a hard time understanding why one would go into the confessional, or reconciliation room or whatever it is called these days, in order to ask to have a daughter baptised. Just weird.

  • After "Blurred Lines" Victory, Gaye Family Takes Another Listen to "Happy"

    03/13/2015 5:40:42 PM PDT · 8 of 19
    cothrige to nickcarraway
    I think we can expect a lot of these insipid lawsuits now that a jury actually awarded over seven million dollars because a song was vaguely similar in style to another one. Talk about insane. And I wonder if it will stop with songs. I mean, we have to be honest. Lots of authors first books read very much like more famous authors whose style they have intentionally emulated. Better sue their pants off too. Just how we have gotten to the point of copyright protections on mood and style is a mystery, but here we are.

    What also confuses me though is how these people can really get anywhere in the first place. What damages are they really claiming they suffered? Are they actually arguing that they lost $7 million worth of sales of that crusty old Marvin Gaye song? Are we really supposed to believe that seven million people were going to go on itunes and buy that song, but after hearing Blurred Lines decided to buy it instead? Does anyone think that has ever happened, even once, much less seven million times? People just don't buy music like that. The whole idea is simply dubious, and yet it is the only way I can see claiming that there have been $7 million in damages suffered. It is all just so stupidly absurd.

  • Clement of Rome (died 110 A.D.) [Third Successor To St. Peter And Friend of Apostles]

    03/01/2015 6:46:22 PM PST · 8 of 15
    cothrige to JAKraig
    Remember that the qualification of being a bishop included having a wife.

    There was no such qualification. They were to be, by the instruction of the Apostle Paul, who was not married btw, the husband of only one wife, but there was no requirement that they must have a wife. Those are two different things.

  • Coming soon: Museum of the Bible in D.C.

    02/28/2015 11:58:57 AM PST · 20 of 21
    cothrige to NYer
    Gutsy move! How long before the muslims open their Qu'uran Museum directly across the street.

    But, didn't you know? That museum is also holy for the Muslims, because it was at that location that Muhammad once used a pay phone. Therefore, it would be impossible for them to settle for one across the street, and will just have to take this one over for themselves.

  • Call No Man Your "Father," Especially on Facebook

    01/29/2015 6:26:47 PM PST · 20 of 49
    cothrige to Fai Mao
    The founder of KFC was never in the military. That Colonel was his first name

    No, not quite. His first name was Harlen. He was a Kentucky Colonel, which is an honorific bestowed by Kentucky for having done some great service to the people of the state, or the like.

  • Is the Angel of the Lord the Pre-Incarnate Christ?

    01/26/2015 8:17:35 PM PST · 76 of 88
    cothrige to The_Reader_David

    That was a very informative post, and I just wanted to thank you for it. I had no idea about the “Angel of Haran.” Thanks again, it definitely does shed some light on the subject being discussed.

  • “Rabbitgate”: Video Witness Shames The Pope

    01/25/2015 6:15:23 PM PST · 19 of 42
    cothrige to sgtyork

    Yes, I agree, that is one problem with this particular blog, though not necessarily the only one. I don’t doubt that the author is very sincere and probably well informed. And I will readily admit that I usually agree with his positions, when I can be certain I understand what he is actually talking about. And that, sadly, is the problem. He has a habit of sarcastically referring to events and people rather than being clear about what he is on about. He tends to use snide nicknames or indirect but derisive references and asides. Once, I was quite curious about some things he gave that kind of underhanded reference to, and so I asked him. His only response was that I should search his blog. Oh well, too bad. Bloggers should realise that, if their efforts are intended to convince and educate, they must be interested enough to give complete information and references so that what they say can be confirmed and shared with others. Otherwise, it just ends up going nowhere.

  • Magical Thinking in the Orthodox Church

    12/10/2014 10:15:37 PM PST · 28 of 30
    cothrige to redgolum
    Convert disease.

    Convert disease? Interesting phrase which I have not previously heard, but from your post it seems to refer to a concept I come across quite often in the Catholic Church. Cradle believers very often see converts as being somehow less tuned into the proper way of thinking. I have never found this to be so personally. Though I did work for a time with a born and raised Italian Catholic woman who once told me that we, meaning Catholics, definitely do not believe that Jesus is God. She seemed pretty tuned in for certain. It has always struck me as a rather comforting thought that cradle believers are somehow a little better than those who have often given up so much in the world to be in the Church, but it must be short lived. After all, at some point it is likely to occur to people that the apostles were all converts.

  • The Dangers of Secondhand Christmas

    11/25/2014 7:34:10 PM PST · 9 of 10
    cothrige to NYer

    What I find amusing are the repeated Jewish-centric reading assignments my children get every year in school. It’s holocaust this and defamation that, and every one of them has references to the Torah and Passover in it. And, I have a very hard time imagining that where I live in the boonies of northwest Florida is somehow more concerned with Jews than anywhere else, which makes me think that this is going on everywhere. And, so I wonder, where are all the complaints about the religious stuff in these books, as well as all of the movie adaptations that are so popular to watch in classes after reading them? Where are the anti-Anne Frank protests? Where is the outrage over the Devil’s Arithmetic? Surely people are screaming bloody murder over dreidels and matzo, and yet I never seem to read about it.

  • CEO Satya Nadella: Microsoft Loves Linux

    10/28/2014 9:59:13 AM PDT · 35 of 42
    cothrige to SeekAndFind

    I personally think too much is made of the numbers regarding desktop share. For as long as I can remember Windows has dominated the market, and for just as long they have been a distant last in terms of value. I have been using Linux for something like fifteen years and I have seen no downside from the small market share. It has always done what I wanted and the way I wanted. Over the past few years there have been incredible advances in technology on the system, and we have even seen things like Steam ported over. What exactly does having so small a market share done to hurt Linux? Nothing. It is the community that matters, and there is nothing lacking there.

  • "Synod Fathers under intense pressure from the Kasper Front to modify their views - or else"

    10/16/2014 9:44:18 PM PDT · 6 of 7
    cothrige to NYer

    Well this just makes no sense. I bet this entire story is just a bad translation, and what was originally written was how wonderfully orthodox everybody in the Synod actually is. How could any of these bishops be pressured to accept a progressive position? There has been no progressive position expressed at the Synod. We know this because the Relatio was only a bad translation. And, additionally, it was altered by Forte and the gay stuff, which was only in the bad translation, was inserted by him on his own. In Italian. And then mistranslated. And, further, only one person out of 265 ever even mentioned any gays in the Synod itself. Obviously there is nothing bad going on here, and everybody is wonderfully orthodox, except for Forte, and even he is okay since the gay stuff he inserted on his own was only from the translation into English. Which he didn’t write. See? It just couldn’t be clearer.

  • Pope Francis makes an important move at the synod

    10/15/2014 5:38:00 AM PDT · 78 of 78
    cothrige to BlueDragon
    But otherwise there was a bit of rope-a-dope on your own part when it came to trying to assert that I was intending this notion of infallibility to apply casually.

    Again your assumptions are showing. Perhaps this is a trend with you. You obviously assumed that any document addressing papal authority must be applicable throughout to infallibility, and now you are assuming that everything I am saying relates to some notion of "casual" speaking. No. That is you trying to deflect from the simple reality that you have stretched the focus of a text beyond its intent. Nothing more.

    ... and at the same time distract away from the more generalized notion of infallibility as applied to Magesterium

    What generalized notion of infallibility? There is none. Infallibility is specifically defined, and applicable only in very constrained situations. I even quoted the very brief mention of it in the original text you excerpted. There is nothing generalized about it. You do realize that there is no secret Catholic teaching on infallibility, don't you? Just go look at Vatican I and see for yourself what it says. It is very short, and clear, and there is no generalization of it in any way.

    Secondly, distract why? If infallibility were generalized why distract? And to what end? As I pointed out very clearly, no non-Catholic is comfortable with the specific notion of infallibility, and so what is gained by restricting it to that? As if you were going to be suddenly okay with Catholic dogma as it is and decide that the Immaculate Conception was infallible, but just not other things. It is just a ridiculous assumption on your part.

  • Pope Francis makes an important move at the synod

    10/15/2014 5:25:11 AM PDT · 77 of 78
    cothrige to BlueDragon
    All along in this -- I was aware you assumed that I was implying such as the above -- to have it apply to recent news and developments.

    Actually your assumption was wrong. I used these examples only to be expansive and because they were accessible. An audience is a fairly formal setting, and speaking to a reporter is very informal, and as such they covered both ends of the spectrum of possible papal commentary. In a previous post I used this example: "When they preach homilies, or answer questions, or speak to people or give advice or whatever, then they are as subject to their skills and capabilities as anyone." I have never given any thought to whether you had some particular situation in mind or not, and neither did I care. You were in error in your usage of the text, as I have said, and you continue to be in error. Nothing more.

    And as the rest of this maxi lecture seems concerned with simply more of this erroneous assumption I will pass it over. None of it appears, at a glance, to add anything new to your misapplication of the audience text you originally quoted as being concerned with infallibility when it was not.

  • Pope Francis makes an important move at the synod

    10/14/2014 9:20:51 PM PDT · 72 of 78
    cothrige to BlueDragon
    There, and all the rest which can be found in that document is where it is suggested there is large extent or degree of overlap.

    No, you are wrong, and simply demonstrate what I am saying. That document speaks of authority generally, and specifically cites infallibility only in a small part. You are taking the references to general authority and suggesting that it applies to infallibility. The document does not do this.

    Stop blaming ME for it -- as if I'm getting it wrong.

    I am not blaming anyone, and, yes, you are still wrong.

    So just excuse the sam-billy out of me for seeing things for what they are--- when the rubber meets the road --- instead of vainly clinging to the distinctions (some of which are truly enough there) which in end result allow the Church of Rome to have things both ways all at once and always.

    Oh, this is all just ridiculous. Nothing in that document, or any other, allows Rome to have anything "both ways all at once and always," whatever that even means. The Church, and the Pope, are infallible in certain carefully prescribed situations, and not in others. And, most importantly, I am quite certain you object to that as it is. It isn't like you agree that the pope was infallible in saying that any particular Catholic is a saint in heaven and is therefore worthy of a cult, or that our Lady was assumed into heaven or conceived immaculately. So I hardly see what you think we Catholics are pulling off by denying that the Holy Father is infallible when speaking to a reporter or giving some audience to some pilgrims (at which times he isn't, btw). Your implication that I am just trying to use some apologetics trick and have it both ways is therefore just silly.

  • Pope Francis makes an important move at the synod

    10/13/2014 8:30:24 PM PDT · 70 of 78
    cothrige to BlueDragon
    ...for there must be overlap at least when what is perceived to be "infallible" is "authoritatively" proclaimed.

    Yes, there is overlap, but that doesn't mean that any teaching about authority is automatically applicable to infallibility. When a pope talks about authority as a concept, and generally, what he says is not automatically a teaching on infallibility specifically. As I have said, popes are always authoritative, but rarely infallible. What is said infallibly is therefore authoritative, but not all authoritative statements are also infallible. The statements you were quoting and applying to infallibility as a means of suggesting that popes are infallible more often than commonly thought (which by the way I don't actually deny as a concept) are simply not what you suggest. They were directed to the concept of authority generally, and not infallibility specifically except in one brief portion.

    If not infallibly true -- then what? A person can second guess what they have been told, and take it to mean whatever they best think or understand it to mean, or how it may best fit into overall framework of understanding.

    Popes say and teach a great deal, and most of the time they are no more protected by supernatural intervention than any pastor or churchman. When they preach homilies, or answer questions, or speak to people or give advice or whatever, then they are as subject to their skills and capabilities as anyone. If a pope misspeaks or gets facts wrong, and they have in the past, then we are free to know better. Errors are errors, regardless of the source. But, when pope's teach in formal ways about formally defined topics invoking specifically their infallible authority then we cannot freely doubt what they say is true.

    Uh, huh. So-called "Protestants" can do the same evaluating in regards to that which they are told in their own congregational and educational settings also.

    Yes, and it is myth that we don't have that same right in most instances. We simply cannot use our "consciences" to question de fide teachings, i.e. those things which are infallibly laid out by Holy Mother Church whether it be via a pope, council or Sacred Tradition. And, like our Protestant brethren, we too can doubt our often misinformed and misled parish pastors.

    The real test is -- does what they say agree with the scriptures, in both spirit and truth.

    Sorry, but this is something else entirely and involves questions of the legitimacy of Church authority at all, and that is just an argument which never ends. Either you accept it or your do not. As such I see no reason to enter into that morass of endless sniping.

  • Pope Francis makes an important move at the synod

    10/13/2014 1:16:13 PM PDT · 68 of 78
    cothrige to BlueDragon
    You were the one who brought the comparison!

    Yes, the comparison, or more accurately, the analogy.

    So now you agree that the comparison is not necessarily all that helpful?

    No, it is extremely helpful and quite accurate, if one is able to understand things analogically. However, to use an analogy is still to speak only of that of which it is held to be an analogue. We were not speaking of Mozart and math, but rather of your failure to understand that relation and "overlap" does not equate to being able to take anything one says about one idea and then argue it as a support or proof of the related or overlapping concept. This is what you have done regarding infallibility.

    A pope speaks of the authority of the papacy, and you stretch that into some idea of a much broadened dogma of infallibility with the recourse that authority and infallibility must "overlap" in some conceptual way. Nope. Wrong. Popes are always authoritative, but are rarely infallible. Conceptual overlap means nothing in regards to applying this specific speaker's words, just as it would mean nothing if one used the same position to try to apply the words of Mozart on, say, symphonies to an argument of algebra. Conceptual overlap does not change the purpose and meaning of an author's intent when they write something about a topic. And therein lies the accuracy and usefulness of the analogy.

    And, by the way, I am still not talking about Mozart and math, just in case you are confused again.

  • Pope Francis makes an important move at the synod

    10/12/2014 9:55:57 PM PDT · 59 of 78
    cothrige to BlueDragon
    Were not talking about math and Mozart.

    No, we are not. And this is the limit of what you have said which can be considered accurate.

  • Pope Francis makes an important move at the synod

    10/12/2014 5:36:43 PM PDT · 49 of 78
    cothrige to BlueDragon; ebb tide
    then consider the little mini lecture I received in the comment immediately below you own...which begins with the view that I am conflating authority and infallibility-- as if there is no overlap to those?

    I hardly see how possible overlap between infallibility and authority has any bearing on anything. What I am pointing out is that you took portions of an audience which were concerned with papal authority and then posited those quotes as some sort of definition of infallibility specifically. In this way you most certainly did conflate two separate ideas within Catholic dogma, as well as two separate ideas discussed by the speaker you quoted. It is a simple fact that, within the Catholic faith, popes are always authoritative, but are not always infallible. Whether or not the ideas are related, or even overlap, is not relevant. I can talk all I want about how much math and music are related and overlap, but that doesn't mean that I can take quotes by Mozart and imply that he was arguing about algebra.

  • Pope Francis makes an important move at the synod

    10/11/2014 7:52:24 PM PDT · 38 of 78
    cothrige to BlueDragon
    If I may add to this it looks to me that you are conflating authority and infallibility. Popes must be obeyed regardless of whether they are speaking with the latter, and so they always have the former. Your quote is speaking to the overall teaching authority of the Petrine ministry, and is not directly addressing only infallibility itself, the heading notwithstanding. Infallibility is only guaranteed when the pope speaks ex cathedra, as clearly defined in Vatican I and quoted in the audience you have referenced: "When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra ... he enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining a doctrine on faith and morals."

    As for how many infallible statements popes have uttered, well that is impossible to say looking back. How many times have the popes quoted scripture? How many times have they quoted the canons of general councils? How many times have they merely applied the foundational principles of the Catholic faith without any change or alteration? These would all be infallible. If I say, right now, Christ is Lord, then I do so without any possibility of error, and so have said something infallible. However, none of what I say is guaranteed to be so, and therefore I do not personally enjoy the charism of infallibility. I can, with hindsight, be found to be absolutely unerring in something I say, but that means nothing about me or my place on earth. The Church, and by extension the Holy Father, has the promise of infallibility, but only under very specific situations, and that allows us to be certain of what the Church teaches. So, yes, popes can be said to have spoken infallibly many times, but only rarely can we say we know without any doubt that they are infallible merely because they said it. There are ex cathedra pronouncements (including the canonisation of saints), and also when they, like any bishop, can be said to be "authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, ... are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held." These latter, however, are not what most people are speaking about when discussing infallible pronouncements because they are not peculiar to the papacy and so not specifically "papal infallibility."