Confirmed: Obama, Romney to attend Al Smith dinner [CWN]

[Prodigal_Son1]

Surely if you are a Catholic you know that we don’t adhere to “sola scriptura.” We hold to everything that Mother Church teaches.

The greatest majority of everything the Church teaches is in scriptures…

Now, please direct me to the scriptures where Christ taught the multitude to ‘admonish’ the authoritative men of the Church? That’s what we’re discussing, isn’t it? Everyone is so focused on Obama being invited, it seems they are directing their dislike towards the Cardinal.

 

[surritter]

The greatest majority of everything the Church teaches is in scriptures…

Now, please direct me to the scriptures where Christ taught the multitude to ‘admonish’ the authoritative men of the Church? That’s what we’re discussing, isn’t it? Everyone is so focused on Obama being invited, it seems they are directing their dislike towards the Cardinal.

Hold on – I pointed out that we are not “sola scriptura.”
So no, we are not discussing an item where I’m obligated to direct you to a certain scripture. Let’s consider ALL of the Church’s traditional teachings.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hold on – I pointed out that we are not “sola scriptura.” So no, we are not discussing an item where I’m obligated to direct you to a certain scripture. Let’s consider ALL of the Church’s traditional teachings.

Ok, please show me in Church teachings where the laity is instructed to ‘correct’ the authoritative men of the Church.

And, can you please stop the condescending tone? I’m not here to see who can out cliche the other. It’s not a contest for me. I know very well we are not sola scriptura. I also know, from much apologetic research, that the greatest majority of what the Church teaches is supported through scripture. I also know that people can make mistakes interpreting Church teachings, just as they can with scriptures.

Once again, have you read Cardinal Dolan’s response?

No matter what you might think of this particular decision, might I ask your prayers for me and my brother bishops and priests who are faced with making these decisions, so that we will be wise and faithful shepherds as God calls us to be?

In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus, who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone.

 

[surritter]

Perhaps your tone is condescending, because when I mentioned sola scriptura, your reply was that I still needed to show you a scripture, as if I’ve not even spoken. Wouldn’t it be better to address the issue, and why I’m obligated to stick to the scriptures?

 

[surritter]

But … if you insist…

Try Matthew 10:14 –
“Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.”

Notice the Lord didn’t say to bring them along with you to the social dinner.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But … if you insist…

Try Matthew 10:14 –
“Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.”

Notice the Lord didn’t say to bring them along with you to the social dinner.

Notice the audience of who the Lord was addressing? It was His disciples; the men He chose and appointed. There were things spoken to the multitudes and other things spoken to the authoritative men over His Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Perhaps your tone is condescending, because when I mentioned sola scriptura, your reply was that I still needed to show you a scripture, as if I’ve not even spoken. Wouldn’t it be better to address the issue, and why I’m obligated to stick to the scriptures?

If you say so…

I will apologize for anything I have said that can be taken as condescending. It’s not my intent. I have spent a great amount of time researching Church teachings against scriptures. It’s how I converted.

 

[surritter]

Notice the audience of who the Lord was addressing? It was His disciples; the men He chose and appointed. There were things spoken to the multitudes and other things spoken to the authoritative men over His Church.

That was indeed to His disciples. But why is that incongruous with our situation? Are you saying that the Apostles were not meant to heed that same instruction?

 

[surritter]

Prodigal…

I too apologize for things that may have been condescending. I am happy to discuss the issue, and simply think that those who regret the Cardinal’s decision should also be heard.

Also, I failed to acknowledge to you that I have read the Cardinal’s response. It is well reasoned; however, I still say that the repercussions of the happy-slappy photographs, etc. will end up hurting the overall cause. (I suppose “scandal” is too strong of a word, but he does address that aspect toward the end of the article).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That was indeed to His disciples. But why is that incongruous with our situation? Are you saying that the Apostles were not meant to heed that same instruction?

The disciples were His Apostles. In the DRB, Matthew only refers to those men as Apostles twice. He refers to them as disciples 64 times. Looking at all the Gospels together, we see the term Apostles used 9 times; 7 times by Luke and 2 times by Matthew. If you wish to see it in the singular form, it’s only used once by John.

To me, I found it important to distinguish the audience that Christ addressed, as there were different things said to the multitudes and disciples/apostles. Remember, he spoke parables to the multitudes and explained all things to the disciples/apostles.

Mar 4:34 And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples.

For the laity, it is to our advantage to have the scriptures to see and understand those things Christ instructed the authoritative men of the Church to teach us.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal…

I too apologize for things that may have been condescending. I am happy to discuss the issue, and simply think that those who regret the Cardinal’s decision should also be heard.

Also, I failed to acknowledge to you that I have read the Cardinal’s response. It is well reasoned; however, I still say that the repercussions of the happy-slappy photographs, etc. will end up hurting the overall cause. (I suppose “scandal” is too strong of a word, but he does address that aspect toward the end of the article).

He recognizes every aspect being discussed here, including the example of Jesus dining with the sinners. The decision has been made and I think it more beneficial for Catholics to stand behind the Cardinal in support of him; right or wrong, I believe he is acting in what he felt was the best interest of all.

 

[shocktrooper]

Once again, have you read Cardinal Dolan’s response?

Prodigal Son1,

I have read the Cardinal’s response and I will accept it. He has responded to his critics and the concerns we have, in his own unique way. I concede and submit to his decision. We shall reap what is sown. The fruits of this seed shall be seen in due time.

May the LORD’s will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Pax Christi!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1,

I have read the Cardinal’s response and I will accept it. He has responded to his critics and the concerns we have, in his own unique way. I concede and submit to his decision. We shall reap what is sown. The fruits of this seed shall be seen in due time.

May the LORD’s will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Pax Christi!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Once again, have you read Cardinal Dolan’s response?

The Cardinal’s response and description of the purposes and conduct of the banquet were exactly as I expected!

 

[RobbyS]

:

Not to invite the President has precedent.If we invite neither, than that WOULD have meant the Church stands above politics. Now, it is impossible to cancel the invitation without making a political statement.

Beyond that, it is unfortunate that for many years, the bishops individually have allowed their staffs to get the church involved in political matters beyond their competence.

 

[jwinch2]

The Cardinal’s response and description of the purposes and conduct of the banquet were exactly as I expected!

I would have expected roughly the same thing from Cardinal Dolan as well. He is a good man who is trying hard to do the right thing. He is often put in very tough positions, some of it of his own doing, but is doing the best he can.

I just hope he knows what he is doing with this situation. Too many Catholic dissidents have used a dinner with a bishop, etc. as just the photo op they need to convince Catholics that it is OK to vote for them.

 

[RobbyS]

Yes, I agree but he never “hung out” or “lapped it up” with sinners just for the sake of being nice. He did it to bring them closer to Him, to provoke them to conversion and to follow Him. But why can’t I take your “but Christ ate with Sinners” and expand it even further? You taking it out of context only allows me to do so also. Also, Christ brought the New Covenant and did so in a divine way. Cardinal Dolan is not bringing new divinely revealed revelation with him to this dinner. His job is simply to protect the truth and to bring souls to Christ. Being a good shepherd entails protecting the flock first from wolves in sheep’s clothing. I feel he is personally opening the door for the wolf to enter through.

Yes, and I think this warning should be considered by our American Bishops. Who was it that said the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops?

So you admit the power of prayer has no effect. Must it always boil down to materialism?

The greatest power of prayer is to improve our discernment, to uncloud our minds and hearts. Lord.let me see the truth of things, and the way to go. We want to be able to choices “freely,” as if what we want is always the way to go. If we turn on our “receivers” we will locate God’s channlel to us. Too often we refuse to get on line, and depend on our puny store of knowledge.

 

[emmaberry]

Admittedly, I have only read a couple pages, but I think pride may have led Dolan to do this. There is a time for converting, and then there is a time for protecting the sheep.

Cardinal Dolan’s error lies in the fact that he obviously views himself as a political figure in hte mix of all this…when really he is a shepherd appointed by the Church to keep the flock safe. Fraternizing with Obama at this crucial time in American History is not shepherding the flock. Sure, there are al sorts of good reasons to do it, and these have been mentioned in this thread. The error lies in the fact that he is not a negotiator on behalf of the Church, much as he would like to be. Of course, there is a time for dialogue, and a great example of this is when a large member of Anglicans came back into communion with the Church.

As others have said, Obama and Cardinal Dolan had a relationship way before the HHS mandate came about.

I think Cardinal Dolan is trying to make himself look good. He obviously has good intentions, but America does not need another ‘strong’ Catholic person to negotiate for us. We need a shepherd who will lead us and guide us by example. How does this look to those Catholic employers who will be in serious trouble within the next few years due to the HHS Mandate? To them, this whole ‘conversation’ business is hogwash. They want a Catholic leader who will lead them through the persecution that is surely coming…not someone who obviously hopes it will roll over and pass.

The example of Thomas More and the King is a good one. Conversation is good when both sides are talking…not so much when one side is looking for self-motivated political gain at the expensive of millions of Catholic’s consciences.

What a sad situation. This does not give me hope for America’s Catholic future, at least not guided by Cardinal Dolan. I pray that he will realize what needs to be done in every tough situation he is placed in. We must pray for him, as he is in a really terrible office right now for the times we are about to go through.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think pride may have led Dolan to do this. ~~~Cardinal Dolan’s error lies in the fact that he obviously views himself as a political figure in the mix of all this…when really he is a shepherd appointed by the Church to keep the flock safe. Fraternizing with Obama at this crucial time in American History is not shepherding the flock.~~~The error lies in the fact that he is not a negotiator on behalf of the Church, much as he would like to be. Of course, there is a time for dialogue, and a great example of this is when a large member of Anglicans came back into communion with the Church. ~I think Cardinal Dolan is trying to make himself look good.~…not someone who obviously hopes it will roll over and pass.

This does not give me hope for America’s Catholic future, at least not guided by Cardinal Dolan.

Where is your charity for His Eminence? Where is your trust in his ability to carry out his role as Archbishop? All I read are negative impressions, and erroneous ones at that, of the Archbishop the Pope thought worthy enough to be the head of the New York Archdiocese, and worthy enough to be given the red cap.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where is your charity for His Eminence? Where is your trust in his ability to carry out his role as Archbishop? All I read are negative impressions, and erroneous ones at that, of the Archbishop the Pope thought worthy enough to be the head of the New York Archdiocese, and worthy enough to be given the red cap.

I think PRIDE makes people look for every opportunity to justify complaining against the Cardinal…

I still say it’s hypocritical to only hold the Cardinal accountable, and not his superiors.