Looking those up led to some very fascinating discoveries. Quotes from the Bishops who attended the First Vatican Council, for instance, and descriptions of Pius IX. Wow. Quia quorundam, papal bull by John XXII, makes his official opinion of his own infallibility clearly known. And Pius XI’s Syllabus of Errors is quite the eye opener.**Ad Exstirpanda **(May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV) - the use of torture for obtaining a confession,
**Romanus Pontifex ** (January 8, 1455 by Pope Nicholas V) - permission to enslave and take land from non-Christians,
Cum nimis absurdum (July 14, 1555 by Pope Paul IV) - reinstates the economic restrictions on Jewish people in the Papal States
I didn’t tear you apart, of course. I simply challenged your argument. You can’t avoid that challenge by trying to turn this into a personal attack, because it simply wasn’t.
Furthermore, the line-by-line response is so that it can be seen and verified that I’ve responded substantially to everything you’ve claimed.
Where I belong has nothing to do with whether the argument I presented was true or false. While I was merely addressing your claims, you’re not actually attacking me, and ignoring my claims. It is you who is trying to tear me apart, and not vice versa.
I haven’t torn anyone apart; I’ve simply challenged the claims you’ve made. Why don’t you try addressing those challenges rather than attacking me?
No, Jesus didn’t. In fact, Jesus Himself followed every bit of the law as found in the Scriptures. What He railed against was people who didn’t follow the Scripture for the sake of their own understanding.
This doesn’t have anything to do with the argument at hand. We’re not talking about the law: we’re talking about things like feeding a dying man or enrolling in an organization that the Church with its authority says you must not enroll in.
You presume that you’ve read the gospels more than I have.
I don’t recall calling you a name; why do you call me one?
This has nothing to do with my post. You’re not even responding to it, you’re pulling a standard distraction technique I see in relativist/rebellious Christians: instead of focusing on the issue, you try to paint your opposition as exclusivist.
And you’ll note that I rarely do, either. Still, presuming you know Scripture, you ought to be able to refer to it as needed.
No argument there, but then, this isn’t at all related to our prior discussion, it’s just written to distract from the fact that you haven’t substantially addressed any of what I posted earlier.
We will be judged on our obedience to Christ’s bride, the Church. The analogy should not be difficult to understand: if my wife tells my sibling or child to do something, and he refuses, he’ll have me to deal with.
Thank you for your quotes and responses.(the system won’t let me post them all.) My response to you is going to be relatively simple.
As a seminarian for my Diocese who earned his M.Div. but refused ordination, I’ve studied long and hard and pored over many works of Scripture and works relating to God’s Word. Like all seminarians i read and studied classics such “City of God” and work by St. John of the Cross. In short, I’m quite well read on matters spiritual. I pursued and received my Ph.D., but not in the Divinity field.
Here’s the thing- the further i went into my Master of Div. studies the more I came to realize that no institution in which man has had a hand in forming- religious or secular- has a corner on absolute truth. That certainly includes the Roman Catholic Church. I intend to defend that view until the day I die. Further, no one- save for Our Blessed Lord Himself- has a monopoly on truth. While I certainly don’t believe in what my Archbishop calls “cafeteria Catholicism”, I am of the belief that God makes Himself known to each of us in different ways. The human race didn’t evolve from a cookie cutter- we’re all different. As such, God makes Himself known to us- at times- in different ways. For example, I have Mormon friends. They know I don’t find the Book of Mormon credible, but I do not and never will deny that God has made himself known to them by way of writings I find are no more than a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination. By the same token, they show me respect re my Catholic faith and the things they consider not credible concerning my faith. I wish you would extend the same courtesy to those of us within the Church who love God- Father, Son ,and Holy Spirit, but elect to differ from people like yourself as regards the Church and only a small fraction of its’ teachings.
If I called you a name, please accept my apologies. My writing wasn’t intended to do that in any way. However, my belief is unshaken the lilteralism and legalism were both condemned by Christ. i haven’t had time between teaching classes to do up things chapter and verse to bolster my point, but I promise I’ll do that for you- and in a kind way. Again, i apologize for harsh words. Please accept my apology.
As for Freemasonry, i hope that someday the Church and some of our hard-headed (and believe me there are some) leaders of Freemasonry would heed Isaiah’s words- reason together. No one would have to accept the other’s beliefs, but it would be good to end some of the more outlandish misconceptions there are between the two groups. Constructive conversation never hurt anyone, so why not try it in this case?
jeremy, I appreciate your views. In many ways I respect them. However, I’ve seen several of my seminary classmates become permanently damaged psychologically because they towed the Church’s line as you seem to do. I believe Holy Mother Church, 99% of the time is right in what she teaches and I defend those teachings. But- that little left-over fraction causes much hurt and, as i said, has caused damage needlessly.
I’d like to start things over with you- to try and understand all of what you are telling me. I want to correct myself and speak without rancor on my part. please give me that chance.
Rob
If you wish- write me at my privte address. Somehow, I’ll get it to you.
First, Jesus told us “I am the way, **the truth, **and the life.” In other words, Holy Mother Church is NOT the pillar and repository of truth as you perceive her to be. Ultimately, truth resides with God and God alone. ****
The Roman Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. What the Church binds on Earth is bound in Heaven.
If the Church makes a rulling on Faith or Morals, its the same as Jesus comming down off the cross and telling it to your face.
If someone see’s something that is wrong, I believe it is their duty to report it and or try to make it right.
At the below link, you will find a letter that I wrote to Bishop Kevin Farrell. It was written a while back…Indeed. And the proper way to handle an issue like this, where you feel that the Church has made an error in judgment and unnecessary restricts its members from being Masons, is to work within the Church to change its perspective. You cannot do that while in a state of mortal sin, sacrilegiously receiving the Eucharist in opposition to the Church’s command. The Church has said in no uncertain terms the membership in the Masons constitutes grave sin. By that very precept (if not by the other reasons the Church outlines) it does constitute grave sin, even if no other reason were to apply.
The line above makes it sound like it would be okay to follow false teachings?
Po-tay-to… Po-taa-to. Call it what you want to…The Church’s precept is not a “false teaching.” It’s a disciplinary measure.
My conscience must be really seared or improperly formed because there are other Papal Bulls that I do not agree with. In fact I think they are wrong.
Yes they do. They were written by the Popes, and they’re wrong. They were the teachings and/or discipline of the Church at that time.I’m not talking about Papal bulls. They really have no relevance in this discussion.
Ad Exstirpanda (May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV) - the use of torture for obtaining a confession,
Romanus Pontifex (January 8, 1455 by Pope Nicholas V) - permission to enslave and take land from non-Christians,
Cum nimis absurdum (July 14, 1555 by Pope Paul IV) - reinstates the economic restrictions on Jewish people in the Papal States
I will not follow what is not true.What do you intend to prove here? That the Church can be mistaken about matters of discipline? No one disagrees with that. The issue here is that you think your disagreement with the Church on this particular matter of discipline justifies your rejection of the precept, and it does not. You are objectively in a state of grave sin and by command of the Church are not permitted to receive the Eucharist until you repent and confess your sin. You do not have final say on whether you can receive the Eucharist: the Church has that final say, and it has spoken on this matter of discipline. If you wish to correct the Church’s incorrect understanding of Masonry (if indeed it is incorrect), then you can do so two ways: by remaining a Mason, remaining in an objective state of grave sin, and not receiving the Eucharist while you work to change the Church’s opinion of Masonry (and hopefully not dying in the process), or by renouncing the Masons, receiving forgiveness for your sin, and receiving the Eucharist while working to change the Church’s opinion of Masonry from within.
The latest statement issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was very brief and did not provide reasons.
I printed it off and read it again.The statement I pasted, made in 1983, not only included reasons (which I didn’t bother quoting) but was clarification an earlier statement which also included reasons.
Jeremy, thank you again for your opinion. I appreciate your posting.
Wow… I’m sorry you feel that way. I consider you a brother in Christ and will always look forward to reading what you have to say.I wish I could say the same of yours, but I can’t. Fundamentally you’re fomenting the same sort of rebellion that priests who disagree with Humanae Vitae are doing, the same schismatic ideas that Luther promoted, and I abhor it.
Personally, I would recommend you not to look into it too much. It’s a lot easier to go through life not questioning if the world is really round. I am not joking. Knowledge and understanding does not increase happiness. It only increases one’s responsibility and obligations. One must have an extremely strong faith in the God.Personally, I know little to nothing of the Masons, and I’m fine with that.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your freedom to say it.But when Catholics make public their rejection of the Church’s authority and their refusal to abide by its precepts, I must oppose them, because it is that same attitude which has caused grievous schism and scandal for centuries.
The Youtube segments of Abundant Life from EWTN are still there.Copywrite infringment…not supposed to be any videos from any t.v. or movie unless you pay for the right to post it…
I’m confused. Was this your “resignation” from the Church? You seem to be rejecting the Church in favor of the Masons.At the below link, you will find a letter that I wrote to Bishop Kevin Farrell. It was written a while back…
zorro-thecatholicmason.blogspot.com/
PaulinVA,I’m confused. Was this your “resignation” from the Church? You seem to be rejecting the Church in favor of the Masons.
I don’t think you understood my post. Since your Church tells you that you can’t be a Mason and a Catholic, when you tell your Bishop you will not resign from the Masons, then the logical conclusion is that you are resigning from the Catholic Church.PaulinVA,
Thank you for your post.
Bottom of the third paragraph of the letter:
zorro-thecatholicmason.blogspot.com/
“I have tried to find a valid reason to quit or resign my membership and be in line with Church teachings. However, after much searching, I have yet to find such valid reason. A few below are reviewed.”
Thank you,
Paul,I don’t think you understood my post. Since your Church tells you that you can’t be a Mason and a Catholic, when you tell your Bishop you will not resign from the Masons, then the logical conclusion is that you are resigning from the Catholic Church.
The fact that you think you can be a member of both doesn’t change what the Church says.