What do you have to say for yourself ?
Then your read Catholic blogs like this, and you lose your mind, becoming insane and start mouthing off at others just like the leader here does.
Of course this would be lost on Peter Phan, but his attitude is precisely why Dominus Iesus was written in the first place.
Ah yes, nothing like a Catholic education. First, you lose a lot of money. Then, your kid might lose faith on top of that.
Having gone to a Jesuit high school, I can attest to that. I never lost my faith, but I'm still playing catchup in my religious education.
"I am the LORD, thy GOD, you will not
not have strange gods before me."
Need anyone say more?
JPG
Gee, I wonder if a Nigerian Muslim would ever ask himself abotu] the "why" of the crusades? Probably not, since there are too many Peter Phans who are themselves ignorant of it.
I wonder if the Nigerian Muslim would ever ask himself why four of the top five countries that google the word sex are predominantly Muslim? Or why the words "gay sex" are googled more often in Arabic than in any other language?
http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/20...5/did-you-know/
Aaahhh, ecumenism! Ain't it great?
You know, if that nasty FSSP and those other hayseed Trad groups would come on board, they too could enjoy the benefits of such cerebral and erudite informing such as this.
Pity.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said something along these lines.
"If you want your kids to lose their faith just send them to a Catholic college."
Wow. The spirit of Vatican II lives.
The fellow confuses ecumenism with dogma. The two tend to be mutually exclusive. He is an idiot, but paid a lot to be so. If my kid were a student there, he would be withdrawn forthwith.
Sigh... as usual in our culture, the words 'objectively speaking' are completely misunderstood. Of course a devout, loving, kind, prayerful Muslim is subjectively better off than a lukewarm, hypocritical Catholic. That's the subjective reality, given the mercy of God, baptism of desire, etc.
Objective means... well, objective. As in, our faith is objectively true, through and through, and theirs is not. As in, we have at our disposal means of grace that they do not have - the sacraments, etc.
How someone with a doctorate can fail to grasp such a basic distinction astounds me.
“Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist 'victim culture' itself that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends.” Quoted from a Canadian named David Warren posted in 9/2006 on "Irish Pennants" blog.
People with doctorates-not all, of course-have 'intellectual cholesterol'. Need I say more....?
Edward-I hope you were being sarcastic in calling the FSSP 'nasty'. I admire and respect them-they come twice a month for the Latin Mass I attend!
Thank God I never went to college....'catholic' or otherwise....
Actually, Denis, I'm not certain what exactly you mean by this. The objective part seems clearer, but what exactly do you mean by the 'subjective'? It almost seems to place an importance on human feelings (and specifically feelings that are more deeply valued in the modern day) that is dangerous. Many of the great saints of the Church were not very 'kind' (Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine spring to mind), and some of their opponents did not find their condemnations terribly 'loving'.
The question is whether grace is alive in a person; we can only know that grace is fully available to an individual insofar as they practice a sacramental life while in full union with the (visible) Church. Of course, this grace (to be alive) in a person also requires a certain manner of living; but we cannot conclude that it is alive simply by one's actions.
BTW, to the extent that this is wrong, please correct me; I am not the Magisterium, and am not as knowledgeable in theology as I should be. God bless!
The late Social Thinker Alan Bloom complained about this syndrome when he wrote, "What people want to today isn't religion, but religiosity." Peter Phan is a perfect example of this. His essay illustrates the conumdrum that Nietzsche argued over 100 years ago would befall "The Last Man". In our search for easy living, tolerance is the main virtue. The True Believer is the enemy. Peter Phan's equivilancy of Catholicsim with Wahhabist radicalism is not only offensive, but it displays an infantfile, almost jeuvenille cry of "Why Can't We All Just Get Along?" He dresses up his essay in intellectual attire, but at the heart of his thinking is just warmed over sentimentality. Compared to BXVI Regensberg Address, Phan's thinking is very lightwieght.
Christ said,"I am the Way,the Truth,and the Life."
He did not say, I have the way, the truth, and the life.
What part of the above do so called Catholic professors not understand?
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful,outside of which no one at all is saved."
Pope Innocent III
Fourth Lateran Council 1215
By subjective, I don't mean 'subjectivism' or 'emotionalism'. I'm referring to the fact that, in any individual case, the case of a particular subject, (hypothetically and, of course, known only to God), a given Muslim may be in a state of grace and a given Catholic not in a state of grace.
Hence the objective superiority of Catholicism as the God-given and God-willed means of salvation for the human race does not mean that 'all Catholics' are better or more graced than 'all Muslims'. It's not relativism; it's an objective statement about the appropriation of God's gifts by individual subjects.
Pax,
Denis
"led the Crusades" - hell, this is a selling point for Roman Catholicism especially to Protestants and libertarians.
What? was Martin Luther a christian by some happy accident of geography?
What would Europe under sharia law in 1600 produced? (besides nothing)
Jesus Christ is THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE. The Catholic Church is the only true way to know Him. I went to a Jesuit School and graduated in 1981. I was never led to think otherwise. I realize that 1981 in a large Eastern City one would think that such psychobable syncretism would hold sway it did not. To willfully leave the Catholic Church
is to place one's soul in jeopardy( I do not presume to condemn anyone to Hell). Any cursory reading of the Old Testament would have one balk at the idea of ancestor worship.
JPG
For the record--
He is a priest.
-A Georgetown student
Thanks for the info, Daniel. Hang in there 
Commenting by HaloScan
