Fox News’s Kirsten Powers announces: “I’m becoming Catholic!”

Patheos ^ | October 9, 2015 | Deacon Greg Kandra

[sitetest]

Oh my gosh.

This thread still lives.

Yes, there have been anti-Catholics throughout history.

That doesn’t mean I have to voluntarily support it.

[terycarl]

So why do most RCs deny Jn. 6:53,54 as being literal?

I don't and don't know anyone who does.

[terycarl]

. Socialistic, even. Some are heavy donors to Emily’s list and Planned Parenthood. Kirsten will fit in fine. She’s chosen correctly considering her beliefs.

Your hatred runs as deep as hers....such nonsense....planned parenthood......sigh.

[daniel1212]

So why do most RCs deny Jn. 6:53,54 as being literal?

I don't and don't know anyone who does.

Then why did you fail to respond to my question? How can you hold that this statement is no less an absolute imperative then other "verily, verily" statements? IOW, yet affirm those who deny it as being born again children of God? Or are all such presently lost, and Lumen Gentium 16 does not apply to them? Be consistent in your error.

[daniel1212]

you're not “home” or part of the “Church” unless you're a Catholic. If they follow Vatican I then you're not saved outside the Catholic church. If they follow Vatican II then you can, perhaps, be saved.

But if one follows either, then "perhaps" is sadly unlikely.

[HarleyD]

Agree. Sadly they do not see that both sides result in a works based religion.

[terycarl]

Then why did you fail to respond to my question?

Many of your questions, including this one, are mostly incoherent babbling and don't make a lot of sense.

[daniel1212]

How can you hold that this statement [Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (John 6:53)] is no less an absolute imperative then other "verily, verily" statements? IOW, yet affirm those who deny it as being born again children of God? Or are all such presently lost, and Lumen Gentium 16 does not apply to them? Be consistent in your error.

Many of your questions, including this one, are mostly incoherent babbling and don't make a lot of sense.

Then you are either obtuse, ignorant or avoiding what would indict you. Take your pick.

[redleghunter]

No Catholic bashing. I will note some Catholics here questioned her stance on abortion not too long ago. She is a democrat and pro-choice.

So you have that to deal with.

[daniel1212]

No Catholic bashing. I will note some Catholics here questioned her stance on abortion not too long ago. She is a democrat and pro-choice.

Which make her feel more at home as a RC then as an evangelical, in the light of the testimony of the difference btwn the two.

[redleghunter]

I will note this article calls her “anti abortion” but what does that mean? I remember hearing her say she is opposed to late term abortions and what Planned parenthood is doing to sell baby parts,; but have not seen her firmly declare she is pro Life.

I know when someone posted an article calling her evangelical, the Catholic consensus here was she was still pro-abortion.

So what exactly changed?