Posted on 07/12/2010 3:01:35 PM PDT by the_conscience
I agree. That's why the FR RF rules are so invaluable. They prevent personal assaults. I've learned on this forum not to criticize my fellow FReepers who happen to be RC, but I also have had the opportunity to refute the errors of Rome according to the evidence found in Scripture which is exactly what God told men to do.
"The name of peace is plausible and sweet, but cursed is that peace which is purchased with so great a loss, that we suffer the doctrine of Christ to perish." - John Calvin, Acts II:85
Well put.
Thx.
Actually, I didn't address it to you "all", but to you alone, because it was you who said: "Roman Catholics do not believe Protestants are Christians. Period."
That statement is untrue, and I figured since it might be repeated a time or three in future, I could just ping you back to my refutation of your statement. For the record, at no time have I ever stated that Protestants are not Christians. To my knowledge, I don't remember any Catholic here saying Protestants are not Christians.
The question then. assuming metmom has "cast off" transubstantiation and the mass and five sacraments and Mary as a mediator and saints as intercessors and priests as "another Christ" and the pope and his magisterium as spiritual leaders, is Metmom a Christian, in your opinion, assuming also that she never recants her "casting off?"
My rewrite was not to clarify whether or not Protestants are not Christian. It was to clarify a rather muddy post on my part regarding something quite different, which was the extent that an ex-Catholic will want to identify himself with the Catholicism he left behind. I think there's not much to add to my original contention that for an ex-Catholic who has vehemently expressed disdain/disgust/detachment from Catholicism in previous postings to claim that same Catholicism, apparently for the purpose of posting on a Catholic caucus thread, it seems rather suspect. In my opinion.
If an ex-Catholic has cast off Catholicism, I still consider them a Christian, most especially by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism. If not an ex-Catholic, a Trinitarian baptism received as a Protestant is not repeated, should that baptized Protestant become a Catholic in future.
It’s been a pleasure to read your comments on this thread.
The enemy is not stupid. And they've had centuries to develop their offense.
Really?! Are you putting that forth as a theory? Really? I am laughing out loud right now. I am. This really is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. The rapture? To justify the assumption? ROFL
So I’m listening to Rush today and he’s talking about principles and I thought, “hey!, that’s what I was saying on FR Religion forum”!
So I figured I’d better see what was going on here.
I’m happy Rush understood what I was trying to convey. [grin]
Our battle is as much with those in the Republican Party who defend statism as with the radicals in the Democrat Party. It's a two-step process. It can be done, it was done with Reagan, and Reagan was not 200 years ago. This is where I disagree with Mr. Codevilla a little bit. It can be done. But even the ruling class undermined Reagan, second term, managing to take advantage of various things to get ruling class members into his administration, chief of staff, and other positions of influence. Now, "to defend the country class --" that's us "-- to break down the ruling class's presumptions, it has no choice but to imitate the Democrats, at least in some ways and for a while. Consider: The ruling class denies its opponents' legitimacy. Seldom does a Democratic official or member of the ruling class speak on public affairs without reiterating the litany of his class's claim to authority, contrasting it with opponents who are either uninformed, stupid, racist, shills for business, violent, fundamentalist, or all of the above. They do this in the hope that opponents, hearing no other characterizations of themselves and no authoritative voice discrediting the ruling class, will be dispirited."They call us all these names hoping to dispirit us. They call the Republicans all these names hoping to dispirit them. And it's worked. The Republicans are not gonna criticize Obama because they're scared to death of being called racist. If you want a short answer to, "Why don't the Republicans do X?" it's because they're afraid to death of being called racist by the ruling class and the ruling class media. Or they're afraid to be called fundamentalist or shills for business or what have you. So the intimidating tactics of disrespecting and silencing your opponents has worked, and this is what we must do, is Mr. Codevilla's point. "For the country class seriously to contend for self-governance, the political party that represents it will have to discredit not just such patent frauds as ethanol mandates, the pretense that taxes can control 'climate change,' and the outrage of banning God from public life. More important, such a serious party would have to attack the ruling class's fundamental claims to its superior intellect and morality in ways that dispirit the target and hearten one's own. The Democrats having set the rules of modern politics, opponents who want electoral success are obliged to follow them." And this we have said over and over again.
There is going to be an apparatus in place, thanks to these people, to use the power of government against them when we get it back. The question is will the people that represent us have the guts to do so? "How the country class and ruling class might clash on each item of their contrasting agendas is beyond my scope. Suffice it to say that the ruling class's greatest difficulty -- aside from being outnumbered -- will be to argue, against the grain of reality, that the revolution it continues to press upon America is sustainable. For its part, the country class's greatest difficulty will be to enable a revolution to take place without imposing it. America has been imposed on enough." So it must be a self-starting thing. It can't be the result of phone calls. It can't be the result of faxes and all this to Washington. It has to start on its own, and guess what the Tea Party is? It's exactly that. But it can't be the result of members of Congress calling people, "Hey, come to Washington, we need to have a strong force here to oppose this or that, 20,000 bodies." No, no, no. It's gotta happen on its own. It can't happen by being imposed upon. I understand what he means by that.
Surprising how our little microcosm reflects the National situation?
Unlike the assumption of Mary bodily into heaven which contradicts the word of God and gives glory to the creature instead of the Creature.
Not to mention it's just plain lunacy.
Not to mention it's just plain lunacy.
Your theory that the rapture is a Vatican plot? Lunacy certainly is a good word for it.
Risky.
Did you ever stop to wonder if the fairly recent theory of "The Rapture" might not be a clever covering to do exactly what you have just done? To justify the idolatry of Mary's supposed bodily ascent into heaven?
The enemy is not stupid. And they've had centuries to develop their offense.
You said "a clever covering...to justify the [assumption]".
"Centuries" in development, even!
Potatoes, potahtoes.
I'm still laughing.
Thanks much for that from Rush. Very insightful. I fully agree with him that sustainable momentum and lasting good governance cannot be forced or artificial. It has to come from a majority that shares a core. The good core is there and growing and so it is a matter of it asserting itself from the bottom up.
“The good core is there and growing...”
I wish I shared your confidence, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.