Dear daniel1212,
They are not Catholic, they only think they are Catholic, they like the cache and the smug, self-reasoned, satisfaction of ‘being Catholic’ among their ‘Catholic’ peers.
But Daniel look at it from your standpoint - they are really protestants, not really good protestants, but protestants none the less. They are just one banana peel away from joining you in your own smug satisfaction.
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
If they are not Catholics then they are not Protestants either.
It’s hypocritical to disown them yourself and then demand someone you disagree with to own them. You do not own the vocabulary nor have the right to define terms for anyone else but yourself.
If you have the right to define terms and who’s *Protestant* then likewise we have the right to define who is Catholic. And that is actually a lot easier. For one thing, they self-identify as Catholic and the other is that the Catholic church still treats them as Catholics in good standing.
I worked with and lived next to a great number of very faithful active in their parishes, supporting the church financially and with their presence at mass AS LEAST weekly, Catholics and to a person, they voted democratic.
When asked directly how they could vote for a democrat in light of their stand on abortion and the church teaching about it, their reason? Because democrats are *for the poor*.
Matter of fact, recently I had one of those very faithful Catholic tell me who they were pro-homosexual marriage and how they were pro-abortion with the comment of *I know what the Church teaches but no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.* From someone who herself had *6* kids.
You in your own opinion can disown them if you want but unless your comments are coming directly from the Vatican as its official position on these people, then it’s meaningless.
Ironically, Catholics who disown liberal voting Catholics sure quick to remind all those of us who left the Catholic church and became born again/born from above Christians that we are still Catholic because once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Y’all can’t seem to make yup your minds.
So no, we non-Catholics will NOT take the blame you are trying to put on us. Those are YOUR people whom the Catholic church still treats as members by serving them communion, baptizing their children, marrying them, and giving them Catholic funerals and until the Catholic church actually puts itself together and officially acts on what it claims, your opinion is a meaningless waste of bandwidth.
As long as they keep the collection baskets overflowing, they are granted "Catholic in good standing" status. Religion (all religion) is a man-made farce that allows folks to "rationalize" what God's real intentions for us are.
This is not a new voting pattern for the Catholic either.
Since 1952 Catholics have voted in the majority for the dimocrat in all but three presidential elections.
Well, they are CLAIMED as 'Catholics' by the Catholic Church. Why, if they are not Catholic?
How interesting.
Do you still consider them Catholics when y’all want to do a head count and brag on 1.2 billion strong?
Says who? Who are you to differ from your church which affirms such as members in life and in death?
But Daniel look at it from your standpoint - they are really protestants, not really good protestants, but protestants none the less. They are just one banana peel away from joining you in your own smug satisfaction.
To the contrary, it is you who are acting according to what you condemn us for doing, that of ascertaining the validity of claims by examination of the supreme source for such, rather than, like docile sheep, following the pastors as per certain papal teaching.
They are however, as liberal Prots, for the problem is not ascertaining the validity of claims by examination of the supreme source for such, but that their supreme source is not Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God. Those who hold most strongly to that are the most conservative, even among Caths, but a minority do so, and your own NAB notes and helps are often quite liberal.
You can’t intuit from words on a forum how “smug or Non smug” a poster maybe feeling. You have to be in the presence of a person to know what they are feeling(even then that can be a tricky proposition...people can be good liars). It is true however that one can intuit an accuser’s feelings by the label they choose to use on another poster. Daniel’s words may have stung you, hence you imagine he is being “smug” about it. In truth that is a shot in the dark I am making! Who knows what the both of you truly feel! You could both be paid Soros agents here to mess with FREEPER’s heads....?!