Posted on 06/28/2015 10:27:13 AM PDT by LouAvul
Yeah, ok. But 70% of the Congress is some form of Protestant. Have any of them ever been called out, kicked out, or sanctioned for their pro-abortion views?
No, as traditional evangelical believers (who do call libs out) do not get elected in the first place much less appointed to SCOTUS as they will not compromise. Liberals manifestly can feel at home as a Catholic far more than they can in evangelical churches.
Your response is further specious as I was not defending a particular church or "Protestantism," the definition of which is typically so wide that you could drive a Jim Jones/Scientology 747 thru it, and we evangelicals recognize it is Biblical to leave liberal churches for conservative ones, which a RC cannot do without being part of a sect or in schism.
But RCs do defend a a particular church,. even as the one true one, and the issue was your defence of here as not supporting gay marriage, despite what Scripture says constitutes the evidence of what you really believe, and how Rome manifests that.
Jimmy Carter was a deacon or something in the Southern Baptists. Eventually, he quit. But they never kicked him out.
Which they should have, but which has to do with the polity of the SBC, in which the churches are basically autonomous. But because of the conservative nature of it overall, Jimmy Carter types are far more likely to leave it then Catholic churches. Your pope would not feel too much at home in such as regards many social views it seems.
Now's the time to get on the record. I'm looking through this and I'm not seeing any other leaders of the various Protestant Christian sects making clear public statements.
Then you simply do not see evangelical leaders as Prots, or rely on the MSM, which marginalizes them as well.
Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage More than 100 leaders [including David Platt, J. I. Packer, Richard Mouw, Jim Daly, Ron Sider, David Dockery, Al Mohler, and Richard Land] respond to Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. June 26, 2015
Thread: Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage ...
A coalition of evangelical leaders assembled by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has released the following:
As evangelical Christians, we dissent from the court’s ruling that redefines marriage. The state did not create the family, and should not try to recreate the family in its own image. We will not capitulate on marriage because biblical authority requires that we cannot. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine marriage represents what seems like the result of a half-century of witnessing marriage’s decline through divorce, cohabitation, and a worldview of almost limitless sexual freedom. The Supreme Court’s actions pose incalculable risks to an already volatile social fabric by alienating those whose beliefs about marriage are motivated by deep biblical convictions and concern for the common good.
The Bible clearly teaches the enduring truth that marriage consists of one man and one woman. From Genesis to Revelation, the authority of Scripture witnesses to the nature of biblical marriage as uniquely bound to the complementarity of man and woman. This truth is not negotiable....
Evangelical churches must be faithful to the biblical witness on marriage regardless of the cultural shift....
Other evang. reproofs include those from Al Mohler, John Piper, and Franklin Graham.
From the latter,
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled today that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. With all due respect to the court, it did not define marriage, and therefore is not entitled to re-define it.
Long before our government came into existence, marriage was created by the One who created man and woman—Almighty God—and His decisions are not subject to review or revision by any manmade court. God is clear about the definition of marriage in His Holy Word: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
I pray God will spare America from His judgment, though, by our actions as a nation, we give Him less and less reason to do so.
But the pope and Vatican seems to see Climate Change, etc. is the issue that needs to be addressed.
On this and your other post to me I will say, Mrs. Don-o, that I have and will again pray, that if I am mistaken or wrong in any way about how I’ve seen this conversation involving the two of us and others, that He will correct me.
This paragraph shows a problem: non-Catholics (and too often Catholics as well) are ignorant of two facts:
So what you've got here is clergy whose legitimate powers pertain only to matters of faith and morals (not authority over temporal matters), and laity who can speak out, to their pastors and to each other, according to their convictions for the good of the Church.
We do have from Our Lord the image of "shepherd and sheep," but we also have the principle of clerical shepherds whose sphere of competence and authority is limited to established Catholic truth (a "Hermeneutic of Continuity"), and sheep who can speak out and organize.
You said, "You are more like a Protestant who rejects the validity of pastoral teaching and actions based upon your judgment of what historical documents say. But which also teach your one duty is to follow the pastors as a docile sheep."
Well, yes and no. (There! I've made myself clear!)
Yes, in that we, the Christifideles laici, can and do appeal to the "mind of the Church" which includes authoritative teachings which go back to Christ and to the Apostles and all their successors. Yes, that is something that involves "your judgment of what historical documents say."
And we do have a duty to follow our pastors --- which means "no mutiny" --- the Church in this sense is like Noah's Ark, and even if it's knee deep in animal poop, we're to stay on the ship and not launch a flotilla of rubber rafts instead.
But you can't say our "one" duty is to follow our pastors with docility (emphasis on the word "one") --- because obviously the one thing needful is to "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."
Those English Catholics who followed their Catholic pastors with docility in the matter of King Henry's "great cause" (the cause of getting another woman, and lording over the Church), followed their "pastors" right into Protestantism.
(That's with the single exception of Bishop John Fisher, who remained faithful and as beheaded for it.)
It was a serious mistake. They should not have been so docile to cowardly, vacillating, worldly men, even if those cowardly worldly men were Cardinals and Bishops. The term to keep in mind here is not "docile sheep" but "Christifideles laici" --- the laity faithful to Christ.
Indeed what do you mean "treats Muslims as members" of the Church, when i never said the Church does so? What are you talking about? Why do so you see "proabortion/sodomite/Muslim" as meaning RCs being proabortion prosodomite but somehow the additional word Muslim does not mean RCs being proMuslim but Muslims themselves? Did you miss the /?
As for the pro-aborts and pro-sodomy malefactors, they do not represent the Church: they exemplify the violation of Catholic faith and morals
So you say, but as Scripture says, "I will shew thee my faith by my works" so Rome shows us what she really believes by treating even proabortion/sodomite/Muslim public figures as members in life and in death, manifesting to the people what she really means by what she officially says. You have to agree with this reality.
It is a sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance, that they are not being disciplined,
Which means that you are judging the Vaticans judgment as wrong , like as traddie RCs judge part of V2, and papal encyclicals as not warranting assent which excludes public dissent.
or said the Church here on earth is sinless.
Well, Pope Gregory VII asserted in his Dictatus Papae , “That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity," but which of course is subject to interpretation as to the scope of its teachings and magisterial level. As can be what level each teaching falls under and their meaning.
Fix your eyes on Christ on the Cross.
Now you are again speaking like an evangelical, but the RC message has always been that you look to Christ by looking to the church of Rome, as apart from which you neither assuredly know what Scripture consists of or means, and that what The Church teaches is effectively the supreme law.
Which is set in contrast to ascertaining the veracity of teaching given by the pope and prelates by examination of the evidences for it.
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906
“All that we must do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” ” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ) ]
Rather than endeavoring to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question,
the Catholic...must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
(John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
Good one!
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.