Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $2,352
2%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 2% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Mrs. Don-o

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/02/2015 11:16:37 AM PDT · 181 of 181
    Mrs. Don-o to MHGinTN; Petrosius; Salvation; Chicory; Campion; Lil Flower
    I must respectfully disagree with my dear Petrosius here.

    We Catholics know about the “Good Thief,” right? He was saved without Bible, without Baptism, and without an explicit declaration that he was accepting Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. He just said “Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom.” We hardly know what he “believed” by that, but he was saved by grace.

    We know about the babies killed in Bethlehem because of Herod’s “odium Christi”? Right? They had no baptism, no Bible, and had not even attained the age of reason, but they are considered saints in heaven (”the Holy Innocents.”)

    We will respectfully bury stillborns and even miscarried babies in a Catholic Funeral which simply commits them to the mercy of God.

    But the point is that God saves. Jesus: it’s His name!

  • The Vatican Wants the Temple Mount Taken From the Jews [Revelation 11]

    07/02/2015 10:46:40 AM PDT · 32 of 34
    Mrs. Don-o to jjotto; Jan_Sobieski
    "The secular government of Israel is officially committed to keeping the Temple Mount OUT of Jewish hands."

    A lot of people here don't realize that.

  • Pastor, Worshipers Beaten After 200 Hindu Radicals Storm and Devastate Protestant Church in India

    07/02/2015 10:07:55 AM PDT · 17 of 17
    Mrs. Don-o to Cronos; markomalley
    Thanks, I didn't know that and it's interesting.

    There are so many variations of Hinduism, some of them arguably demonic (those that hate Christ and hate their low-caste neighbor are surely demonic!), and some leaning more toward ethical deism or toward Buddhism (non-theistic), with the various deities representing philosophical ideas or even folk heroes (equivalent of Paul Bunyan.)

    I could not say it is all demonic.

    I'm influenced by some pro-life Hindus I met when I stumbled upon a street fair in Oakland, CA celebrating community "involvement". I had on a pro-life T-shirt and decided to try my luck handing out leaflets.

    I was soon approached by some very menacing people, mostly black and white, who gave off vibes of imminent harm. Then a couple of Indian women intervened --- they were running a booth touting vegan food and whatever god(dess) they were devoted to --- who yelled at the abortion enthusiasts and made them back off.

    These ladies then patted my hands, gave me some dabs of hearty food to eat, and showed me pictures which indicated they thought abortion was "veddy bad, veddy bad." They didn't believe in killing anything.

    This probably contributes to my friendly bias in their favor.

    Some of Hinduism is a falling-short due to honest ignorance, some of it replete with natural virtue and without a vicious element. (I mean, every human culture has a vicious element, but the POST-Christian cultures are probably the worst.)

    Everyone, without exception, needs Christ the only Savior; but some may have devoted themselves to Him as Way or Truth or Life --- as the Light that enlightens every man who comes into the world--- without knowing, even, that this is Christ.

    As Paul said, these people "might seek God, and even perhaps grope for Him and find Him, though indeed His is not far from any one of us." (Acts 1:27)

  • Removing Jesus

    07/02/2015 9:36:56 AM PDT · 284 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to Resettozero
    R2Z, I hadn't even remembered what you'd said! I certainly did not take offense. You are very good to apologize (accepted instantly, accepted beforehand) and if all FReepers were so conscientious, we would have a wonderful Forum, wouldn't we?

    Let's continue to build each other up in our life in Christ.

    God bless you up one side and down the other, with a big dab in the middle.

  • The orgy prude: How I finally admitted I donít like meaningless, porn-star sex (Salon)

    07/01/2015 5:34:10 PM PDT · 11 of 42
    Mrs. Don-o to Erik Latranyi
    Interfere?

    Nobody has proposed that, I think. We are criticizing, deploring, feeling sorry for the self-destructiveness and sorrow of it all, making an appropriate moral judgment,m helping each other think through what it means to be humanly decent, and what it means to be the opposite.

    Did anybody say "lock 'em up"?

  • Former preacher wants second trial on sexual abuse charges moved from Rockbridge (VA)

    07/01/2015 3:19:29 PM PDT · 9 of 10
    Mrs. Don-o to Alex Murphy

    I heard lower vouched for by a Japanese doctor (it’s legally 13 in Japan) but my response was, only if they also legalize homicide of the older partner by the younger partner’s parents.

  • Former preacher wants second trial on sexual abuse charges moved from Rockbridge (VA)

    07/01/2015 2:18:01 PM PDT · 6 of 10
    Mrs. Don-o to Alex Murphy

    Or they can lower the age of consent and then it’s all good. “Children are sexual, too.”

  • Former preacher wants second trial on sexual abuse charges moved from Rockbridge (VA)

    07/01/2015 12:14:44 PM PDT · 3 of 10
    Mrs. Don-o to Alex Murphy

    Wouldn’t be incidents like this if Pentecostal Youth Ministry people were allowed to marry.

  • 12 Quotes Against Sodomy That Every Catholic Should Know

    07/01/2015 8:10:22 AM PDT · 21 of 51
    Mrs. Don-o to markomalley
    Thanks for the Catherine of Siena quote.

    Now, more than ever.

  • 12 Quotes Against Sodomy That Every Catholic Should Know

    07/01/2015 8:04:24 AM PDT · 19 of 51
    Mrs. Don-o to Tennessee Nana
    You will be happy to see, via this LINK, that Nancy Pelosi has been denied Holy Communion via a ruling by the Apostolic Signatura (the equivalent of the Catholic Supreme Court), a ruling which has never been rescinded and thus still stands.

    I wouldn't be surprised if she's been offered Communion since then, but that would be by a priest or bishop who is acting in defiance of Church law.

    The whole world would be a whole lot better off if Catholics acted like Catholics.

    As for the pope speaking ex cathedra about supporting homosexuality and participating, this is already an explicit part of Scripture, the Catechism and the Ordinary Magisterium, which means, it's already been ruled on and is part of the public law of the Church.

    From the Catechism:

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    Woe to the preachers who do not preach it.

    Once again, as I think you'd agree, these Catholic should be a helluva lot MORE Catholic: that would be pleasing to God and result in better pastoring for ALL of us.

  • 12 Quotes Against Sodomy That Every Catholic Should Know

    07/01/2015 7:44:18 AM PDT · 18 of 51
    Mrs. Don-o to Tennessee Nana
    From what I read, the Montanists were kind of fervent Charismatic group that got into a ind of frenzied state and who thought themselves possessed by (not "inspired" by, but possessed by) the Holy Spirit, such that their revelations outranked Scripture.

    They weren't, as I understand it, an organization so much as a movement, and had different practices and prophecies at different locales, some in conflict and contradicting each other.

    I don't think that's actually Protestantism, unless you want it to be.

  • A Baptist leader with a message the Synod of Bishops should hear

    07/01/2015 4:45:34 AM PDT · 6 of 6
    Mrs. Don-o to ealgeone

    Excellent, truly excellent.

  • Removing Jesus

    07/01/2015 4:45:12 AM PDT · 282 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to Elsie

    What? You want the Inquisition?!

  • A Baptist leader with a message the Synod of Bishops should hear

    06/30/2015 5:38:32 PM PDT · 4 of 6
    Mrs. Don-o to markomalley

    THIS Catholic says: I’ve heard Russell Moore speak several times and he is wise, thoughtful, forceful and a very able witness for Christ.

    I think he’d be a great guy to speak in my parish. Or to advise my bishop.

  • Pastor, Worshipers Beaten After 200 Hindu Radicals Storm and Devastate Protestant Church in India

    06/30/2015 3:40:20 PM PDT · 2 of 17
    Mrs. Don-o to markomalley

    Most Hindus don’t commit or approve such crimes (really, THEY DON’T) but they ar getting prevalent in areas where Christians have successfully evangelized non-caste and tribal people. There are long-held tensions such areas, and fears that the tribals, now Christianized, will now gain the ascendancy.

  • Donor Says Girl Scouts Canít Use $100K Gift for Transgender Girls

    06/30/2015 3:26:59 PM PDT · 43 of 49
    Mrs. Don-o to outofsalt

    ;o)

  • Donor Says Girl Scouts Canít Use $100K Gift for Transgender Girls

    06/30/2015 2:45:39 PM PDT · 40 of 49
    Mrs. Don-o to rightwingcrazy
    Pronounce the word "trans" as "fake" and you'll never get it wrong.

    Trans Girl = Fake Girl.

    Trans Boy = Fake Boy.

    Trans Woman = Fake Woman.

    Trans Man = Fake Man.

  • Harvard Athlete Among 1st Openly Transgender NCAA Swimmers

    06/30/2015 2:17:19 PM PDT · 26 of 64
    Mrs. Don-o to NEMDF
    I used to get confused about whether a trans-Man was a poor miserable person going woman-to-man or man-to-woman.

    The easy way to figure it out is to always read "Trans" as "Fake".

    For the record, I am sorry she destroyed her sexual/reproductive physiology, and I would support having the surgeon's license pulled for unethical conduct, plus fines and/or jail time for the whole medical team.

  • Learning curve part of herb garden's growth

    06/30/2015 12:24:02 PM PDT · 9 of 14
    Mrs. Don-o to Tijeras_Slim; afraidfortherepublic
    You don't mean Winter Aconite (Eranthum), you mean Wolf's Bane (Aconitum).

    Winter Aconite is not poisonous. Wolf's Bane can kill you in a minute (if you eat enough). Even picking the leaves can poison you, since the neurotoxin is absorbed easily through the skin.

    Bad, bad stuff.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/30/2015 11:45:46 AM PDT · 173 of 288
    Mrs. Don-o to MHGinTN
    This is such a comprehensive collection of misrepresentations about Catholic doctrine that it wearies me to think of correcting all of its mistakes.

    If you're interested in discussion, you should post these things one a day until you run out of tendentious and misinformed statements. (That should keep you going until Christ comes again.)

    Then we can whack them one at a time.

    Otherwise, it's like you're pitching a dozen balls at Yogi Berra simultaneously, and then declaring him "out" when he only connects with two per swing.

    I do have some writing to do (not for FR.) Won't be on here regularly for another week.

    Have fun, guys.

  • After Censoring Muhammad, NY Times Publishes Offensive Image of Pope Benedict

    06/30/2015 11:36:51 AM PDT · 16 of 18
    Mrs. Don-o to Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

    Not sure what your comment means.

  • After Censoring Muhammad, NY Times Publishes Offensive Image of Pope Benedict

    06/30/2015 11:34:56 AM PDT · 15 of 18
    Mrs. Don-o to PATRIOT1876
    I just read Laudato Si, and I am happy to report that in it Pope Francis came out against carbon credits.

    It's still a highly objectionable encyclical, but it did come out against the two "anti-warming" strategies which are most popular on the Left: carbon credits, and population control.

  • Gay weddings: who must perform them?

    06/30/2015 11:23:59 AM PDT · 69 of 96
    Mrs. Don-o to AppyPappy
    "As long as you don’t tell them the reason, you can’t be penalized."

    I doubt that. Courts have already ruled, in race-related discrimination cases, that an intent to discriminate need not be present or proven in order to prove racial discrimination. All he plaintiff has to prove is that there was an unequal outcome, "disparate impact."

    E.g. if only 20% of the white applicants for fire dept. jobs are rejected, but 35% of black applicants are rejected,that's "actionable" discrimination right there, whether it was related to other criteria or not (e.g. school records, previous arrest record, test scores, physical exam/fitness results, etc.)

    So if it "happens" that 100% of the gay couples who asked for marriage are denied marriage, then they can get you for discrimination even if there is no provable, expressed intent to discriminate.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/30/2015 8:50:24 AM PDT · 280 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to Elsie
    "Somewhere between their 'perfect' teaching and John's revelation to the seven Catholic churches in Asia; SOMETHING sure got screwed up!

    They must have departed from the perfect teaching.

  • Which corporate "Christian" groups had already embraced homosexuality?

    06/30/2015 8:42:55 AM PDT · 43 of 45
    Mrs. Don-o to daniel1212
    "Not according to the leadership you are supposes to look to, and follow as a docile sheep, but instead 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."

    This paragraph shows a problem: non-Catholics (and too often Catholics as well) are ignorant of two facts:

    1. that clerical power and authority are limited, and that
    2. Canon Law (Can. 212) supports the right, and even the "duty," of lay Catholics to give "…the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful".

    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.

  • RORATE EDITORIAL: It's time for Catholic prelates to speak as true Catholics

    06/29/2015 6:05:39 PM PDT · 6 of 33
    Mrs. Don-o to markomalley
    You can add the comments of Bishop Richard Sticka (Knoxville, TN) but I'm actually ashamed of it.

    Bishop Stika basically said "We have our beliefs and we believe them because we believe them. That's our truth, the truth for us, see? but please God don't ask me why.." (the Mrs. Don-o Dynamic Equivalence translation)

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 5:46:56 PM PDT · 266 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to aMorePerfectUnion
    "I went through the catholic catechism prior to my confirmation"

    Sorry, didn't see that - I thought when you were talking about "every chapter, every verse" you were talking about Scripture. What Catholic Catechism did you study before you were Confirmed? The Baltimore? Because the CCC wasn't published until 1992.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 5:10:55 PM PDT · 262 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to aMorePerfectUnion
    AMPU, as you surely know, when I referred to "Fun-House Mirror reflections about what Catholics believe", the phrase "Fun-House mirror" modifies the word "reflections", not "what Catholics believe" -- in other words, your (and other people's) reflections have a "fun-house" quality which distorts the true picture of what Catholics actually believe.

    If you don't see that --- ahem--- please diagram that sentence. (My irrepressible schoolmarmism comes through once again!)

    The problem is that YOU evidently believe the "fun-house mirror reflection" is not a distortion, but the reality. It does not accurately convey Catholic doctrine.

    Since you are interested in scholarship, wouldn't you want to pursue that?

    Anyhow, thanks for sending me the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Here's the Catechism of the Catholic Church right back at'cha.

    Reading each others' catechisms does seem like a strangely fair-minded and sensible thing to do, in the midst of these FReepin' fracases.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 4:52:37 PM PDT · 261 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to aMorePerfectUnion

    This is a great link, aMPU. Thank you for sending it. I will be glad to familiarize myself with your catechism.

  • Which corporate "Christian" groups had already embraced homosexuality?

    06/29/2015 3:34:10 PM PDT · 40 of 45
    Mrs. Don-o to daniel1212
    What do you mean "treats Muslims as members" of the Church, when the Church does not do so? What are you talking about?

    As for the pro-aborts and pro-sodomy malefactors, they do not represent the Church: they exemplify the violation of Catholic faith and morals. They are, if you see it clearly, the anti-Church.

    It is a sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance, that they are not being disciplined, but nobody, ever, believed or said the Church here on earth is sinless. It's always been rife with sinners. Jesus said it would be. (Dragnet pulls in all kinds of dreck; weeds grow with the wheat.) Only a fool would deny this.

    And only a person unfamiliar with Scripture, the Prophets of Israel, and the Lives of the Saints, would be surprised.

    Fix your eyes on Christ on the Cross. He had twelve hand-picked men, eleven of whom weren't there with Him when He was dying, because of their betrayal, their denial, and their cowardice.

    So don't be surprised. Saddened, yes. Sickened, yes. Morally indignant, yes. But not surprised.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 3:21:16 PM PDT · 257 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to MHGinTN
    "The Mormons try to use the same deception: "But that's not our official doctrine; you don't know our official doctrines".

    Well, thanks for confirming what I strongly suspected: that you don't really care about factually ascertaining what Catholic Doctrine actually IS.

    In which case ....BYE.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 3:15:10 PM PDT · 255 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to aMorePerfectUnion; RnMomof7; Elsie
    Dear aMPU, I'm very sorry! I thought everything I was responding to was in #180 --- what you sent to RnMom discussing Catholic belief. If there was a mix-up, it just shows I get confuddled trying to process too much information at once.

    (In contrast to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who Elsie has calculated can process 139 requests per second, if Catholics are praying as they ought!)

    "That was a joke, son!" --- quote from Foghorn Leghorn.

    Anyhow, the aggravation caused by Fun-House Mirror reflections about what Catholics believe --- proffered without asking actual Catholics, of course, why would a person want to do that?? --- remind me not to similarly offend by speculating about what Protestants believe.

    Which is always a much dicier proposition anyways, since you don't have a nice concise Catechism, like we'all have. And "The Fundamentals" (the collection of twelve books on "fundamental" Protestant theology published in 1910) is something I don't actually intend to read. Ever.

    Though in Purgatory I might have a couple of years to burn through.... :o)

    As to your expertise about Catholicism, you say:

    "I grew up Catholic and have studied the teachings of Catholicism. Alter boy. Confirmed."

    I'm---

    Well.

    In all charity, what can I say?

    Good Lord. I'm ducking out now. My squash plants are all pregnant. I have to go tuck some mulch under their sweet little bottoms and watch them grow.

    Love,

    Mrs. Don-o

  • Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Programmer

    06/29/2015 2:50:55 PM PDT · 49 of 57
    Mrs. Don-o to mdmathis6

    Well said!

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 2:50:31 PM PDT · 254 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to MHGinTN
    Could you please clarify for your readers here that these are not doctrinal statements of the Catholic Church?

    Thank you.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 2:45:12 PM PDT · 252 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to Elsie
    I don't see the problem. The angel lambasted the seven churches in Asia. I wish angels would come and lambaste ALL the churches.

    Don't you?

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 2:43:19 PM PDT · 251 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to Elsie
    "Explain WHY the teaching was in error to begin with! WHY could they then NOT deliver it unblemished those next in line?"

    ???

    I didn't say the teaching was in error to begin with.

    I presume you mean the Apostles' teaching.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 2:41:06 PM PDT · 250 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to Elsie
    "...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second! Purty good fer someone NOT 'divine'!"

    Oh, get a grip. A Japanese android with cloud computational enhancement could do that easily even today. I am sure that what God has in store in eternity for those who love Him would make that look like mere piffle.

    The angels, who are fond of you, are are giggling at your simplicity.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 2:33:39 PM PDT · 249 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to Elsie

    Thanks Elsie! I’ll leave the stalking to you!

  • Gays will launch their long dreamed of attack on the Catholic Church demanding marriage by priests

    06/29/2015 11:49:01 AM PDT · 59 of 77
    Mrs. Don-o to MrB
    I've heard that about abortion. That it's not only our sin, it's also, in itself, it's God's judgment upon us. Letting us have what we said we wanted,m the natural and logical consequences of our choices.

    Hosea 9:11-12

    No conception, no pregnancy, no birth...
    Were they to bear children, I would slay the darlings of their wombs...
    I will make them childless, until not one is left.

  • Gays will launch their long dreamed of attack on the Catholic Church demanding marriage by priests

    06/29/2015 11:42:51 AM PDT · 58 of 77
    Mrs. Don-o to MeganC
    Actually that would be his bishop's job. What is his supposed Diocese and who is his Bishop? DC (Wuerl)? Arlington (Loverde)? Baltimore/Maryland (Lori)?

    No hope with Wuerl, I think. He's one of the (pause for fast check of my Bad-Adjective Thesaurus)--- the, uh --- let's just say he wouldn't do it.

    Loverde? Lori?

  • What Life is Like When Children of Gay Couples Don't Matter

    06/29/2015 10:56:27 AM PDT · 11 of 20
    Mrs. Don-o to Sioux-san

    Tagline

  • Exiles: Christians in the United States

    06/29/2015 10:52:30 AM PDT · 2 of 4
    Mrs. Don-o to Fay

    +1

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 10:46:21 AM PDT · 237 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to MHGinTN

    You will certainly be in my prayers.

  • Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Programmer

    06/29/2015 10:41:07 AM PDT · 7 of 57
    Mrs. Don-o to Red Badger
    Ha! On the other hand, this machine seems to have insight:

    Human: Be moral!

    Machine: Be a man!

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 10:28:31 AM PDT · 235 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to MHGinTN
    As for the rest of what you just wrote, you might want to refer to the letter I just sent to aMPU and RnMom:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3304228/posts?page=234#234

    As for this:"You asserted, "I am your neighbor. Please keep that in mind." Since I know you live but a few miles from me in East Tennessee, are you trying to issue a vague threat?"

    Paranoid, much? Or just flinging out casual calumnies at random?

    I bear you not a trace of ill-will; but if you are going to construe my use of the innocent word "neighbor" (referring to Exodus 20:16) at as a threat, it's best we discontinue this communication.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 10:20:25 AM PDT · 234 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to aMorePerfectUnion; RnMomof7
    Thanks, aMPU, I appreciate that. It was an intelligent and considerate response.

    As for items where you misrepresent what the Catholic Church teaches, and thus what I believe as a Catholic, we'll start with a few from just one recent post, #180, where you undertook to explain to RnMomof7 what I believe as a Catholic, and why.

    • "...paganism crept into the Roman church and turned the glorious Gospel of Grace into a system of religious works"

      There are a lot of elements of pre-Christian culture in Catholicism, such as: Wedding rings. Syllogisms. Brides in white. Burying our dead in caskets. Flowers on graves. Philosophy. Prayer breakfasts. Banners and flags. Formal logic. (And hundreds more, but let's keep this reasonably short.) These are customs purified of their idolatrous content and remade in forms compatible with Christianity. They constitute neither syncretism nor idolatry. They do not "turn the glorious Gospel of Grace into a system of religious works"

    • "... there was no more intimate relationship."

      False.

    • "It was a celestial hamster wheel of sacraments, stations, genuflection, rote words, mumbled songs, etc."

      Jumble of falsehoods.

      Now, I'll personally admit hamsterish ways (I happen to be eating sunflower seeds just now) --- But to say "hamster wheel" is to say devotional acts are done unmindfully, which they are not. To insinuate that sacraments and stations indicate pagan belief and replace an intimate relationship with God, is likewise false.

    • "...there arose the pagan infusion of multiple demigods"

      False.

    • "... including the Demigoddess Mary."

      False. She is a handmaid and a creature, not a demigoddess.

    • "[In Catholicism] you may not be “good enough to have a relationship with God that allows you to know and approach Him securely in that relationship,"

      False.

    • "... but fortunately (!), you can approach the Demigoddess Mary."

      False, she is not a demigoddess.

    • "To be a demigoddess, you must have no sin, you must not be defiled by common urges or desires (sex, orgasm, etc.)"

      False. Being human, Mary has the same kind of human nature as our first ancestors Adam and Eve. She has every urge or desire common to humanity.

    • "... You must be above humanity, but lower than God."

      False. It's true that she's lower than God, but false that she is above humanity.

    • "... You must have superpowers to hear everyone simultaneously"

      That's actually true, but so will you, when you are a saint in heaven (a destiny I desire for you.) We won't be omnipotent (we'll always be infinitely short of that) but still, we'll have gifts such that "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the mind of man to imagine"

      Hearing everyone simultaneously is probably one of the least of them, since it's almost possible NOW via AI technology. What God can do for us has to be far more, unimaginably more, than what we can do now, with e.g. Japanese robotics coupled with cloud technology.

    • "You must be able to perform miracles yourself."

      False.

    • "There are shrines to you."

      That's true, but that doesn't constitute idolatry. There are shrines to Washington and Lincoln in DC --- if they haven't yet been dynamited in the current fever-phase of secular anti-American iconoclasm. It doesn't indicate adoration, but veneration. If you don't grasp the difference, you might end up with the mob leveling sites of civic veneration, such as the Jefferson Memorial, or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

    • "... You will rule over the sun and moon and stars."

      If you are referring to the Woman of the Apocalypse (Revelation 11:19 - 12:1), this has attracted a variety of interpretations; but there is no teaching that Mary rules over the sun, moon, and stars. In fact, I hadn't heard of such a thing until I read it from you.

      Interestingly, though, something similar was said of the OT Joseph, the son of Jacob: (Genesis 37:9) "He had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. "Listen," he said, "I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me."

      And that famously bothered the heck out of his brothers. I think that was because they didn't understand the image.

      That same thing seems to be happening here with Mary: you don't understand the image, so you proclaim your own wrong-headed notion, and identify that to be what I believe.

      Did you ask me first?

      Did you ask any Catholic whether this was a true account of their beliefs?

      That is the whole offense in a nutshell: ascribing beliefs to me and to other Catholics, based not on the actual teachings of the Catholic Church, but upon your own unfortunate misunderstandings; and then, what's really unjustifiable, failing to correct this once it's pointed out to you.

      You even repeat the falsehoods, even after being informed that that's not what we believe. That's rude, and aggravating.

      As I said, I don't mind at all if you tell me what your beliefs are. I do mind when you tell me what MY beliefs are, especially when you've got it wrong.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 8:04:50 AM PDT · 230 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to aMorePerfectUnion
    I don't mind if you tell me what you believe about our God and His grace --- the God we both adore and the grace we both,unmerited, receive.

    What I do mind is you telling me what I supposedly believe --- and when you're corrected (because it's not what I believe) you keep repeating it nevertheless.

    . That's false witness, as in "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

    I am your neighbor. I wish you'd keep that in mind.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 7:32:22 AM PDT · 229 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to MHGinTN; GeronL
    "Ah, but the Magicsteeringthem leadership tells them that they have a goddess, a mother of god, to whom they can appeal when their sacrifice is not available to hear their pleas. This is all, of course, contrary to what the Bible, The Word of God teaches."

    Actually, MHGinTN, that is a falsehood.

    It's two falsehoods: (1) the Magisterium (correct terminology promotes respectful dialogue) does not teach that Mary is a goddess, and (2) the Magisterium does not teach that we appeal to Mary when our "sacrifice is not available," whatever that means.

    Telling falsehoods about other people's faith is contrary to what the Bible, the Word of God, teaches.

    "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

    I am your neighbor.

    Please keep that in mind.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 7:23:35 AM PDT · 228 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to Elsie
    "Central Greece" --- I meant "Central Anatolia."

    That's not just a typo, it's a brain-thud.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 7:14:50 AM PDT · 227 of 284
    Mrs. Don-o to Springfield Reformer
    Dear and scholarly SR, I think you've done a great philosophical work by turning a short truth into a long problem. Not that there's anything wrong with that! --- I guess that's what philosophers "do." But it's out of my league.

    I would like to point out that one can receive Holy Communion in good faith without this sort of hyper-think. Little children can receive. Downs Syndrome people and others with mental disability, can receive. I think that for one who has attained the age of reason, a simple "Amen" to the words "This is My Body" is sufficient.

    And furthermore, the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharist from the non-Latin Catholic churches which never historically batted things back and forth in a Aristotelian-Scholastic intellectual milieu, and don't use the terms associated with that brand of ontology.

    The Catholic Church recognizes, too, the validity of the Eucharist as practiced by our separated brethren, the Orthodox, and I think such Apostolic churches as the Armenians (which are not even exactly Orthodox: they are non-Chalcedonian) although they, like the other non-Latins, do not advert to Thomistic terminology like "transubstantiation."

    There are some people on both sides of the "Real Presence" question who relish this level of dispute, but not me. To my feeble brain, it's like Algebra II: I can use the terms and pass the test, but I can't really grasp what I'm doing. I am not (ahem) "gifted" at that level of abstraction.

    (Come to think of it, 45+ years later, Algebra II could still probably give me an anxiety attack.)

    One point I can make: please drop the phrase "literal" body in the context of Eucharist. The "Real Presence" does not mean that the consecrated Eucharist has physiological functions (e.g. respiration, digestion, excretion, etc.) which I guess would be the meaning of a "literal" living body.

    (Although: a "literal" glorified, resurrected Body? Are our bodies going to have physiological function? Jesus did eat fish! But did He metabolize it? But anyway...)

    That's why it's always a safe bet to use Jesus' words like "real" and "true."