Posted on 05/06/2009 8:47:15 AM PDT by presidio9
The Senate voted 65-31 to confirm Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services. Just last week Sebelius again denied protection to the unborn when she vetoed a bill that would provide increased regulations on performing late term abortions.
Nineteen Catholic Senators supported the Sebelius nomination and six Catholic Senators opposed. Two Catholic senators who are ardently pro-life supported the governor; Senator Sam Brownback and Senator George Voinovich. Senator Brownback announced his support early on which was a surprise and a major disappointment to many in the pro-life movement.
Senator Murkowski, who has a mixed voting record on life issues, voted against Sebelius.
Senator Casey who campaigned in 2006 as pro-life has a voting record on life issues that fluctuates. In January he was publicly admonished by his local ordinary, Bishop Martino, for an anti-life vote opposing an amendment to reinstate the Mexico Policy. In a letter thanking the Senator for his support of a subsequent life issue vote, Bishop Martino called on Senator Casey to oppose Sebelius as HHS Secretary. Senator Casey did not heed the request of his local Ordinary. In a statement released by the Scranton Diocese regarding Sen. Casey's vote, Bishop Martino said he was "deeply disappointed." It went on to say that the Bishop would continue to monitor Senator Casey's positions and "if necessary future determinations will be made regarding whether Sen. Casey is worthy to receive Holy Communion. However, at this point Bishop Martino believes it is incumbent upon Sen. Casey to reflect on his actions and ask himself if he should receive the sacrament."
Sebelius' confirmation hearing had been stalled due to a report that she was not forthcoming on her relationship with late term abortionist Dr. George Tiller. The AP revealed that Governor Sebelius underreported the campaign money she had received from the abortionist and the pro-life organization Operation Rescue released a document showing Dr. Tiller contributed $200,000 to defeat Kathleen Sebelius’ challenger in the 2002 Kansas gubernatorial race.
A strong effort by the pro-life community and conservative family groups to defeat the nomination was met by an equally strong effort on behalf of abortion rights groups. NARAL claimed responsibility for 22,000 messages to senators.
Gov. Sebelius' local Ordinary, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, concerned about another high profile pro-abortion rights Catholic, made the following comments in an interview with Our Sunday Visitor when her nomination was first announced:
"...I think from the church’s point of view, it’s sad because it places another high-profile, pro-abortion Catholic into national leadership along with Vice President (Joe) Biden and Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi and a raft of others that are in the Congress. And so I think it makes our job as bishops more challenging, because we have to be even more clear that this is not acceptable for a person in public service to say that they are Catholic and then to support these policies that are anti-life, you know go against the most fundamental of all human rights, the preservation of innocent life."
Fr. Euteneuer, President of HLI made the following statment on the Sebelius nomination and Senator Brownback's decision to support her:
"The situation is atrocious. An extremist abortion hack (called the most pro-abortion governor in the nation by many), who falsely calls herself "Catholic," is given the opportunity to preside over the nation's healthcare system and normalize abortion even further; this radical is then endorsed by a US senator who also calls himself "Catholic" and who, many believe, wants her job back home when she becomes the abortion queen in DC."
As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Sebelius will no doubt advance abortion rights, and affect policy on conscience protection, embryonic stem cell research and end of life decisions.
To view the list of Senators and how they voted, including how the Catholic Senators voted go to OneNationUnderGod.org
To view the list of Senators and how they voted, including how the Catholic Senators voted go to OneNationUnderGod.org
Your job seems to be that of defacing the walls of Christendom by scribbling thereon impious graffiti and being a self-appointed and self-imagined expert opinion generator on matters Scriptural. You should know that it takes more than possession of some form of the Book and a few reading lessons to qualify as an expert. I certainly would be reluctant to trust my cat's grooming, my car's transmission or even paint job to one with such scant credentials. Did Jesus Christ mention you in Matthew 16: 13-19?
I gave you the Scriptural backing. For a devotee of YOPIOS, you are remarkably but understandably reluctant to try to back up your imaginings with Scripture itself.
When Catholics need your opinions as to our (and Jesus's) Church, I suspect that we will let you be the first to know but holding your breath waiting is neither practical nor recommended.
If you do not even qualify as "separated brethren," then you must be in much worse trouble than had been previously evident. I shall endeavor to keep you in my prayers. I do note that you have added a few more unsubstantiated editorials. You seem to be very long on uninformed opinions and very short on knowledge of the underlying facts.
I don't suppose that you care to identify which particular "church" or denomination has obtained your personal allegiance and how you have determined (with specifics) that it is somehow the true church.
Evidently he's a Supralapsarian Calvinist of the old school (as opposed to slightly more moderate Infralapsarian Calvinists). That can be found in several different sects, such as the Scottish Presbyterians of the 16th century or in Dutch Calvinism of the 17th century, but is getting pretty rare.
Much of this was discussed in interesting detail at the Synod of Dort.
John Henry Cardinal Newman had distinct advantages like a grasp of history and of the universal nature of the Church reflected in the word catholic. He likely was blissfully unimpressed by thousands of squabbling sects, each imagining its particular wrinkle on Scripture to prove that it and not the others is true. Had we not given them the Scriptures, they would have had nothing over which to argue with us. Well, I suppose we would give them Scripture anyway even if they would determine to misinterpret and misuse it.
In court I represented hundreds of Evangelicals in what was called Operation Rescue at no charge whatsoever to them and according to their respective and individual beliefs rather than my own. I am confident that few of them would agree with the ungracious and narrow-minded style of Dutchboy88's attacks on the Roman Catholic Church, whatever their sincere disagreements with it.
Dutchboy should spend some time in jail with some socially conservative Catholics and Evangelicals after acting heroically on behalf of the babies. As Benjamin Franklin famously observed: We shall hang together or we shall hang separately.
God bless you and yours, Cicero. You may wish to keep Dutchboy88 in your prayers too.
By the way, I have several good friends at Calvin College, which perhaps I should have mentioned earlier. We disagree on matters of theology, but we work together on common concerns. In fact, I was surprised to discover that I was more respectful of their views than some of their fellow Evangelicals, who have problems with double predestination, irresistible grace, and other high Calvinist doctrines.
Isn’t it about time that we, as a collective whole, stop worrying about what opponents MIGHT think , do or say - and really do what our principles tell us is right?
Just saying.
How can I ignore you if you go out of your way to post your bigotry in a place I can see it and on a thread I started? I'm always amazed that people like you have the nerve to call yourself Christians when you obviously wouldn't recognize Jesus if he passed you on the street.
Whose synod was the Synod of Dort? When? Where? Why?
I think it’s long past time that we really do what our principles tell us is right ... fully aware that it will win us persecution in this world.
Well, I would be in the good company of the disciples/apostles if Jesus passed and I did not recognize Him. It would be more important if He recognized me.
The Synod of Dort settled a dispute between the strict Dutch Calvinists and Arminius, who argued in favor of free will. It took place in Holland in 1618.
King James I sent a mission from Great Britain, charged to argue the Calvinist case. Calvinism made great inroads into the Anglican Church in the late 16th, early 17th century. Most of Elizabeth’s bishops were Calvinists, and she had to put reins on them to moderate their statements, since she wanted the Church of England to follow a via media and include as many people as possible. Calvinism gradually faded out of the C of E during the course of the 17th century, although it made a comeback under the invading Scottish Presbyterians during the interregnum.
The Synod is of interest partly because John Donne was one of the members of the English delegation, and partly because John Milton took an interest and was, basically, an Arminian Puritan—a strong believer in free will, what we might now call a Free Will Baptist, although he was essentially a church of one.
The Synod of Dort came down in favor of strict Calvinism. Double predestination: All men are either saved or damned since before the creation of the world took place. Irresistible grace: Those who are saved cannot resist God’s grace even if they want to—they will be hauled into heaven no matter how hard they try to sin. And so forth, on to a total of five major theological points.
That even produced people in the 1650s who took St Paul’s words literally: the greater the sinner, the more God’s grace abounds. (see Bunyan’s second best known work: “Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners,” although he didn’t indulge in that sort of activity.) So they spent their time deliberately sinning, in order to let grace abound, since they were convinced that they would be irresistibly saved no mater what they did.
Arminius was condemned by the Synod of Dort, his followers were jailed, one was executed.
A rather kind and measured response.
I was not trying to be clever, but rather represent my theological perspective.
To my intentions...It is not that I believe the Catholic Church has gotten too large, and is no longer doing God’s work. It is that I believe that the Scriptures describe the Gospel in a way that is quite different than the Catholic Church describes it. Consequently, the Catholic Church is burdened with a number of difficult situations that the biblical Church does not carry. The biblical Church is not a monolithic organization headed by a single man on earth, irrespective of what that organization now claims.
The Church is referred to as the Assembly of believers, congregating in homes, tunnels, cemetaries, halls, and really anywhere that the Gospel according to the Apostles could be taught. There they fellowshipped (encouraged each other), broke bread (ate together and celebrated the resurrection), prayed (entreated God to teach them and increase their faith), and listened to the Apostles teaching (had the men gifted for teaching tell them about the unfolding story of Christ).
You can tell from the letter to the Romans that there was not a central headquarters that directed the “organization”. Really, there were hundreds of these small groups everywhere. The Roman influence began to compel these to acquiesce to their leadership, rather than the groups elevating Rome. Additionally, Rome, while it did recognize a small number of correct doctrines, departed the Gospel on the big issues, such as...
1. Does a man choose God or God choose men? Augustine tried to argue this from Pelagius, but semi-pelagianism has captured the hearts of the RCC leadership.
2. Are men then predestined or do they have “self-will”? This became a hated topic, because it removed the authority of Rome back to God (connected with the first point).
3. Do Priests have to be instrumental in the process of salvation of a man? The priesthood was a product of the Mosaic Law. Yes, they existed before the Law, but so did sacrifices. This sacerdotalism of Rome is a holdover from the Law and, although the book of Hebrews clearly explains the passing of the Law and its accoutrements (sacrifices, holy days, etc.) the RCC continues to demand it to retain the “control” over believers. This is just what the Reformers fought and denied. There is now just One Priest, the Man Christ Jesus who sprinkles any man whome He desires. That man was at war with God, but then comes to faith.
4. They believe they have the “keys” to the kingdom of Christ. This is nonsense. The “keys” to the kingdom is this recognition that Jesus is the Messiah, the Rescuer of Israel first, then the Gentiles. If you see that, you hold the keys. If I see that, I have the keys.
There are others, but as you can see, I think the RCC has departed the real message of Christ sufficiently to be considered teaching “another gospel”. They have said their organization is the central matter, not Jesus. They claim He authorized them to be central, but that is more nonsense. And the 17 Senator problem is just more of the fallout of this “organizational” mentality that you have to be “in their group” to belong to Christ. Again, nonsense. But, the RCs around here will send in the dogs now to “prove” they are the chosen.
So, let me be clear, many RCs are likely saved, but not because of good teaching, but in spite of it. Christ knows who are His own. That is why I said, it is more important that He know me, than I recognize Him.
I hope grace is extended to you.
That being said, your understanding of the Catholic Church and its history is limited by the typical slant of those who grew up in a protestant faith. Because of that, I forgive you for the common misconceptions that you posted at the end, which I might otherwise have considered lying. Again, theology has no place in this thread or in this forum. If you must contiue this discussion, start a vanity, and ping me in. That being said:
1) Is an historical attack against the Church that ignorant protestants have made for centuries. Pelagius found some favor in his early life, but the Chuch condemned him later, along with his teachings. Again, I have not wish to discuss this with you further here. You made your point, I have made mine. Pelagius has not place in Catholic theology. Sorry you didn't know this.
2) The Catholic Church reaffirms the central concept of free will constantly. Predetermination has no place in Catholic doctrine.
3) The Church positions ordained priests only as counselors and administerers of the sacraments. Nowhere does the Church suggest they must to be instrumental in the process of salvation of a man. Another lie often repeated by the ignorant with only those at war with the Catholic Church as a source of information. Even before the Reformation, lay missionaries were venturing out to places where they would likely never encounter another priest for the remainder of their lives. Did they go to hell for their troubles?
4) Another lie. Catholics believe that good people of all faiths may be saved. Including your own. And of course we believe our way of worshiping is best for us. For that matter, we believe that members of non-Christian faiths may also be saved. From the way you have been talking, its very likely yours does not, which is, of course, a completely illogical and motiveless concept for the God I love and honor.
Anyway, I hope this helps. Your understanding of Catholicism is decidedly limited and one-sided. If you want to continue posting negative things about a religion that encompasses the core beliefs of more people than any other, the least you could do is educate yourself a bit more before proceeding. Peace be with you my brother.
Your God-given free will permits you to be just as wrong as you might care to be.
Consequently, the Catholic Church is burdened with a number of difficult situations that the biblical Church does not carry.
The Catholic Church IS the Biblical Church.
The biblical Church is not a monolithic organization headed by a single man on earth, irrespective of what that organization now claims.
The Catholic Church is headed by Jesus Christ, as He designed it.
This is how the very young Catholic Church survived, as He willed it.
...and listened to the Apostles teaching (had the men gifted for teaching tell them about the unfolding story of Christ).
Each of the Apostles were Bishops of the young Catholic Church who actually knew and met Christ while he walked the earth.
It had not yet been built, as His Church was very young.
Really, there were hundreds of these small groups everywhere.
Now there are tens of thousands.
The Roman influence began to compel these to acquiesce to their leadership, rather than the groups elevating Rome.
Nonsensical as I read it. Rome had very little to do with the Catholic Church then.
Additionally, Rome, while it did recognize a small number of correct doctrines, departed the Gospel on the big issues, such as...
Rome was pagan, I'm sure it made many departures. The Catholic Church, however, made none, just as Christ willed it.
Thank God Almighty the Catholic Church has not been implicated in what you report. Every man in the Catholic Church has chosen God. This is why He created the Church.
Neither. They have free will. Rome never had any authority, it was a pagan republic. The Catholic Church has been His instrument on earth since His Ascension.
Christ commands us in John 6 to partake of Holy Eucharist.
The priesthood was a product of the Mosaic Law.
No. "A priesthood" was.
This sacerdotalism of Rome is a holdover from the Law and, although the book of Hebrews clearly explains the passing of the Law and its accoutrements (sacrifices, holy days, etc.)
It is still surpassing difficult to understand why you continue to weave pagan Rome into these discussions, let alone mentions of the Jewish priesthood which Christ replaced with His Church.
...the RCC continues to demand it to retain the “control” over believers.
Good thing the Catholic Church is not implicated in this latest bizarre charge.
This is just what the Reformers fought and denied.
They were an egotistically beguiled and misdirected lot.
There is now just One Priest, the Man Christ Jesus who sprinkles any man whome He desires.
Such is another lie of the heretics.
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.