Posted on 05/02/2019 3:37:26 AM PDT by Gamecock
In the ‘modern American’ mode it is politically incorrect to call these degenerates what they. The sexual degenerate is a dead soul (sorry ‘Pete’, you’re an abomination in God’s eyes). As such there is no actual moral compass that can point to righteousness in behavior or thought. The end of such degenerate minds is ALWAYS destruction. ‘Pete’ may pretend to have faith in God but his actions spit in the face of God and Christ. And degenerates like ‘Pete’ are unable to see their destitution. The father of lies owns them.
I’m Catholic, and you are not wrong.
Our Protestant brothers and sisters have many sincere and profound disagreements with us over certain things. But as the largest single Christian denomination the Catholic Church played an important role as a bulwark against social decay.
It’s deconstruction by Pope Frankie is not a good thing for any other Christians.
So I agree with you, metmom, that the Catholic Church has long had a problem with "activists" and progressivists/modernists.
Not just for 1,000 years, but for 2,000 years.
Vatican 2 would not have been possible if the mechanism implementing it weren’t already in place.
Some Catholics seem to think it was the cause of the church’s problems.
Rather, it’s a symptom of what was already there.
I was responding to another poster.
Follow my comment back to the one I replied to.
I am great admirer of Albert Mohler, I find him to be an excellent thinker and writer. It's interesting that he defends his point be referring to Christianity's "historic and biblical" position.
To say "Historic and biblical" is to tap into the robust resources of "Scripture and Tradition."
I have seen him arguing, persuasively as well, on the basis of Natural Law, and in this, too, he is in the right.
A lot of the current hot-button "marriage, gender, sexuality, and family" questions are not addressed in Scripture and were hardly to be dreamed of in Biblical times
Yes, you can answer these with general reference to non-specific Biblical "values," not actually commanded nor enumerated in the text, but it's tricky: progressives support socialism, for instance, as a "biblical value." We may argue back, citing "values," but they'll feel justified in arguing back at you, citing "values" and throwing in Acts 6:32-33 to boot.
However, Scriptural Revelation + Christian historic positions (Tradition) + Natural Law (law that can be arrived at by reasoning from evidence and logic) makes a very strong case indeed.
Albert Mohler seems willing to go there. That's why he's such an interesting man to watch.
The father of lies doesn’t own them yet. They can still repent as have others before them. The chances of them repenting is vanishingly small if people abandon them.
Yes, which is why during the Monaca Lewinsky scandal Bill made sure he went to church - as though he thinks we are stupid enough to absolve him because he sat in a pew one day.
And I have seen this trend in publications like Christianity today. I stopped reading it because I got sick of its leftward tilt.
You guys in the US call it by another name, but in Canada the Anglican Church has gone full tilt progressive, kicking its members out of the church who oppose the LGBT movement.
I have to, as a Protestant, confess that Catholic families I have known personally were very faithful and traditional - at least in my neck of the woods.
No such thing as “Progressive” Christianity. You either are a Christian, or you worship the world and sodomy.
Willy had to borrow his secretary’s Bible to carry for show.
Whenever I see Hillary or Bill hold a bible (like at McCain’s funeral) I half expect a bolt of lighting to come down and turn them to ash.
That’s true; our Episcopal church is about as nuts as they come. If it’s in the Bible, the Episcopal church will do the opposite.
Thanks, and I’ll give credit where it is due: When I attended the March for Life years ago, I was very impressed by the number of Protestant denominations there. Until then, I thought it was a “Catholic” event - and it wasn’t.
We’ve certainly had heresies since the beginning - I’ll concede that.
Yes, the “theologians” who twisted the Church teachings have always been around - but the Council put the official stamp of approval on a lot of their BS for the first time. I suspect most Catholics who blame Vatican II don’t believe it was the inception of the problem.
Buttigieg demands that evangelical Christians ‘evolve’ their understanding of holy Scripture. The biblically orthodox interpretation of sexuality represents an antiquated morality from a culturally dated book. In Buttigieg’s view, we ought to keep the universal principles but jettison the culturally and socially inconvenient passages that do not square with our modern, moral ideology. Christians must, in short, redefine biblical sexuality in unbiblical terms.
Buttigieg’s argument presses Christians to see homosexuality and LGBTQ identity as a gift from the Creator. Failure to evolve and to adopt an understanding of the Bible freed from the pre-modern worldview puts Christians on the wrong side of history
An article in USA Today focuses on Buttigieg’s indictment of Pence and his religious faith. Maureen Groppe writes: “It’s unusual for Democratic presidential candidates to talk about faith as often as Buttigieg does. It’s groundbreaking that he uses his marriage to another man to illustrate his personal relationship with God.”
Indeed, it is groundbreaking, but not because of a massive political shift. It is groundbreaking because of a massive theological shift, which predates the political rise of Pete Buttigieg.
what makes the Buttigieg phenomenon astounding is the cultural mood—the culture wants to talk about faith. Buttigieg’s faith, however, has no objective referent; it is a subjective faith in a false god.
Indeed. The definitive and original source of the word "Christian" is Scripture, which describes a people who upheld the universal basic moral laws of Scripture, and its principles. In which we see that God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified - and only condemned homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with .
Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47
According to Powers, Jesus never mentioned abortion at all, thereby making it a dubious issue for Christians to espouse. This line of reasoning applies to other issues like sexual orientation, gender identity, and the entire spectrum of LGBTQ rights.
Which is absurd, for it not only relies on the “red letter hermeneutic” - that only what Christ personally is recorded as saying in the gospels constitutes His teaching, but also rests on the untenable premise that only what Christ explicitly specifically stated qualifies as a condemnation or that which is unlawful.
Based upon that ignorance or sophistry it can be said that the Lord Jesus never condemned everything from rape and incest to pederasty and bestiality (under your implicit presupposition that “fornications” is not specific enough) and other subsets of sins.
But requiring a explicit statement that something is specifically wrong is simply not how you determine what is taught, and the fact that Christ specified that it was male and female joined together in marriage (Mt. 19:4–6 - referencing Gn. 1:27; 2:24) leaves all other unions to be fornication.
(But I know you agree with all this.)
It is the distinctive Catholic tradition that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels, which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation) which is a problem.
No abortion, divorce, homosexuality, female clergy - all clearly laid out in Scripture.
But what a person or church does and fosters is the basis for determining what they believe, and you all were in worse moral condition at times in the past.
Cardinal Ratzinger observed,
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.“
"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)
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.