Posted on 01/11/2007 10:55:59 AM PST by HarleyD
LOL!
I was rebutting the notion that Catholics were so monolithically Catholic. Incidentally, Dennis Kucinich and Mark Foley are not Catholic, merely of Catholic extraction. Both have very publicly renounced their Catholicism, which is quite an extraordinary act for a politician.
I would also add that many state Democratic organizations nominate nominal Catholics precisely because the religious affiliation helps their candidates seem more moral (for instance, Landrieu, Durbin, Casey, Biden, Mikulski, and Kerry.)
Catholics are no more Democratic than Protestants; it's just that for political polling, only those Protestants who are active in their churches mention their denomination. Catholics are more Democratic than White Protestants, but this is more an issue of class and geography than of denomination. Even White Protestants, when from the states Catholics are from, tend to be more Democratic then Catholics, which certainly is surprising given that Catholics come from Democratic tradition (from before Roe v. Wade, and the Homosexual Revolution); Catholics have been shifting rightward while Protestants have been shifting leftward.
..but even still, the best measure of liberalism is still the lack of religious adherence, not denomination.
Sadly, I do agree with your conclusion. I believe that the American Catholic Church of the future will be, precisely as Pope Benedict predicted the European one would be, "smaller and leaner." I definitely see a rebound in the fervor of the core of Catholic, American youth, amdist a continued weakening overall... a rebound in the overall picture could well be brewing, however.
I would blame the dogged Democrat Catholics on JF Kennedy. The blue bloods love him demographically. The blue collar love him for visiting WV and promising the world. Those who bother to pay attention to politics and political parties are learning it ain't JFK's party anymore... time will tell.
More because I believe fully in the power of Christ's grace to transform lives. With the call of radical Islam to destroy Christianity and the secular West's contempt for any believer who holds the fundementals of faith, I just can not see fellow Christians as the enemy.
I will not deny the theological differences but prefer to focus on the fact we all call Jesus Lord and Savior and look to Him for forgiveness of sins and life everlasting.
still removing oneself from the submitting to the authority of the church is as good as self excommunication
Well said.
Naw, I was just poking some ribs. But I certainly have seen many Catholics hear the gospel with new ears, and then return to the Church with a greater understanding of Catholic doctrine. A lot of Catholicism is pretty hard to understand when first introduced to it at five years old.
A lot of Catholicism is pretty hard to understand when first introduced to it at five years old.
Sure can be. That is why an at home religious education should supplement any CCD classes. It is never too early to start the basics. Lots of Bible stories, prayers and songs help lay a good foundation in the faith.
It's a question of ultimate doctrinal authority in the Church. With Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium in the Catholic Church, what is orthodoxy is a little clearer, despite individual clerics and laypersons going off the rails. While sola scriptura of Protestantism does provide some clarity, it is much harder with private judgement in the interpretation of scriptures to define what is Protestant orthodoxy in any particular denomination. And of course your K. Jefferts-Schorri, V. G. Robinson brand of Protestants don't even accept Scriptures as a standard.
Mine also; I have orange TULIPs for my screen savor
"And though I am Catholic and believe fully in Church teachings I would rather a poor Catholic become a good Protestant then remain where they are not able to see and love Christ with their whole beings."
AMEN. There are good Christians in all of the churches, and people need to go wherever they most strongly and devotedly see and feel the presence of Jesus Christ. "In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
I prefer to categorize Protestants as those who know what the Reformers were protesting. By that definition even though I was born into a Protestant family that did not make me a Protestant; I became a Protestant sometime after I was saved & remain one today. The difference between my belief & yours is immeasurable.
I have copied a portion of a sermon from John Gill (1671 – 1771), a Protestant by my definition, which carries within it an expression of the good news reveled to me & others by the Holy Spirit at a time of Gods choosing.
http://pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_13.htm
2 CHRONICLES 16:9
For the eyes [o]f the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect towards him.
..........
..........
I. What we are to understand by the eyes of the Lord?
..........
..........
It is further said of the eyes of the Lord, that they try the righteous. His eyes behold, and his eye-lids try the children of men. The Lord tries the righteous; he distinguishes them from others, even in the way of his providence; for though he is the Saviour of all men, yet especially of them that believe. He distinguishes them by the gifts of his grace; which he makes them partakers of, while others al[r]e not: so that they have abundant reason to say, with admiration Who hath made us to differ? In this sense are we to understand the eyes of the Lord, as they are concerned with his own people; which are no other than his all-seeing providence, accompanied with his love and mercy towards them.
Now these eyes of his love and mercy were set upon them from everlasting, in his eternal councils and decrees. He loved them with an everlasting love. He looked upon them and chose them, in his Son, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and happy. He blessed them with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ. Jesus. He gave them grace in Christ before the world began. He put them into the hands of his Son, made them his care and charge; and said unto him, as their surety, Feed the flock of slaughter. To which he agreed, and said, I will feed the flock of slaughter; even ye, O poor of the flock.
His eyes are upon them in time, even as soon as they are brought into the world. He takes them under his special protection, from their mother’s womb; so says the apostle, Who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace. Not that he called him by his grace as soon as he was born; but so early he distinguished him by a special providence over him, in order to his being effectually called by grace in due time. This he observes concerning others, as well as himself. Who hath saved us, and called us; saved us to be called; saved us, in a special providential way. The Lord’s eyes are upon all his people in a peculiar manner, as soon as they are born; and all the while they are in a state of unregeneracy. This is remarkably manifest in the case of the apostle Paul, I am now speaking of. What notice is taken of him in the sacred history, before he was effectually called by grace! When Stephen, the proto-martyr, was stoned, it is said, the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul: and, further it is observed, that Saul was consenting unto his death. There were multitudes consenting unto his death besides Saul; but he is particularly taken notice of, that the grace of God might be magnified in his conversion. It is further said, Saul made havoc of the Church. Saul was breathing out threatening and slaughter against the disciples of Christ. Thus you see what notice was taken of him; how God’s eye was upon him, even before he was called by grace; and that because he was a chosen vessel of salvation. So our Lord said to Nathaniel, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee. Before he was called either in a ministerial way, or effectually by the grace of God, the eye of the Lord was upon him. The Lord’s eyes are upon all his people, even in this state, until the time comes in which they are to be effectually called. There is a time for every purpose under heaven; and there is a time for God’s calling his people by his grace; for they are all of them called according to his purpose. Now till this time Jehovah waits; waits to be gracious to them; waits as it were with longing eyes, till the time is up; and with respect to some, he waits even till the eleventh hour: and his long-suffering towards his people, whether it be longer or shorter, always ends in salvation; for the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is willing that all should come to repentance. When the set time is come, he passes by them, looks upon them; and his time is a time of love. He looks upon them not with loathing and contempt; but with commiseration. When no eye pities them, he looks upon them; and shews mercy to them. He looks upon them, while in their blood, and says unto them, live; and washes them from all their pollutions and defilements. He looks upon them, when in the hands of Satan; and snatches them from thence: observes them to be as brands in the burning, and takes them from thence. He looks upon them, and sees them in a pit, wherein is no water; in the mire and clay; and taking them from thence, he sets their feet upon a rock and establishes their goings. Thus he looks upon them with an eye of pity and compassion.
The Lord’s eye still continues upon his people after conversion. He watches over them night and day, lest any hurt them. They are en graven upon the palms of his hands, and their walls are continually before him. As the Lord said concerning the temple at Jerusalem, Mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually (1 Kings 9:3); so his heart and his eyes are perpetually upon them: and, as it is said of the land of Canaan, The eyes of the Lord are always upon it, from the beginning of the year, even to the end of the year: so the eyes of the Lord are upon his people, not only from the beginning of one year, to the end of it, but from the beginning of their life, unto the end of their days. Let us now inquire,
..............
..............
..............
Oh, thanks for posting that. I had never thought of the Sacraments as there in Genesis. Very interesting.
"The eyes of the Lord run to and fro, to protect and defend them. Sin, Satan, and the world, are too strong for them. They would never be able to stand their ground, were it not for the assistance and protection which they have from God, in a way of special providence and grace. But he not only places his angels as guards over them, but he likewise appoints salvation to be walls and bulwarks for them. Yea, he himself is a wall of fire round about them, and a glory in the midst of them. Thus does he shew himself strong in their behalf. Happy are the persons that are under his special care in all these instances..."
God designed, and willed the universe into being, which seems good to me.
Thus I try to do good in return. But I doubt that even Moses could truly know Him.
I took the time to examine the pre-medieval teachings of the Church, and they had NOTHING in common with Protestantism.
Expressions of the faith develop. The literal, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist was known in full form c. 100 A.D., and St. Justin the Martyr describes that a change metaousious takes place during the Mass.
Again, an open-minded review of Protestantism would leave you with the same conclusion that I had: Protestantism is an innovation, period.
Well, Protestants have encouraged Bible-study for centuries, being the ones who translated God's word into native languages, unlike RCs for whom Scripture is a rather recent addition to their reading schedule.
>>Spare me your ignorance. Protestants taught me the importance of reading the Bible, but not the importance of reading it correctly. Every Protestant is his or her own Pope. Scripture readings have been part of the Mass and the Divine Office for centuries, long before there was such a thing as a Protestant. Luther, Tyndale, Wycliffe, etc., they didn't translate the Bible, they published mistranslations every bit as egregious as the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation.
>>Liberal Protestantism is simply the logical progression of private interpretation. I just love Protestant mythology. Having been one myself, I can attest to the fact most Protestant conceptions of Catholicism are shear, uninformed bigotry.
The Protestant Deformers did nothing except to destroy the unity of Christ's Church and rent it asunder. Christianity has never recovered from their sins. Luther rejected Church authority over scripture, Luther's heirs of the enlightenment then rejected the authority of scriptures and the existence of God.
I find it interesting that Presbyterian Scotland, Lutheran Germany and the French philosophes who were influenced by the Hugenots all were in the avante garde of the de-Christianization of Europe during the "Enlightenment."
St. Francis DeSales to the Protestants of Geneva
CHAPTER III
THE PRETENDED REFORMERS HAD NO IMMEDIATE OR EXTRAORDINARY MISSION FROM GOD.
THESE reasons are so strong that the most solid of your party have taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission, and have said that they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission had been ruined and abolished, with the true Church itself, under the tyrannv of Antichrist. This is their most safe refuge, which, since it is common to all sorts of heretics, is worth attacking in good earnest and overthrowing completely. Let us then place our argument in order, to see if we can force this their last barricade.
First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinarv mission unless he prove it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius- could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath?
Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel. He wished to know his name who sent him; when he had learnt the admirable name of God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission: God so far found this request good that he gave him the grase of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, which were, so to speak, three attestations in three different languages, of the charge which he gave him, in order that any one who did not understand one might understand another. lf then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. In truth Moses clearly shows the necessity of this proof for him who would speak extraordinarily: for having to beg from God the gift of eloquence, he only asks it after having the power of miracles ; showing that it is more necessary to have authority to speak than to have readiness in speaking.
The mission of S. John Baptist, though it was not altogether extraordinary, -was it not authenticated by his conception, his nativity, and even by that miraculous life of his, to which our Lord gave such excellent testimony? But as to the Apostles,- who does not know the miracles they did and the great number of them? Their handkerchiefs, their shadow, served for the prompt healing of the sick and driving away of the devils; by the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done amongst the people (Acts xiv. 5) and that this was in confirmation of their preaching S. Mark declares quite explicitly in the last words of his Gospel, and S. Paul to the Hebrews (ii. 4) How then shall those who in our age would allege an extraordinary mission excuse and relieve themselves of this proof of their mission? What privilege have they greater than an Apostolic, a Mosaic? What shall I say more. If our sovereign Master, consubstantial with the Father, having a mission so authentic that it comprises the communication of the same essence, if he himself, I say, who is the living source of all Ecclesiastical mission, has not chosen to dispense himself from this proof of miracles, what reason is these that these new ministers should be believed an their mere word? Our Lord very often alleges his mission to give credit to his words: As my Father hath sent me I also send you (John xx. 21); My doctrine is not mine, but of him that sent me (ibid. vii. 16); You both know me, and you know whence I am; and I am not come of myself (ibid. 28). But also, to give authority to his mission, he brings forward his miracles, and attests that if he had not done among the Jews works which no other man had done, they would not have sinned in not believing him. And elsewhere he says to them: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the works themselves. (ibid. xiv. 11, 12). He then who would be so rash as to boast of extraordinary mission without immediately producing miracles, deserves to be taken for an impostor. Now it is a fact that neither the first nor the last ministers have worked a single miracle: therefore they have no extraordinary mission. Let us proceed.
I say, in the second place, that never must an extraordinary mission be received when disowned by the ordinary authority which is th eChurch of Our Lord. For (1.) we are obliged to obey our ordinary pastors under pain of being heathens and publicans (Matt. xviii. 17): - how then can we place ourselves under other discipline than theirs? Extraordinaries would come in vain, since we should be obliged to refuse to listen to them, in the case that they were, as I have said, disowned by the ordinaries. (II.) God is not the author of dissention, but of union and peace (I Cor. xiv. 33), principally amongst his disciples and Church ministers; as Our Lord clearly shows in the holy prayer he made to his Father in the last days of His mortal life. (John xvii.)
How then should he authorise two sorts of pastors, the one extraordinary, the other ordinary? As to the ordinary- it certainly is authorised, and as to the extraordinary we are supposing it to be; there would then be two different churches, which is contrary to the Most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one sole spouse, one sole dove, one sole perfect one (Cant. vi.) And how could that be a united flock which should be led by two shepherds, unknown to each other, into different pastures, with different calls and folds, and each of them expecting to have the whole. Thus would it be with the Church under a variety of pastors ordinary and extraordinary, dragged hither and thither into various sects. Or is Our Lord _divided (I Cor. i. 13) either in himself or in his body, which is the Church?-no, in good truth. On the contrary, there is but one Lord, who has composed his mystic body with a goodly variety of members, a body compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part (Eph. iv. 16).
Therefore to try to make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary members is to ruin and destroy it. We must then return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the ordinary.
(3.) And in effect where will you ever show me a legitimate extraordinary vocation which has not been received by the ordinary authority. S. Paul was extraordinarily called -but was he not approved and authorised by the ordinary once and again? (Acts ix. 13). And the Mission received from the ordinary authority is called a mission by the Holy Spirit (ibid. xiii. 4.). The Mission of S John Baptist cannot properly be called extraordinary because he taught nothing contrary to the Mosaic Church, and because he was of the priestly race. All the same, his doctrine being unusual was approved by the ordinary teaching Office of the Jewish Church in the high embassy which was sent to him by the priests and Levites (John i. 19), the tenor of which implies the great esteem and reputation in which he was with them; and the very Pharisees who were seated an the chair of Moses,- did they not come to communicate in his baptism quite openly and unhesitatingly? This truly was to receive his mission in good earnest. Did not Our Lord, who was the Master, will to be received by Simeon, who was a priest, as appears from his blessing Our Lady and Joseph; by Zachary the priest; and by S. John? And for his passion, which was the principal fulfilment of his Mission,-did he not will to have the prophetic testimony of him who was High Priest at that time.
And this is what S. Paul teaches when he will have no man to take the pastoral honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was (Heb v. 4) "For the vocation of Aaron was Made by the ordinary, Moses, so that it was not _God who placed his holy word in the mouth of Aaron immediately, but Moses, whom God commanded to do it: Speak to him, and put my words in his mouth; and I will be in thy mouth, and in his mouth (Ex. iv. 15). And if we consider the words of S. Paul, we shall further learn that the vocation of pastors and Church rulers must be made visibly; and so with Our Lord and Master; who, being sovereign pontiff, and pastor of all the ages, did not glorify himself, that is, did not take to himself the honour of his holy priesthood, as S. Paul had previously said, but he who said to him Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; and, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech. I beg you to ponder this expression - Jesus Christ is a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech . Was he inducted and thrust into this honour by himself? No, he was called thereto. Who called him? His eternal Father. And how? Immediately and at the same time mediately: immediately at his Baptism and his Transfiguration, by this voice: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him; mediately by the Prophets, and above all by David in the places which S. Paul cites to this effect from the Psalms: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. And everywhere the vocation is externally perceptible: the word in the cloud was heard, and in David hear and read; but S. Paul in proving the vocation of Our Lord quotes only the passage from David, in which he says Our Lord had been glorified by his Father; thus contenting himself with bringing forward the testimony which was percepible, and given by means of the ordinary Scriptures and the received Prophets.
I say, thirdly, that the authority of the extraordinary mission never distroys the ordinary, and is never given to overthrow it. Witness all the Prophets, who never set up altar against altar, never overthrew the priesthood of Aaron, never abolished the constitutions of the Synagogue. Witness Our Lord, who declares that every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and a house upon a house shall fall (Luke xi. 17). Witness the respect which he paid to the chair of Moses, the doctrine of which he would have to be observed. And indeed if the extraordinary ought to abolish the ordinary, how should we know when, and how, and to whom, to give our obedience. No, no; the ordinary is immortal for such time as the Church is here below in the world. The pastors and teachers whom he has once given to the Church are to have a perpetual succession for the pei fection of the saints . . . till we all meet in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a peifeet man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ. That we may not now be children, tossed to and fro, an d carried about with every wind -i doctrine, in the wickedness of men and in their craftiness (Eph. iv. 1) Such is the strong argument which S. Paul uses to prove that if the ordinary pastors and doctors had not perpetual succession, and were liable to have their authority abrogated by the extraordinary, we should also have but an irregular faith and discipline, interrupted at every step; we should be liable to be seduced by men, whe an every occasion would boast of having an extraordinary voeation. Thus like the Gentiles we should walk (as he infers afterwards) in the vanity of our mind (ibid. 17), each one persuading himself that he felt the movement of the Holy Ghost; of which our age furnishes so many examples that this is one of the strongest proofs that can be brought forward in this connection. For if the extraordinary may talge away the ordinary ministration, to which shall we give the guardianship of it - to Calvin or to Luther, to Luther or to Paciomontanus, to Paciomontanus or to Brandratus, to Brandratus or to Brentius, to Brentius or to the Queen of England? - for each will draw to his or her side this pretext of extraordinary mission.
But the word of Our Lord frees us from all these difficulties, who has built his Church an so good a foundation and in such wise proportions that the Bates of hell shall never prevail against it. And if they have never prevailed not shall prevail, then the extraordinary vocation is not necessary to abolish it, for God hateth nothing of those things which he has made (Wis. xi. 25). How then did they abolish the ordinary Church, to make an extraordinary one, since it is he, who has built the ordinary one, and cemented it with his own blood?
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.