Posted on 05/29/2008 10:50:48 AM PDT by NYer
Christ met with tax collectors and whores. What's up with that?
It's rare for an ordained priest to leave the Catholic Church; hence the questions. I doubt he was ever ordained or, if so, perhaps to the Old Catholic Church which was already in schism.
I never said he was an ordained priest. He was our senior pastor in our church for 25 years but he and my husband were both catholic before they left the church. You probably just misunderstood what I meant. Sorry I didn’t make it clearer.
“Christ met with tax collectors and whores.
You are correct. The current and previous popes have in fact met with US politicians.
Bill Clinton and Pope John Paul II, Vatican, June 2, 1994
Jimmy Carter and Pope John Paul II, Vatican, June 21, 1980
Lyndon Johnson and Pope Paul VI, Vatican, Dec. 23, 1967
John F. Kennedy and Pope Paul VI, Vatican, July 2, 1963
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4643439
**LOL**
Then it's not really my statement, is it? ;)
Further, I'd say there's a frequent attitude among many Protestants that attacks on Christianity are fine, so long as the Catholic Church is the focal point (case in point: The Da Vinci Code).
I'd say that any 'Protestant' who said the Da Vinci Code was a good thing because it supposedly attacked the Catholic Church is merely a 'go to church on Sunday like a social club' kind of person. The Catholic Church has its share of these individuals as well.
. . .but Protestants also even miseducate Catholics.
I wasn't aware it was the job of Protestants to educate Catholics at all. I would think it would be the job of the Catholic Church to educate its members.
Protestants so often insist that Catholics believe works are neccesary to attain salvation, that many Catholics are starting to believe it.
So works aren't necessary, and we are saved by faith alone?
The Protestant Reformation said you can do what you want to do? I heartily disagree with that characterization. The Protestant Reformation was about getting back to God’s truth. While you might believe that they were wrong with what they believe to be truth, that’s not the same as ‘you can do what you want’.
First of all, let's review what I actually said:
This is a phenomenon of liberal modernism, which was basically started with the Great Western Schism (or, as some call it, the Protestant Reformation). Liberalism basically states that I can do as I want to do. Reformation theology (through the 5 solas) essentially says the same thing, but on a theological basis.
You argue with that point, but take a look at it from a Catholic's perspective for a second. In the communities formed in the wake of Luther/Calvin/Zwingli, there are wide divergences in their core theology. Yet all claim to be "sola scriptura." How can there be all of these divergences in theology if "sola scriptura" is accurate? Is it right to baptize infants or is it not? Is it right to baptize by infusion or must it be done by immersion? And so on. You may have one view. Others, who are adherents to other confessions, do not agree with your position, whatever that position may be. I guarantee it! Yet both you and those who disagree claim to be "sola scriptura." But who provides the authoritative interpretation that this is what the scriptures really mean when they say that! I hear claimed "the Holy Spirit teaches me what it really means." All well and good, but "the Holy Spirit teaches" Joe down the road something completely different. But both are "sola scriptura."
You can take a look at the other four solas, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria, and you will see differing interpretations of all of the above. Sometimes WIDELY divergent interpretations. Yet all CLAIM to be able to let their conscience be their guide (moved by the Holy Spirit, of course).
From the perspective of a Catholic, it appears to be chaos. It appears like "every man for himself." It appears that you can find some group to agree with your personal understanding of theology, if you'd like. If you drink, you can find a group that supports drinking and claims to be 5 Solas©. If you don't like drinking, you can find a different group that opposes drinking and claims to be 5 Solas©. If you like homosexuality, you can find a group that claims to be 5 Solas© and agrees with you. If you think all homosexuals should be hunted down like dogs and killed, you can find a group that claims to be 5 Solas© and will give you moral cover for your actions. You don't like blacks or you don't like whites. Just look around. You can find a 5 solas© group that will agree with you.
Does that mean that they all are practicing the 5 solas? No, of course not. But who are you and upon what authority do you dare to call another group wrong? You have no such authority. Or at least no more authority than the other group's criticism of you and your practices. Your particular group may have some sort of ecclesiastic hierarchy, like the Lutherans, the Methodists, or the Presbyterians. But it might not. And even if it has one, does criticism from a Lutheran body have direct impact on a Presbyterian body? No, of course not. Nor should it! Then you have groups where the congregation, through their elected representatives (maybe), elects the person who is in charge! Talk about being unbiblical and backwards! (if it is Biblical, show me an example where the population elected a bishop! (Don't even try Matthias in Acts 1, either. They drew lots...and the ones making the nominations were other apostles, not the masses of the laity!)). There is no authority. Can you seriously tell me that this situation (umpteen denominations and umpteen interpretations of Scripture (both from a doctrinal and practical point of view)) is Biblical (See I Cor 1-3) or gives any sort of glory to God?
Can there be any wonder why a Catholic, looking at the tangled mess of Protestant groups, can say that it is "every man for himself?" You may not see it that way, as is your right, but can you comprehend why it looks that way from somebody who is not a Protestant?
BTW, I'm really not trying to start a fight. I am just trying to help you see this through my eyes a bit. I'm not trying to get you to change your way of worship or belief. If it works for you and you are able to come to a knowledge of the Truth of Christ through it, I am happy for you. I know many very wonderful Protestant believers who are tremendous witnesses for the redeeming work of Christ through their lives. But sometimes you need to look at things from a different perspective (IMHO/FWIW/YMMV)
DManA, I think I covered your comment, His Living Word and the Holy Spirit informs ours, with the remarks above.
The term I hear tossed about is “Creaster” Catholics...meaning, Catholics who only go to Mass on Christmas and Easter.
Although I do understand the point of “Ashes and Palms” Catholics...after all, those are two masses where you “get stuff.” The church is always full on Ash Wednesday even though it isn’t a holy day of obligation.
If Richard Bennett were still a Catholic priest, his folk music masses, hippie vestments, and other nutty innovations would drive orthodox Catholics as well as the Protestant religious right batty (because right now, even evangelicals are disturbed by this nutty Catholic priest in Chicago). So it is amusing that Richard Bennett is even brought up. Lots of Catholics convert to Protestantism, it happens all the time. Protestants can hold up better examples than Richard Bennett.
I watch Jason Evert from time to time on EWTN. He’s a very good speaker.
If you had simply said they can't all be right, or that they ended up in error when they went searching for truth, that would be one thing. But that isn't what you said.
You argue with that point, but take a look at it from a Catholic's perspective for a second.
Why? You certainly don't try to see the opposing position from the Protestant viewpoint. (Obviously, no Protestant would say the Reformation was about doing what you want - theologically or any other way.)
For example:
"The first written mandate requiring priests to be chaste came in AD 304. Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira stated that all "bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics" were to "abstain completely from their wives and not to have children." A short time later, in 325, the Council of Nicea, convened by Constantine, rejected a ban on priests marrying requested by Spanish clerics." (http://hnn.us/articles/696.html - George Mason University) We also know that Peter was married as the gospels mention his mother in law, and he was the first pope according to the Catholic Church. Obviously, it was sometime after the first pope that the idea of priests being married came about.
On the assumption of Mary, Wikipedia states "Although the Assumption was only recently defined as dogma, and in spite of a statement by Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew of the eventual fate of Mary, accounts of the assumption of Mary into heaven have circulated since at least the 5th century." Further, at Catholic.net, I found the following ""We pronounce, declare and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory." With these words, Pope Pius XII formally declared, in 1950, the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven to be a dogma of the Catholic Church."
The research I did on Mary's eternal virginity lead me back to early 2nd century references, so I will grant you that one as being taught from the beginning of the Catholic church.
By the way, sorry it took so long to respond. I had my response almost written, then had to step away from the computer. My hubby decided he needed the computer and logged me off (bless his heart). I had to wait until I had the time to try to rebuild my response.
But that was the result. And that is the point I was getting at.
Why? You certainly don't try to see the opposing position from the Protestant viewpoint.
Actually, I did do the Protestant thing for several years...and, so, if I could have managed to see it from the Protestant POV, I would have done so.
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.