Posted on 07/23/2008 2:47:21 PM PDT by Pyro7480
When Gov. Alfred E. Smith ran for president in 1928, his candidacy was derailed in large part by anti-Catholic prejudice. It has been nearly 48 years since John F. Kennedy became the first (and so far only) Roman Catholic president, but experts say that anti-Catholic sentiment — much of it originating in, or as a response to, immigrants in New York — remains an enduring force in American culture.
That was the consensus of a panel assembled at the Museum of the City of New York on Tuesday night to consider the question, “Is Anti-Catholicism Dead?”
...The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus — a leading conservative intellectual, a former Lutheran pastor and the editor of the leading Catholic journal First Things — offered a surprising view on the question.
“To be a Catholic is not to be refused positions of influence in our society,” he said. “Indeed, one of the most acceptable things is to be a bad Catholic, and in the view of many people, the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.”
...He added that anti-Catholicism was as likely to come from the left — sometimes from commentators who believe that a “threatening theological insurgency is engineered and directed by Catholics,” with evangelical Protestants merely as the movement’s “foot soldiers.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Some here find parsing of the language tedious. But truly, what fun it is.
We have all the evidence,
[that] we need[,] to show that they don't mean what they say
and they insist [that] they know better than we do
what [that, which] we say[,] means.
Take that, "doctor".
You wrote:
“What you said was “refuted” by Annalex.”
No, it wasn’t and he has explicitly denied that that is the case.
“Nothing much more required to illustrate the truth of Alex Murphy’s point.”
What truth in Alex’s point? He couldn’t even prove what he claimed!
“Pray for eyes to see the difference between black and white.”
I already have them. Pray that you learn to read and learn the importance to context.
I'll do my best to respond to charges because sometimes you actually can convince a person that they were mistaken. They might even see the light and convert!
Your post is gibberish.
Religion is an “ideology” and therefore fair game. We should feel free to criticize ANY religion and not have to apologize for doing so.
Your words are clear to anyone reading them.
The problem for you is not that Protestants do not understand what you say; it is that we understand it all too well, and we disagree with it.
And as these many months of threads confirm, some Rome prefers darkness to the light.
Scripture tells us why.
I know you're a stickler for grammar.
What might those "reasons" be?
SHEESH
The doctrine of Mary's bodily ascension into heaven and her immaculate conception and her being considered a mediator are all "truths" according to Rome.
If a Protestant disagrees with those beliefs, is he then "condemned to hell?"
It is about the tenth time, "doctor" that I explain. If you (not being personal) reject them as an act of informed free will, of course you do go to (drum roll) Hell. If you fail to form a belief in them due to honest doubt or lack of familiarity with them, that would not be a factor.
A course in reading comprehension is available from me at a modest fee, to defray the costs of typing.
Such a course, if it existed, would only be of interest to those one of whose goals was comprehension.
What we have here are people who, not understanding, not caring to understand, what is written, call it gibberish, and thinking themselves smart for doing so, turn to their homies for high fives and fist bumps.
It's like talking to Democrats.
INDEED.
THIS TAKES THE CAKE:
ANNALEX: “You are hell bound, generally speaking, yes, by the fact of your being separated brethren.”
ANNALEX: I know, for example, that as an anti-Catholic you cannot go to heaven.”
VLAD: I still don’t see any automatic consignment to hell there.
the Jewish magicsterical of 2000 years ago.
Christ wasn't impressed with it then.
I can't imagine He's impressed with it now.
This sort of hyper parochial mentality is part of what Christ died to abolish.
He died to restore each individual's fellowship with THE FATHER.
Yet again the enemy of our souls has used mankind's obsession with organized hoopla and law to distance individuals further and further from not just THE FATHER, but Christ and THE TRUTHs about God and about RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.
Satan convinced individual after individual that they cannot approach God as DADDY through CHRIST'S BLOOD ALONE.
Therefore, they have to submit to wholesale and utterly depend upon layer upon layer of professional gatekeepers because satan has convinced each individual that Christ's Blood is insufficient alone to cover their wormy-ness.
So lock-step, day after day, the faithful submit to endless jury-rigged hoops that the "new" money-changers; PURPORTED soul-leveragers; glorifiers and RELIGIOUS [not spiritual] pontificators burden the serfs with.
Lots of Olympic class retch material there.
I understand who the Holy Father refers, and I agree. In a general sense, Protestants, as a whole, probably don't qualify as heretics, per his definition. But if he were a freeper he might have a different opinion.....an obstinate adherence to private revelation? was that the phrase? A lot of that goes on around here.
I think foundationally,
you are wiser than that assertion implies.
You wrote:
“What might those “reasons” be?”
Sins for which they have not repented.
It is indeed tragic whenever a Christian believes that the Blood of Christ is in some way insufficient.
Many, I suspect, feel this way because of self-loathing. Because their past sins haunt them, they "will" not to receive God's forgiveness. Some might even see their attitude as extreme humility, but what it really is, is a lack of faith. By not receiving the forgiveness, they are in effect, telling God "I do not believe you, I do not trust you."
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - I John 1:7-9
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.