Posted on 03/09/2009 8:06:13 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
And I happen to agree that scripture trumps “tradition.” Plenty of those traditions have been found to be pagan or unsupported. Take a look at what happened to St. Christopher.
You wrote:
“Take a look at what happened to St. Christopher.”
Nothing happened to St. Christopher. Are you one of those people who erroneously believes he is no longer a saint or no longer considered a saint?
“In no way did the Church “de-canonize” St. Christopher or anyone else, despite the lack of historical evidence surrounding their lives. St. Christopher is still worthy of our devotion and prayers, and each of us should be mindful that he too is called to be a “bearer of Christ.” “
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0265.html
I wish there were more Protestants that took Scripture seriously. It seems that divorce among Christians has become de rigeur.
Broad sweeping brush huh?
Jews have the highest rates at 30%
All Christians, including Catholics, fall in the 21-34% category. Protestant levels can be broken into subgroups with non-denoms the highest at 34% while Lutherans were tied with Roman Catholics at 21%. Mormons were at 24%. Atheists were also 21%.
Overall Christian average was minus Roman Catholics was 25%
hardly de rigueur (BTW you mispelled it.)
The distinguishing factor in marriage survival among all religious groups was how devoutly they practiced their religion. The more frequently the couple worshipped and prayed together the better chance they had for their marriage to survive. Education and poverty levels were also a factor.
Catholics do have a lower remarriage rate.
Want to apologize to the Lutherans? ;)
Don’t read anything into my words that is not there. Which is what you are doing. My point is that the church is self-referentially covering it’s butt, and admits that it “doesn’t know much about him” and that because he’s been made a saint, ex cathedra, he MUST have been a saint. Not logical Vlad.
You wrote:
“Don’t read anything into my words that is not there.”
Then simply state what you were TRYING to say but were unable to state clearly. Can you do that?
“Which is what you are doing. My point is that the church is self-referentially covering it’s butt, and admits that it “doesn’t know much about him” and that because he’s been made a saint, ex cathedra, he MUST have been a saint.”
Ex cathedra? What are you talking about? You’re not making any sense. What evidence do you have for any of these claims of yours? Any at all?
“Not logical Vlad.”
You’re not being logical. I always am.
De rigueur, as far as I know, may be spelled both ways.
Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.
In reading your initial post I perceived a slam against Protestants for something that as I have pointed out occurs just as frequently in Roman Catholic marriages.
Your post stated that divorce was “de rigeur” in Protestant circles. De rigueur is defined as necessary, obligatory or required by standard or social fashion. No one I know Protestant or Roman Catholic believes that. We all need to read and hold to Christ’s teachings on marriage. Sadly too many, Protestant and Catholic, fail.
And I believe the French would spell it de rigueur. They would know. ;)
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.