Pardon my French, but just what the bloody h*** is an Amish factory?
Posted on 12/08/2009 11:41:52 AM PST by Gamecock
I just came from a funeral service for an aunt of mine who was a staunch Catholic. I came out of that religion about 25 years ago after reading for myself what the Bible had to say. My question surrounds the actuality of salvation for all the millions who still practice Mary worship and so forth. Knowing that one cannot serve two masters, I wonder at how it is possible that the aforementioned can really experience Christ in a saving way, while they continue to believe that the church of Rome is solely responsible for their eternal welfare.
Answer:
Greetings in Christ Jesus our Lord and only Savior. Thank you for your question.
Unless a person is clearly outside the pale of the Christian faith, I do not believe that you can judge the "actuality" or "reality" of someone's salvation. You may judge the "credibility" of their faith; or you may question the "probability" of someone's salvation. You may also ask, as you have done, "how it is possible that the aforementioned can really experience Christ in a saving way."
None of us, however, can truly say that we are perfect in knowledge or practice. We are always growing both in wisdom and in the grace of God. Is it possible for someone who prays to Mary to be a true Christian? In other words, can someone who is truly saved be in error on such an issue?
Conscious compromise of God's truth can be serious and deadly, but we also see from Scripture that in his mercy God may (and does) choose to accept less than perfect understanding and obedience, even of his own people. (Indeed, isn't the salvation and the perseverance of the saints dependent upon that fact?) There will be growth in understanding and holiness, but perfection must await our going to be with Jesus or His return to take us unto himself (see 1 John 3:2).
In the Old Testament, consider Asa in 1 Kings 15. He removed the idols from the land, but he allowed the high places to remain. The high places were clearly unacceptable. But the text states that Asa was loyal to the Lord his entire life. How could this be? Had he not seriously compromised?
What about the New Testament? Consider the Corinthians. Was the church at Corinth an exemplary church? Did they not have many doctrinal problems, e.g., concerning the Lord's Supper and the doctrine of the resurrection? (See 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 15.) Did even the apostles fully understand? Even though what they wrote was protected from error, did they not grow and mature in their own understanding and obedience? Wasn't it necessary at one point, for instance, for Paul to rebuke Peter for his inconsistency? (See Gal. 2.)
My point is not to defend the doctrinal aberrations of Rome. I do not believe such is possible. I think, however, that people generally follow their leaders. They learn from them; they consider their arguments rational and coherent.
For example, consider devotion to Mary. I read Jarislov Pellikan's Mary Through the Centuries and I cannot get past page 10 before I am wondering why the author is so blind to the fallacies of his arguments. However, if I were not being so critical and I were already predisposed to the position, then his arguments would perhaps seem irrefutable. So then, we should boldly, patiently, and compassionately discuss these matters with our loved ones, praying that the Holy Spirit will grant them more understanding.
Whatever we may judge in terms of the "actuality" or "probability" or "possibility" of a person's salvation at the end of life is, in the end, academic, for God is the one who can look at the heart and only he can truly judge. (He is the One, in fact, who has chosen his elect.) "It is appointed to man once to die, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27), but "Today is the day of salvation" (Heb. 3:13). We should work, therefore, the works of him who sent us while it is light and point our neighbors and loved ones to Christ.
For myself, I too was a Roman Catholic. In the past six months, I have attended the funeral of two uncles and one aunt whom I loved very much. I had opportunity at each funeral to speak a word of testimony regarding the Savior. I stood in the pulpit of the church in which I had served mass as a young boy and in my eulogies spoke of my faith in Christ.
Was it as detailed as I wish it could have been? No, but I am thankful for the opportunity God gave. Do I believe that my family members went to heaven? For one I have hope; for the others, I have little hope. Upon what is my hope based? It is always and only grounded in Christ and the Gospel.
We may define Christianity broadly by including as Christians all who confess the Apostles' Creed. We may define Christianity narrowly by including as Christians only those who confess our particular denominational creed. We need to exercise care, because, if we are too narrow, we may find ourselves excluding someone like Augustine. On the other hand, if we are too broad, we may find ourselves including many who should be excluded.
Personally, therefore, I do not judge. I have either greater or lesser hope. For example, I have greater hope for my Roman Catholic family members who ignorantly follow their leaders without thinking. Many times I find these to be at least open to discussion regarding the Gospel. However, I have lesser hope for people who are self-consciously Roman Catholic; that is, they understand the issues yet continue in the way of the Papacy.
I recommend that you read the book Come out from among Them by John Calvin. I found it very helpful and it addresses somewhat the question that you have raised.
I hope that my answer helps. You are free to write for clarification. May our Lord bless you.
Actually, they'd be Maronite Catholics who are Roman, but still not Roman Catholics.
sitetest
Why would you not trust them? Weird Al Yankovic does...
As I walk through the valley where I harvest my grain I take a look at my wife and realize she's very plain
But that's just perfect for an Amish like me You know, I shun fancy things like electricity
At 4:30 in the morning I'm milkin' cows Jebediah feeds the chickens and Jacob plows... fool
And I've been milkin' and plowin' so long that Even Ezekiel thinks that my mind is gone
I'm a man of the land, I'm into discipline Got a Bible in my hand and a beard on my chin
But if I finish all of my chores and you finish thine Then tonight we're gonna party like it's 1699
We been spending most our lives
Living in an Amish paradise
I've churned butter once or twice
Living in an Amish paradise
It's hard work and sacrifice
Living in an Amish paradise
We sell quilts at discount price
Living in an Amish paradise
...
Long-story-short: some animal rightsers known to my wife and me did in fact this evening, in an ignorant-but-conveniently-roundabout way, accuse our Amish poultry supplier of—get this—”factory farming.”
Pardon my French, but just what the bloody h*** is an Amish factory?
Pardon my French, but just what the bloody h*** is an Amish factory?
Google Amish puppy mills.
As a rescue person I cringe when I get an alert informing me of a raid on a PA puppy mill.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7187712&page=1#
I had no idea. I lived for six years around the Amish in Indiana, too. Thank you for the information. You are a rescue person? God bless you. The level of man's inhumanity to man is only challenged by his inhumanity to animals.
667 replies ... glad I was doing something useful the past 2 days.
I rescue cocker spaniels.
Amish in IN are also involved in the business. The following video is NOT for those with tender hearts.
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2303502/7242336
Actually, prior to the schism, the Maronite Church would have fallen under the Patriarch of Antioch, not the Patriarch of Constantinople. The liturgy they use is the West Syro-Antiochene Liturgy of St. James (with a couple of minor modifications). (Note: on the other hand, the Melkite Church uses the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
This is significant because, even under the rule of Islam, Middle Eastern Christians tried to retain their “Roman” identity and called themselves such. So, TECHNICALLY, Maronite Catholics are “Roman Catholics” in a very real sense.
That is a pretty thin "nit" you are picking at there, FRiend.
As it is used, the term "Roman Catholic" would apply to those who would be in the ancient Patriarchate of the West (whose patriarch is the Bishop of Rome). The so-called "Eastern" Catholics, including the Maronites, each have their own liturgical traditions and would have been part of distinct patriarchates. The difference between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is that the Eastern Catholics either never broke communion with the Western Patriarch or have since re-established communion.
One other point is that the Oriental Churches (as opposed to Eastern Churches) broke communion with the rest of the Christian world after the Council of Chalcedon. Some have since been reconciled...if memory serves correctly, the Assyrian Orthodox Church has reconciled with the Chaldeans (thus bringing them in communion with Rome).
The Maronites have a unique history, particularly dealing with the time of the Crusades...but while I won't argue about particular churches within the Byzantine Empire calling themselves "Roman" -- there are a lot that never would have (Syro-Malobars, Chaldeans, and Copts come particularly to mind).
I could be wrong on that, but it’s true if memory serves.
I realize that. But I was not talking about the Patriarchy of Constantinople, but rather the Eastern Roman Empire itself, of which both Constantinople and Antioch were a part. If you look up the terms "Rum Orthodox" and "Rum Catholic", they refer specifically to Christians from that part of the Middle East living under Islam. "Rum" was an Arabized version of "Roman."
That is a pretty thin "nit" you are picking at there, FRiend.
It really was meant less of a nitpick than an obscure bit of history. :-)
The Maronites have a unique history, particularly dealing with the time of the Crusades...but while I won't argue about particular churches within the Byzantine Empire calling themselves "Roman" -- there are a lot that never would have (Syro-Malobars, Chaldeans, and Copts come particularly to mind).
I was not referring to Churches. I was referring to the Byzantine Empire itself - the Byzantine Empire did not call itself "The Byzantine Empire"... it called itself the Roman Empire and people living within the Empire whom identified with it called themselves "Romans." I was simply pointing out that Arab Christians had a tendency to maintain that Roman identity while under the dominion of Islam... like I said before, it was not meant as a line of reasoning as to why Catholics should be called "Roman Catholics" but rather as a small tidbit of information I thought you'd find interesting since you strike me as an intelligent person with an interest in history.
I take this back.
I confused the Maronite Catholics with the Melkite Catholics - they are the ones that went by the term “Rum Catholics.” Maronites might have as well but I am not certain and I apologize.
I was mistaken. I was thinking of the Melkite Catholics, who were known as "Rum Catholics" in the Arab world... "Rum" is an arabized version of "Roman."
I wasn't trying to make a serious point so much as to point out something I thought was interesting.
Umm, well, I suppose that that is better than rescuing chihuahuas... :)
Amish in IN are also involved in the business. The following video is NOT for those with tender hearts.
On dialup at home. That is an excuse for not watching. I brought this up to my darling wife who has a sort of fantasy about the Amish (although working three years at the county hospital cured her of most of those romantic fantasies plus she likes her electric appliances waaaaay too much) and she was significantly appalled as well.
I once saw a presentation on the CBC about the preparation of cats in a restaurant in China and it involved removing the skins while fully alive; a recent thread on FR involved a video of the frying of a live fish (with its head wrapped in a wet cloth to keep it alive) and the serving of it (while still alive) to the table where the diners pulled the flesh off it (while still alive) and ate it whilst laughing and enjoying themselves.
Man is so very inhumane...
Well, I suppose it’s less a matter of not trusting them so much as the fact that no matter what callous lies I might spread about them online, there is likely no way that they will ever know about it or defend themselves.
It’s sort of like giving backhanded and subtly-insulting compliments to your average lib. It’s fun because you know they’ll just never catch on.
It's been 40 years, or very nearly, since I went into this carefully. But God starts everything. Then it's like the will and grace are dance partners. That's how I'd put it.
"Scholastic realism" tends to think that freedom is NOT the ability to choose between good and evil, right and wrong, without any more attraction -- reasonable or otherwise -- to one or the other. Rather, freedom is the ability to know, to choose, and to do the good. And the proper exercise of freedom is good for one. It strengthens the will and the virtues.
But the will does not act alone in this. God starts everything and enables and assists and even prods and drives all the way through the process. Finally the very holy person is discerning enough to know that good has been done through him and his will and wise (and humble) enough to know that God did it. "The Lord has done great things for me ..."
In that connection, while Jesus is, of course, savior, we hold Mary as preeminent among the saved. By which I mean something like she is the exemplar of discipleship. So when she says, "The Lord has done great things for me," that is a model for us. Anyone, therefor, who says, "My one bazillion rosaries and novenas and clambering up and down stairs on my knees and all that is what has made me holy," that person would be considered ridiculous at best.
That's how I see it, anyway.
I hope that's at least clear.
Bartolome de las Casas is a proper name of a man who vbecane a Dominican friar and who argued for civil rights for native Americans whether or not they were Christian, much less Catholic. The behavior of the Spanish in the new world scandalized many Dominicans (and other Catholics) and prompted the development of what later would be considered international law. De las Casas didn't get ANY support (to speak of) from the Spanish laity in the New World and got the run around when he went back to Spain to plead for the Indios. And that's about all I know about it.
So we have a kind of symmetry, I guess.
Ditto to your post!
(is also a convert, as of Easter 09)
From OUR POV, Your mileage may vary (and it looks like it does) ;-)
The "invisible church" idea is only necessary after there have been organizational splits. With different organizations sort of dealing with each other with uplifted noses and at arms' length, then there is a need for some account of the sort of big old Church and these itty bitty churches. And for Protestants, of course, that account cannot include any serious pre-eminence for the Holy See and those in actual communion therewith.
Our (arrogant - you be the judge) way of dealing with it is to say that there is one Church. So all the Baptized are in it, though some are not such good members or not so far in. (We have to allow for really awful full fledged Catholics and Spirit-filled Protestants -- the first being impossible to deny and the second being eagerly affirmed, at least these days.)
A Protestant recently argued in favor of the KJV and the "textus receptus" that God providentially preserved a stream of texts and translations from error. We make the analogous claim about the Church. Despite the incredible lack of organization and intentionality which, despite its reputation, really characterizes the Catholic Church, despite the dreadful scoundrels and buffoons, despite the worldly cynicism of some clerics and the perversion of others, the Church is, we think, preserved free from error -- where it really counts.
We see this preservation as an unmerited gift from God, as an example of His persistent faithfulness in the face of our remarkable contempt for Him.
The one advantage we might claim for this point of view is that if you want to have access to bona fide sacraments, go to a Catholic Church, whether Roman catholic, Byszantine, Maronite ... any church in communion with the Holy See. And, we think, if you want bona fide, reliable teaching, then enter the conversation with the magisterium. We think you don't have to guess or to sample this or that denomination.
I'd even say, I HAVE said, if your priest is a jerk, don't worry. The sacraments are still real, and you can go to Scripture and the Fathers and the Catechism for reliable teaching.
Another kind of philosophical advantage, or at least feature, is that our doctrine does not gnosticize or Platonize the "real" Church. It is here, warts and all. YOu can't always tell the good and reliable members, you won't know if you have confused wheat with tares in the individuals you encounter. But it's right here, as Moses says about the Torah.
This also was not meant to be persuasive or polemical but rather expository, and I hope it was useful.
Thank you Pope Petronski. I'll be sure to make a mental note that you have cancelled the teachings of Trent, various Popes, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
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.