Posted on 02/23/2010 9:25:41 AM PST by stfassisi
So, annalex, you find nothing exceptional in Rao's characterization of contemporary American nationalism as neo-Fascist?
His insinuation that American foreign policy under Bush was "neo-Nazi"?
That former President Bush is an enemy of God?
That American Conservatives who invoke our nation's Founding Fathers when shaping US public policy are behaving in a way that "exactly parallels the classical Fascist appeal to the 'Will of the Leader'"?
Fascinating!
What am I missing here? Should we expect more of this double standard?
The very first comment on this thread which is a line from this article states, "The Reformation is in and of itself a principle of contradiction. It destroys man and it destroys God."
My church does not destroy man nor does it destroy God. How is this line and this thread any different from the thread that was locked?
Amen.
And it can be argued that this country has devolved in direct proportion to the increasing influence of the Roman Catholic church.
Conservatism is not compatible with the papacy. Anyone who doubts that need only read the pope's latest encyclical calling for a "global authority with teeth."
God forbid.
“My church does not destroy man nor does it destroy God. How is this line and this thread any different from the thread that was locked?”
Too much truth was coming out in the other thread.
Free will occurs in humans in and out of fellowship with God.
Our Lord exemplified how we are to think and behave in our free will, through faith in what He provides by His Plan.
I guess if this one beats the number of threads that got through before closing, then this one won. That is, if it was/is a competition.
Why, it is exceptional and difficult to read, yes. But American conservatism suffered many blows under Bush and some of them are self-inflicted. We do well when we reflect of the past 8 years with less chest beating and more introspection. This is however, not an article about politics but about religion.
For one thing, it directly teaches free will as it speaks of "intent of the thoughts" as a fact. This quote would deny free will if it said something like "The LORD looked and man and made it so that his heart nad only evil intents".
This quote doesn't teach positive free will, the will to do good. It also doesn't teach, for example, thermodynamics. However, a few verses down we read that "Noe found grace before the Lord" and then that "Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God". Make note: not was walked by God, walked with God. So yeah, free will, but it requires to read more than one verse at a time.
Because it is a quality article. Welll written, well argued, provokes thought.
How is this thread not the functional equivalent of Jack Chick tract?
It is...But then I appreciate this post...
We can all pretend that the Catholic church tolerates the 'separated brethern' and we can pretend that (most) Catholics are our sisters and brothers in Christ...
But I don't believe it for a minute...And clearly, they don't either...
Being a Catholic requires no independent thought at all. Indeed, independent thought is effectively prohibited and if you actually take the effort to think differently from the official position, no matter how illogical or unscriptural that official position is, you are branded a heretic.
In my experience, most Catholics believe what they are told to believe, even if they have never once actually thought about it on a scriptural or historical basis. They are baptized into the Catholic Church and they are taught from Childhood to accept the Catechism and not the think about what any of it means on an intellectual level, since that is a dangerous exercise.
I remember when I was a kid one of my Catholic friends was excited because he had just been given "permission" from the Priest to read the Bible.
mark just for the fun of it.
“. . .original sin is paternal sin inherited,thus an infant fetus is not in a state of total depravity due to actual sin that freely committed by an act of individual will of a fetus.”
“This is another reason why Calvin is sickening when he says there are babies are in hell.”
“Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
Malachi 1:2-3
“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” the Lord says. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”
Romans 9: 10-26:
“Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,”
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
“16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”
“19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?”
“22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:”
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
“26 and,“It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ”
Conclusion: It is God who has placed judgment and mercy together in His Word, to show His attributes and glorify His name.
The Reformers did not create this doctrine. They just read the Word of God which had been chained up in the monastery for hundred of years by the papacy, and proclaimed it once again.
“In the case of the Blessed Mother original sin was removed by a singular act of Grace by God so there is no original sin joining flesh with our perfect Lord Jesus,thus he was in a perfect vessel by the Grace of God.”
A very old heresy remains a heresy.
Beautiful article. It started out quite harsh, but I see its point in all the countries and states I’ve lived in.
Merely Paul's rejection of the Torah taken to its logical conclusion.
I read it — it has interesting points — what do you think of the 12th and 16th paragraphs?
That was a rhetorical question, right? :)
Clearly the unbalanced scales are set against the conscience (and I'm not just talking about myself). But I for one am thankful for the training this forum provides. Think of it as a microcosm of how Romanist despotism would work in the real world. We've been blessed to have never had to experienced such a terror in real life here to date.
Unfortunately, it's clear that the amalgamation of Romanism and Secularism is radically changing our country and the lessons we learn in this microcosm may be of some use in the macro world to come. The Romanist hierarchy always prefers a despotic secular ruler who can control the people so that Rome can carve out a protected niche within that realm.
So we'll continue to see feigned objectivity in the moderation of this forum but may all those who still love freedom and liberty grow wise from these object lessons.
If by "it" you are referring to Rao's Open Letter to cardinal Vlk, you've got to be kidding. Any high school graduate with a little reading under his belt would have no trouble understanding this product of a "poison pen."
But American conservatism suffered many blows under Bush and some of them are self-inflicted.
Are you speaking of former Pres. George W. Bush? The person Rao identifies as an enemy of God? That Bush?
We do well when we reflect of the past 8 years with less chest beating and more introspection.
And you believe that Rao, who compares American Conservatives to Fascists and neo-nazis, is being introspective? Riiiiight. Rao's a regular Descartes.
This is however, not an article about politics but about religion.
But the article stfassisi posted was written by Rao, who also wrote the open letter to Cardinal Vlk. I do believe that I and others are permitted to practice source criticism: if Rao can write something as riddled with falsehood, poorly reasoned and obnoxious as his letter to Cardinal Vlk, then why should I take his essay on American Protestantism seriously?
Along these lines, may I also point out that Rao's open letter to Cardinal Vlk was apparently in response to Vlk denouncing Rao before the US and Israeli ambassadors to the Czech Republic? That, if Rao is to be believed, Vlk identified him as being a nationalist (of a certain kind), a neo-Nazi, an anti-semite, a Lefebvrist, and an Islamist? Tell me -- you don't think such a public denunciation of Rao -- by a RC Cardinal, no less -- should color our judgement as to the validity of Rao's position?
But perhaps I shouldn't limit my criticism of Rao to one letter, or one Cardinal. This excerpt is from his essay entitled "The Sack of Rome: 1527, 1776," a link to which can be easily found on Rao's website:
No, Catholics relying on the false traditions of the American Framers and the "infallible" labyrinth of check-and-balance standard operating procedures which are molded by the Protestant-Enlightenment environment around them, can do as little to avoid their own destruction as legalist, sixteenth-century administrators operating purely on existing curial and canonical grounds. The only way that substantial progress for the Catholic cause in the United States can be made is by following the method of the more successful Tridentine activists and making a complete spiritual break with the American Ideology. We must learn to place a vision of how we will answer to God for the Catholicity of our lives continually before our eyes, and clarify that vision by revisiting the "traditions" we accept on face value to determine if they stand up to deeper scrutiny. If we do so, we will see that it is to Church Fathers and not to eighteenth century Founding Father counterfeits that we must look for guidance in understanding what our spiritual heritage counsels.
So, back to my original question, annalex -- do you find Rao's propositions...
...that contemporary American nationalism is neo-Fascist...
...that American foreign policy under Bush was "neo-Nazi"...
...that former President G. W. Bush is an enemy of God...
...that American Conservatives who invoke our nation's Founding Fathers when shaping US public policy are behaving in a way that "exactly parallels the classical Fascist appeal to the 'Will of the Leader'"...
...and that the American Framers are "counterfeits" who were the creators of a false tradition...
exceptional (as in obnoxious) or agreeable?
(BTW, I find Rao's poison pen writings obnoxious and highly objectionable, not just as a Protestant but as an American and a Conservative.)
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.