Posted on 03/17/2010 12:58:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Those same "theologians" want defend abortion, want to "ordain" women, and think homosexuality is just dandy. Of course, they attack the Bible.
I, on the other hand, rely on two saint popes who singled out and condemned such errors.
From Blessed Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors:
7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.
Pope Saint Pius X's Lamentabili Sane is basically one big condemnation of biblical higher criticism.
And why do so many Catholics--including those here on FR--sound a lot more like liberal theologians than they do "two saintly popes?"
Face it. Like Pavlov's dogs, Catholics have developed a gag reflex whenever the word "Bible" is mentioned (especially in a Southern accent).
I wish you would make up your mind. First you condemn me for my attitude, then you claim to share it. I'm sorry if the Bible isn't a "Catholic thing" like the rosary is, but it's my thing. Live with it.
YOU WROTE:
“So you claim. At this point I have no reason to believe your claim. What Church or sect do you attend?”
I happen to attend an Evangelical Church today. But then when I go overseas or to another state, I attend any church that I believe is faithful to God’s word and truly believes and obeys the teachings of the apostles and Jesus Christ.
How is that, by your definition, OUTSIDE the communion ?
YOU WROTE :
No. The communion of saints is a specifically Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. Protestants, for instance, do not believe in the communion of saints. They believe in a specifically protestanized version of it. They do not believe, for instance, that there is actual communion between the saints in heaven and those on earth. If someone does not believe in communion between saints, then he doesn’t believe in the communion of saints. It’s just that simple.
Well, you seem to be defining what Protestants believe for protestants. But I am not protestant as I don’t protest against what you believe in ( as long as it is based on what is SOUND Biblical Doctrine ).
You seem to be defining communion outside of Biblical definition and that’s where I see the problem. The communion of saints is all people who believe in Christ crucified and risen from the dead, regardless of denomination or practice. It is our expression of the belief that God wants us to worship, pray, and receive Holy Communion with other believers, instead of just by ourselves. It is NOT EXCLUSIVE to those who are in the ROMAN Catholic or Greek Orhtodox Church.
YOU SAID:
He was a GOP member. To now say his beliefs transcend the party is to strech the lines of the analogy you yourself chose. When you are defeated with your own analogy you change the analogy.
Really ? I’d like for you to show me how in light of the fact that HIS BELIEFS was precedent over the party he belonged to.
YOU SAID:
And thus my point still holds no matter what. The GOP is still not the Democrat party. Period.
And how does that make your point hold ? If the GOP were to abandon conservative principles and became just like the Democratic party, would Reagan still be a GOP member ? In light of what he did ( LEAVE his former party ), I would argue that we WOULD NOT.
YOU SAID:
They are different organizations and have differing philosophies and history. Also, conservatism is still a different thing from liberalism. You are proving my point either way.
No I am not. Let me modify that by saying that are different organizations AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
There is no absolute guarantee that in the future they will be the same party that believes in the same conservative philosophy.
If the Democratic party suddenly became conservative and the GOP became liberal, I would say that Reagan would switch parties again and I would not blame him for that.
CONSERVATISM analogizes to ADHERENCE TO SCRIPTURE, not MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION.
YOU SAID:
The organization counts because it is from God.
Not if the organization abandons its belief in God, or if the organization does not conform to God’s word. It counts in so far as it is FAITHFUL to God’s word.
YOU SAID:
Belief does indeed count, but no one can claim fully correct belief in Christ and Christianity and yet reject what Christ sent into the world - the Church. That’s one of the reasons why the Church is called Christ’s body.
Precisely my point — Christ church STANDS. But then your problem is you are narrowly defining membership in His church to ROMAN CATHOLICISM. I don’t and I don’t believe that scripture attests to that. Christ’s church is composed of those who TRULY BELIEVE in Him and OBEY Him.
Which means that there are those who claim to be Roman Catholic or Evangelical or what not who might be within the earthly organization but NOT in the Heavenly organization.
What counts is Christ’s TRUE CHURCH. “THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU” says the Lord Himself.
Hence, lets’ put it this way :
* You may be a member of the Roman Catholic Church and also a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH )
* You may be a member of the Roman Catholic Church but NOT be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ).
* You may be a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church and also be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ). I know you disagree with this but that’s what I believe scripture teaches.
* You may be a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church and NOT be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ).
Note in the above what is important — BEING A MEMBER OF CHRIST’s CHURCH, not being a member of one organization. What counts is what is IN YOUR HEART.
What is in your heart MANIFESTS ITSELF in the earthly organization that the world sees, not vice versa.
YOU SAID:
Because he was Catholic and so are we. The faith is not merely a belief in Jesus. The millions who share the faith with St. Patrick are all Catholic.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over again but fail to tell me what the word — CATHOLIC means. You keep equating the ROMAN Catholic Church to
the UNIVERSAL Catholic Church. That is NOT correct. Patrick was who he was and the church was what it was then. I don’t take what the Roman Catholic claims
as its own to be SOLELY its own. Patrick is for the ages and for every believer everywhere BY VIRTUE of our shared faith.
YOU SAID:
He was a Catholic - that’s what the Christians in the Roman world were.
The Christians WERE Catholic ( as in members of Christ’s universal church by virtue of faith), I will admit, but ROMAN ? As in Christians everywhere adhering to the Bishop of Rome as their SUPREME head being superior in position to all other Bishops everywhere in the Roman world ? I don’t think history and scripture attests to that.
YOU SAID:
Catholic. He wasn’t from Rome and neither am I. But we are from the same Church and are both Catholic.
Yes, and so am I , and so are those who believe and follow Jesus Christ REGARDLESS of whether they are members of the Roman Catholic Church or not. THAT
WAS MY POINT. If that is your point also, I don’t see where we differ.
YOU SAID:
No. First of all, I’m not and have never been a “Roman Catholic”. Neither was he. He was Catholic and so am I. Period. Also, to truly be a fully faithful follower of Christ, one must belong to His Church which He sent into the world. Membership in a later sect was not what He intended.
And how does one belong to His Church ? Scripture tells us that all who believe in Him and Follow Him ARE members of His Church. Which makes me and millions of
others ( who are not members of the Roman Cathlic Church ) part of His Catholic church too. In what sense then does St. Patrick belong solely to you ?
YOU SAID:
Actually scripture backs the Catholic Church. St. Patrick was Catholic and so am I.
Well, I’d like for you to show me from scripture where it backs that view ( specifically that the Roman Catholic Church IS the sole equivalent of the Church of Christ ).
“I would say that Patrick is CATHOLIC in the real sense of the word — he, like millions of us, are members of Christ’s UNIVERSAL ( AKA CATHOLIC, not ROMAN ) church.”
YOU SAID:
I am assuming that being a Catholic is being a Catholic. And I am correct in my assumption.
Yes you are with one proviso — You do not reject those who are NOT members of the Roman Catholic Church as being part of the CATHOLIC ( AKA UNIVERSAL ) Church of Christ.
YOU SAID:
A Catholic is still a Catholic.
Yes, as long as you give a distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic ( as in Universal ).
The two are NOT EXACTLY the same. One can be baptized into the Roman Catholic Church and NOT be a member of the Catholic ( universal ) church by
virtue of NON-BELIEF or PERSONAL ABANDONMENT of the faith
YOU SAID:
He believed in the priesthood. Do you?
Yes, the Bible teaches us about the Priesthood of all believers. St. Peter calls the Christians everywhere in his epistle to Christians scattered everywhere then : “ A CHOSEN PEOPLE, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD”
So yes, I do.
YOU SAID:
He believed in the episcopacy. Do you?
Yes I do. But I do not believe that it is limited to the Episcopacy of the ROMAN version.
YOU SAID:
He believed in consecrations? Do you?
Yes I do. Christians should consecrate their lives to Jesus Christ. How can one call Him Lord and not do that ?
YOU SAID:
He believed in celibacy. Do you?
Celibacy as in not having sex outside marriage ? Of course.
But I do not believe that Clergy who marry are disobeying God’s word. St. Paul himself advises Timothy ( the Bishop to Ephesus ) to consecrate Bishops who among other qualifications are HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE.
History tells us that Patrick was British by birth, the son of a town councillor-deacon and GRANDSON OF A PRIEST. NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS GRANDFATHER BEING A PRIEST AND MARRYING. THAT’s BIBLICALLY ACCEPTABLE THROUGH AND THROUGH.
YOU SAID:
Actually Vatican II reaffirmed the primacy of place of Latin. Apparently you didn’t know that.
I know that, but Vatican II OPENED the door to non-Latin worship. They do not condemn this.
MOST masses today are NON-LATIN and for good reason -— it would be better for people to worship in a language they understand.
As for Latin being superior, well the next question is WHY ?
Where in God’s word does it tell us that Latin is superior, given that most people during the times of the early apostles spoke Koine Greek AND Latin
and given that the New Testament was originally written in Greek not Latin?
YOU SAID:
St. Patrick didn’t know English. I can’t believe I have to tell you that.
My point is this -— you claim that you can speak to him in Latin. My response is — SO WHAT ?
That makes Him your own solely because he and you speak Latin ?
Does that mean that in order for me to claim Patrick as mine, I have to learn Latin too ? What if I did and mastered the language better than you, That makes Patrick more MINE than yours ?
Remember this — you brought the issue of Latin up, not me. For me, this is and should be a non-issue.
YOU SAID:
St. Patrick was. I am. You aren’t.
Which brings us back to the same question — WHY NOT ? Because you said so ? What you say is nothing, what
scripture teaches is what we should adhere to. Show me
from scripture that only you are and I am not.
YOU SAID:
That was about Catholics, not Protestants. None existed and scriptural references to the Church did not include them.
Where does it say that it was about ROMAN Catholics ALONE and NOT those who are NOT in the Roman Church but DO BELIEVE ?
It doesn’t say that at all.
YOU SAID:
I have no reason to believe you qualify.
Well, I am glad that you aren’t the authority as to who qualifies or not. God’s word is.
YOU SAID:
It’s not a “Roman Catholic” translation.
I was quoting from the New Jerusalem Bible. It IS a Roman Catholic approved translation of the New Testament.
YOU SAID:
Also, St. Paul said nothing about Protestants in Galatians 3. Period.
And he said nothing about ROMAN (emphasis) Catholics either. He did emphasize BELIEF, FAITH, OBEDIENCE. These aren’t the sole virtues that ROMAN Cathilics have.
Depends on which circle. The most prominent circle - the Holy See - has been demonstrably quite affable toward Protestantism over the past two generations.
The fact is, ZC, the circle of fundamentalist Protestants on FR has been pretty unrelentingly nasty to Catholics on FR for the past decade - and they seem to especially delight in pushing the buttons of Catholics in a deliberately trolling fashion.
If my only knowledge of fundamentalist Protestants was what I learned on FR, I would have to conclude that they are as honest and principled and charitable as the average Muslim internet troll.
The witness of the Biblical fundamentalist contingent on FR is almost uniformly disedifying.
If all rural Bible Christians in the US behaved as they do, they would deserve to be a reviled minority.
However, having spent plenty of time in the American South I know from personal experience that they are - in general - far more decent and morally upright than many of the crew on FR that purportedly represents them.
It's a good thing that Catholics never push Fundamentalists' buttons, say, by constantly defending evolution and restricting Biblical inerrancy while flaunting every alleged post-Biblical supernatural phenomenon in history. Or (say again) by calling them "Cletus," "Billy Bob's Glory Barn," and "brain dead bibliolators" while swooning at the "simple childlike faith" of illiterate peasants who believe some saint lives in a local well. Nope, no button-pushing there.
If all rural Bible Christians in the US behaved as they do, they would deserve to be a reviled minority.
So . . . condemning Protestantism from the Right is a no-no for Catholics? It can only be condemned in the vocabulary of an Ivy League liberal?
While there are plenty of self-identified Catholics on FR who buy into evolution, I don't really know of any who see it as a defining issue: i.e. "if you don't believe this silly notion then you cannot be considered a Christian."
And there are plenty of Protestants on FR who buy into it as well.
Or (say again) by calling them "Cletus," "Billy Bob's Glory Barn," and "brain dead bibliolators" while swooning at the "simple childlike faith" of illiterate peasants who believe some saint lives in a local well.
I rarely see a thread that begins with such epithets - what I see are threads that begin as an insulting challenge to Catholicism and then some Catholic posters, forgetting their obligation under Matthew 5:44, indulging in equally disedifying stupid taunts of the kind you mention.
And I know that you've definitely noticed that there is a mutual contempt here between urban FReepers and rural FReepers that goes beyond religion.
So . . . condemning Protestantism from the Right is a no-no for Catholics? It can only be condemned in the vocabulary of an Ivy League liberal?
Catholics should not be in the business of condemning Protestantism - for the reasons that (1) it's not a particularly Christian attitude to adopt and (2) there is much of value to be found in Protestantism despite its fatal flaws - no matter how much FR Protestants tempt us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
They don't make it a necessity of chr*stianity, but they most certainly do make at least an openness to evolution a distinguishing (and therefore mandatory) aspect of Catholicism, as you and I know right well. How many Catholic articles, publications, or Bishops' statements insist that "we Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally," or that total Biblical inerrancy is a concept with no roots in the chr*stian past that was invented out of whole cloth by "certain Protestant traditions?" You're my hero, but you and I both know that on this issue I am right. And at least two FReepers criticize me for my "mania" of defending the Bible, implying that it's not a Catholic thing to do so--therefore a distinguishing mark of Catholicism.
I rarely see a thread that begins with such epithets - what I see are threads that begin as an insulting challenge to Catholicism and then some Catholic posters, forgetting their obligation under Matthew 5:44, indulging in equally disedifying stupid taunts of the kind you mention.
My friend--I see them. And every time I do I think of my mother and my beloved deceased relatives who did not have the "good fortune" to be born Irish or Italian or Aztec. And it makes my blood boil.
Catholics should not be in the business of condemning Protestantism - for the reasons that (1) it's not a particularly Christian attitude to adopt and (2) there is much of value to be found in Protestantism despite its fatal flaws - no matter how much FR Protestants tempt us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Protestantism has no more in common with Catholicism or Orthodoxy than either does with mormonism. Protestantism and Catholicism can both be false, but they cannot both be true.
Catholics say "Protestants are chr*stians" because of certain creedal commonalities. Yet as you know Fundamentalist Protestantism is not a creedal religion at all. What FPism calls "salvation" is what Catholicism condemns as "presumption." In fact, this "presumption" is the whole point of Fundamentalist Protestant chr*stianity and why Catholics are not and cannot be chr*stians in its view. No assurance? No presumption? Why did J*sus die, then? Apparently only to but an end to the Torah, because under the "new covenant" one's life is as much a tightrope walk over the "pits of hell" as it ever was under the "old covenant"--indeed, it is more so. This is the "good news?" I'm sorry, there's nothing "good" about it. Either a means was created to insure salvation or else nothing happened and the Torah (and Noachide Law) is still in full force for its original purpose.
Furthermore, you are missing my point that Catholics condemn Protestantism (or at least Protestants) all the time--only they do so in leftist liberal terms. Is this the unchanging attitude of the unchanging Church? Did the Spanish inquisition condemn "heretics" as "intolerant bigots?" Anyone who can condemn Protestantism from the Left can condemn it from the Right--unless one is a Leftist.
And yet again, there is absolutely no difference between the Catholic double standard that sees Fundamentalist devotion to Genesis as ignorance and Mexican peasant devotion to Juan Diego as beautiful and the liberal double standard that condemns Genesis while exalting the aboriginal "dream time" (or the qur'an). No difference whatsoever.
I don't believe you can understand this. I have come to believe only someone who has experienced it can understand it, and that pretty much makes any attempt to explain it useless.
Wideawake, I love you dearly, but on this matter you are wrong.
No, that is an oversimplification of your hang-up, ZC. You left out, "Oh, a bunch of heterodox Catholic were mean to me, so I'm going to go on every FR religion thread and harp about that and post gross exaggerations about Catholicism."
Why not? Past popes did just that.
Two points:
(1) There is a difference between someone who invents an error (John Calvin) and someone who was raised in an error (my Presbyterian neighbor).
(2) From 1648 to 2009, the Popes proved quite unsuccessful in getting any Protestant communion to agree with the Church and rejoin her. Most of those Popes didn't even really bother discussing the matter.
The current Pope, whose strategy has been to persuade, now has a large chunk of the Anglicans preparing to enter into communion with the Church in full agreement with the magisterium.
Telling people that their grandma who taught them the basics of Christianity was a malignant heretic isn't useful - the goal is to save souls, not score points.
Since you also reject the historical and chronological truth of the Genesis narrative, they were no more heterodox than you are (or than the Pope is).
Face it--Genesis bothers Catholics in a way medieval miracle tales do not.
Thanks again for proving my point.
The current Pope is an evolutionist, as every Pope since at least Pius XII has been.
Telling people that their grandma who taught them the basics of Christianity was a malignant heretic isn't useful - the goal is to save souls, not score points.
I had rather be told my grandmother was a malicious heretic than that she was a stupid inbred moron whose beliefs are laughable and who "couldn't help" or "didn't know any better" than to be the "narrow minded bigot" she allegedly was.
By Fundamentalist Protestant standards, since Catholicism denies that J*sus takes the individual's place in hell and is vicariously damned, thus providing assurance (ie, "presumption"), and instead requires a lifetime of walking a tightrope over the pit of hell, then Catholicism does not provide "salvation" at all. Yet Catholics insist that Protestants betray their consciences in the name of common creedal beliefs (which are non-salvational in FPism). Can you imagine the bind that puts sincere Fundamentalist Protestants in? Can you? I'm sure you can. It's the same one liberal (and even not so liberal) Jews put Catholics in every time they demand that the Catholic Church stop insisting that J*sus is the objective messiah and "the only way to Heaven." I've seen plenty of Catholic condemnation of Jews for demanding that they betray their chr*stian beliefs, but those same Catholics make the identical same demand of Fundamentalist Protestants because they "both believe J*sus is god." According to you and them the devils believe J*sus is god and they are neither "saved" nor "in the process of salvation."
Catholics who complain about Jewish demands while making identical demands of Protestants (and engaging in the same liberal rhetoric when they don't get what they want) are hypocrites and crybabies.
We'll agree that two is not a sufficient quorum.
Are many Catholics woefully lacking in Scriptural formation? I would be the last to deny it.
The fact remains that when a Catholic and a Baptist read the Scriptures with the same assumption that the Scriptures are factually inerrant, their strategies for interpreting the Bible are disparate. What one side sees as a semantic anomaly another sees as an essential semantic distinction.
My friend--I see them.
Please ping me next time you spot one.
Protestantism and Catholicism can both be false, but they cannot both be true.
I'm not saying that they can both be true.
I'm pointing out that both can have the correct view of central doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. When a Baptist and a Catholic use the term "trinity" they are using it in the same acceptation, and neither are using it in the Mormon acceptation.
Classic Protestantism has far more in common with Catholicism than Protestantism has in common with Mormonism.
Yet as you know Fundamentalist Protestantism is not a creedal religion at all.
If one is Baptist or a Reformed Christian, one is definitely credal.
Someone who is purely DIY or a Church of Christ member can claim to be creedless - but I wouldn't write Baptists out of the "fundamentalist Protestant" club. They are clearly the majority of the individuals who fall under that prescription. I would also add that the very term "fundamentalist" derives from the Niagara Bible Conference's attempt to formulate a standard creed for Protestant Christianity through their books entitled "The Fundamentals." Credd is essential to fundamentalism and even those who claim to eschew creeds follow the lead of the credal churches like then SBC quite closely.
Anyone who can condemn Protestantism from the Left can condemn it from the Right--unless one is a Leftist.
I don't think either is a useful model. As you know, we both largely agree on the moral obligation of society to provide for the needy - what some call "social justice", what others call "the preferential option for the poor", what still others call "the social gospel" and what traditional Catholicism calls "corporal works of mercy."
This is one aspect of Catholicism that is roundly derided and attacked by many as "socialist" and "liberal" - with most, when questioned, admitting that works of charity are good but solely for the "deserving poor."
This critique is framed as coming from "the right", because atomistic individualism and "every man for himself" is the correct stance from "the right." I would argue that this a concept alien to Christianity and derived from the decidedly "left" position of social Darwinism.
It is relatively rare to find a self-described fundamentalist who is not also a subscriber to this notion of homo oeconimicus - a notion I consider a mark of the left.
Please forgive me, but this is becoming quite tiresome.
You said (or at least implied) that only "heterodox Catholics" hold the belief I condemn. I point out that "orthodox Catholics" like you do as well. You then implicitly confirm my charge but then by some leap of logic perhaps known only to Thomist intellectuals and illiterate Belgian peasants say that I have confirmed your point.
Does or does not the Catholic Church teach that the universe was created in six days precisely 26 generations before the Torah was received on Mt. Sinai (as indicated by the Biblical chronologies)? Does it or does it not?
No, my point about how you will “harp about that and post gross exaggerations about Catholicism.”
"There you go again," as Reagan was apt for saying.
Baptists are not credal. They share a great many beliefs in common with orthodox Catholics but they reject the notion that correct belief is either meritorious or salvational. Only J*sus taking the individual's place in hell (so the individual will not be going there himself) is salvational.
The fact remains that when a Catholic and a Baptist read the Scriptures with the same assumption that the Scriptures are factually inerrant, their strategies for interpreting the Bible are disparate.
So? My strategy is disparate from that of Baptists but that doesn't keep me from standing up for the Bible. Indeed, I see myself as having a greater obligation than any Baptist to defend it. Catholics, on the other hand, seem to default Biblical inerrancy to the Baptists as a "Protestant thing."
I'm pointing out that both can have the correct view of central doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. When a Baptist and a Catholic use the term "trinity" they are using it in the same acceptation, and neither are using it in the Mormon acceptation.
Classic Protestantism has far more in common with Catholicism than Protestantism has in common with Mormonism.
Again, in FP correct belief is not what makes one a "true chr*stian," but rather one has taken advantage of the cosmic "loophole." And Catholics have no more taken advantage of that "loophole" than mormons have. Therefore, according to FP, the Catholic, the mormon, the Jew, and the Noachide are all going to hell, because that's the only alternative to letting J*sus take one's place there.
If one is Baptist or a Reformed Christian, one is definitely credal.
See my points above.
I don't think either is a useful model. As you know, we both largely agree on the moral obligation of society to provide for the needy - what some call "social justice", what others call "the preferential option for the poor", what still others call "the social gospel" and what traditional Catholicism calls "corporal works of mercy."
This is one aspect of Catholicism that is roundly derided and attacked by many as "socialist" and "liberal" - with most, when questioned, admitting that works of charity are good but solely for the "deserving poor."
This critique is framed as coming from "the right", because atomistic individualism and "every man for himself" is the correct stance from "the right." I would argue that this a concept alien to Christianity and derived from the decidedly "left" position of social Darwinism.
It is relatively rare to find a self-described fundamentalist who is not also a subscriber to this notion of homo oeconimicus - a notion I consider a mark of the left.
I am truly disappointed in you. I have not in this entire thread said one word about economics. In fact, I have barely said anything about economics on this forum since joining it almost eleven years ago. I would even go so far as to say that I am not an "economic conservative" at all. And you know that, even if you have forgotten, because I have told you that many times in the past.
I have over and over and over condemned Catholics for engaging in liberal accusations of "bigotry," "simple-mindedness," "intolerance," etc. That is what I meant by "condeming Protestantism from the Left," and it is hard for me to imagine that you did not know that. I am grateful to you for your long friendship on this forum, but that does not give you the right to ignore my plain words in order to come up with a straw man which I have barely ever discussed since joining this forum. I am sorry to have to say that to you.
Let me know when Catholic bishops stop the lisping "inclusiveness" speech and start hollering "hot dammit, y'all! Y'all a-goin' ta HAY-YULL eff'n y'all don't become Catholic!" That is criticism from the Right. And I think you know that is exactly what I meant.
I had rather be told my grandmother was a malicious heretic than that she was a stupid inbred moron whose beliefs are laughable and who "couldn't help" or "didn't know any better" than to be the "narrow minded bigot" she allegedly was.
"There you go again," as Reagan was apt for saying.
So, do you get it this time?
I don’t get why you lash out at wideawake for his supposed straw man, yet you paint a wide brush about Catholics all the time. That’s one the things I object to.
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.