Marco Rubio, Dinesh D’Souza and the end of the Reformation?

The Miami Church as referenced in the article seems to believe the Bible verbatim: http://www.cfmiami.org/new.php

What more can we hope for?

But if Rubio were a Democrat, I don’t see thing playing out so irenically.

I don't agree with that.

Democrats could care less if a nominally Catholic candidate also attends (or only attends) his wife's Episcopal or Methodist or what have you church.

A lot of people are in Rubio's situation, and the ambiguity is largely the fault of the bishops.

Dinesh D’Souza, another Catholic paladin on the right...added “Being a Protestant is a term defined in opposition to Catholicism....”

Sounds like a smear to me. What a rube!
History Lesson: Positively Protestant

I don’t know what this revelation says more about—their supposed intellect gone vacuous, or extraordinarily poor catechesis, or marrying non-Catholics and trading off faith for peace at home, or for political/career gain. It looks quite blase about faith and their explanation of sorts try to make blase look cool, intellectual and rather broad and worldly, in a professorial kind of way. All of which are referred to commonly taken together or separately as the broad road to hell. Terribly interesting but a little hair raising for those of us who still appreciate, on faith issues particularly, just a little rigidity here and there in this era.

“A lot of people are in Rubio’s situation, and the ambiguity is largely the fault of the bishops.”

You are correct, but there may be more to this than many realize. For instance, I wonder where his wife stands in all of this. We need to hold them all up in prayer regularly...regardless. The Truth will eventually dominate. ;-)

Or perhaps God is waking them up to the truth of the Gospel.

You have to seek the Truth and it takes a lot of time. Many, like these politicians, have little extra time for that search (so they think) and will fall for sound bites that at least make some sense. Life is a journey and theirs is not over. It is a process and as long as they are exposed to the Truth, the thick cream of logic should surface to the top. Time and Truth will favor God.

I have known of people at our church who went to mass before attending service with us.

And in my travels I have often attended catholic services where ever I was.

?

What’s the big deal? It’s still Christian.

It all seems rather wobbly men of such strong convictions.

I'm a Catholic, but my beliefs don't effect whether my candidate is Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or non-denominational BUT mooselimbs are out.

Mooselimbs want to kill me and my family, can't vote for'em.

You wrote:

“What more can we hope for?”

How about actually understanding it properly? Ever have a room full of Protestants and watch them argue doctrine? They all claim to believe in the Bible, but can’t seem to come to real consensus on many issues. Seems like they lack understanding.

"What’s the big deal? It’s still Christian."

Not sure which "It's" you are referring to, but the Reformation demonstrated from the Scriptures that much of the "Catholic" perspective was anything but Christian. Thus, the need for "reforming" the church. That is a big deal. If D'Souza and Rubio are being exposed to this fact, someday soon they will recognize the two views are not compatable. At that point something significant will occur.

Nicely said.

much of the "Catholic" perspective was anything but Christian. Thus, the need for "reforming" the church.

If the first part of that statement were true, there would have been no church left to "reform" -- you can't "reform" a decomposed corpse and make into a living man again.

Fortunately, the first part of that statement isn't true.

Rubio and D'Souza are just two of millions of Catholics who have only the foggiest idea about what the Catholic Church believes, and none at all about how to defend those beliefs from the Scriptures -- a direct consequence of the complete abdication of catechesis after Vatican II in the US.

The situation started improving in the mid 1980's, but by then an entire generation had been lost.

Rubio and D'Souza are just two of millions of Catholics who have only the foggiest idea about what the Catholic Church believes, and none at all about how to defend those beliefs from the Scriptures

With all respect, shouldn't your beliefs coincide with Scriptures? Seems like you are saying Scripture goes against your beliefs?

But maybe I am misunderstanding your statement, if so I apologize.

"If the first part of that statement were true, there would have been no church left to "reform" -- you can't "reform" a decomposed corpse and make into a living man again.

Fortunately, the first part of that statement isn't true."

If the last part of your statement was true, then the Reformation would not have been necessary. Fortunately, it is not. The Reformers identified several errors of Rome and brought truth to light, again.

The "reforming" hearkens all the way back to the early church wherein Christ alone was the Gospel. Rome's sacerdotalism, absolution of sin by men, Mariolatry, indulgences, and really its entire basis of salvation were all exposed as the frauds they are. Hopefully, D' Souza & Rubio are granted an opportunity to recognize that and turn from Rome. As I said, perhaps it is beginning.

You miss my point entirely. If the church's "entire basis of salvation" was a "fraud", there was nothing left to "reform". You don't "reform" a fraud into truth; you throw it away and start over. That would involve admitting that Christ failed and the Holy Spirit had taken a 1500 year long vacation while the Church collapsed into heresy.

At least the Mormons are consistent in admitting that that's what they believe.