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

Florida’s Republican Senator-elect and Tea Party heartthrob Marco Rubio is the youngest member of the senate, the GOP’s only Latino senator (he is Cuban-American), and a straight-talking Catholic who brings the same sense of conviction to his faith as he does to his politics. A flattering profile of him at Catholic Advocate last February was called, “Marco Rubio, A Catholic Candidate Who Will Not Compromise.”

But now it turns out (I have a piece on it all at PoliticsDaily) that Rubio has been attending a Southern Baptist-affiliated megachurch near Miami for much of the past decade, a revelation that has surprised many folks and dismayed a few supporters. After many requests, a Rubio spokesman said that the senator-elect “regularly attends Catholic Mass, and he was baptized, confirmed and married in the Roman Catholic Church. On the final Sunday of the campaign, for example, he attended Mass at Christ the King Catholic Church in Tampa. . . . He also attends services at a Christian church with his wife and children.”

The “Christian church” is apparently Christ Fellowship. Asked why Rubio attended a non-Catholic church regularly, Burgos said: “He attends both regularly.” His donations, some $66,000 since 2000, go to Christ Fellowship, however.

Dinesh D’Souza, another Catholic paladin on the right, also surprised and unsettled more than a few of his allies last August when he was appointed to lead The King’s College, a small evangelical college located in the Empire State Building. How’s that? D’Souza D’Souza told Christianity Today at the time that he himself is “non-denominational” and has been attending an evangelical megachurch in San Diego for several years.

He added:

“My apologetic is very nondenominational; it’s very much inspired by the C. S. Lewis idea of mere Christianity. I’m quite happy to acknowledge my Catholic background; at the same time, I’m very comfortable with Reformation theology.”
“Being a Protestant is a term defined in opposition to Catholicism and refers to a set of historical battles over denominational issues. As far as I can tell, those denominational issues are not the center of what’s being argued today.”

Earlier this month, Marvin Olasky, the provost at The King’s College, resigned, and it’s not clear there will be any further fallout for D’Souza. And Rubio, whose positions on gay marriage and abortion are in line with his conservative faith-based supporters, will likely be protected behind the “ecumenism of the barricades.”

But if Rubio were a Democrat, I don’t see thing playing out so irenically. And what of his religious double-dipping? Or D’Souza’s take on post-Reformation theology? It all seems rather wobbly men of such strong convictions.

"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."

And you missed reading my answer, perhaps entirely. The entire basis of the Roman Churh's basis of salvation was a fraud. There WAS nothing left to reform. What was "reformed" was the early and true church of antiquity, the apostolic church described with utter clarity in the Scriptures. When read by elect individuals the truth of salvation in Christ, alone, lept off the pages and ignited a fire not even Rome could extinguish (although they have tried). The Fire, who's origins reached back to the first centuries, once again caused the world to seek not Rome, but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, raised, and ascended to heaven. The truth is now even enticing Rubio and D'Souza.

But, there have always been chosen, real believers rejecting the Roman cult and embracing the truth, little flickers of light in every corner of the dark Roman world. But at the Reformation the return to the truth became a conflagration. Repent, Rome, if you can.

Catholics would like to draw Protestants to their Church. They're shocked to even suggest that a Catholic should attend a Protestant church or do ANYTHING or read ANYTHING Protestant.

It's probably part of the reason they don't understand why Born Again Christians rejoice when a person believes The Gospel and is saved even if in the process they left a Baptist Church and joined a Methodist Church. We share a common faith in our Savior.

It's really rather disingenuous.

I agree. You can't build a fence and claim to be on both sides of it. Being wrong doesn't make them bad, just wrong.

You wrote:

“I have been in a room full of protestants many times and never heard any arguments concerning doctrine or the Bible.”

I have. Bring up infant baptism to a Baptist and Episcopalian at the same time. Throw in a Presbyterian for good measure.

“I have heard many speak on how God has changed their lives and how His love is so awesome.”

Me too. Then bring up infant baptism, the canon of scripture, the authority of the church, justification, works and grace, birth control, abortion, etc. You’ll see more than just the love of Christ. You’ll see arguing.

“I have been is a room full of Roman Catholics or a mixed group and found the same.”

True enough.

Thank you.

I know a lot of Christians don't want to be involved in disputes about doctrine, but when we get to the foundation of our faith, whether you believe The Gospel as is, or believe there are "ands", "buts", or "maybes" attached it's not a discussion about the color of the stained glass. It is a discussion of what it is to be a Christian.

We see the carry over of this in the discussion about these guys. Instead of joy that they are serious in their faith and are seeking a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ there is anger that it is not in their RCC. The Christians I know rejoice at someone wanting to be in the body of Christ.

They come to real consensus on the central issue — that Jesus Christ sacrificed His life and spilled his blood for us, that we may be saved from hell.

Mere human beings — every one, including every pope who ever lived — are fallible human beings and will misinterpret SOMETHING.

What’s important is that we understand the supreme sacrifice of Christ and what it means to us believers — believers from every Christian denomination, and those who do not claim any denomination.

No one should ever allow RELIGION to separate him or her from Christ.

You wrote:

“They come to real consensus on the central issue — that Jesus Christ sacrificed His life and spilled his blood for us, that we may be saved from hell.”

But they did not come to consensus on everything of even close to everything and that very lack of consistancy shows that their doctrine of sola scriptura is unworkable. Also, Catholics too believe that “Jesus Christ sacrificed His life and spilled his blood for us, that we may be saved from hell.” Does that mean that there are now no major differences between Catholics and Protestants? See how easily your argument falls to pieces?

“Mere human beings — every one, including every pope who ever lived — are fallible human beings and will misinterpret SOMETHING.”

True. But no Catholic claims popes are always right or always infallible. If you say that Obama is the current president of the USA, that is an INFALLIBLE statement. You are infallible when you say it. You are wrong about much else. I don’t think you even come close to understanding papal infallibility.

“What’s important is that we understand the supreme sacrifice of Christ and what it means to us believers — believers from every Christian denomination, and those who do not claim any denomination.”

But that’s just it. Christ founded exactly ZERO denominations. ZERO. He founded one Church and it isn’t a Protestant sect.

“No one should ever allow RELIGION to separate him or her from Christ.”

No one should allow his ignorance about religion to separate himself from a correct understanding of Christ or His 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.