Posted on 06/30/2011 1:10:26 AM PDT by Cronos
New York’s state’s Catholic bishops continue to blast the state’s passage of homosexual marriage this week, with one bishop calling on Catholic schools and other institutions to shun lawmakers in protest of the vote.
In an op-ed Sunday in the New York Daily News, Nicholas DiMarzio, bishop of Brooklyn, called on members of his diocese to “not to bestow or accept honors, nor to extend a platform of any kind to any state elected official, in all our parishes and churches for the foreseeable future,” a statement that may signal a new era in church-state relations in the Empire State.
Catholic bishops have previously fought high-profile battles with public officials who endorse policy positions contrary to official church teaching. The previous battleground was mostly limited to debates over the right to life, which is seen within Catholicism as a primary, inviolable value. (Catholics, the church teaches, may not vote for pro-choice politicians except for ‘grave reasons.’) But it is new that church leaders such as DiMarzio would include legislation on gay rights as sufficient cause to ostracize politicians.
His Name is I AM.
I also stand in the Lord.
Thank you so very much for sharing your testimony and insights, dearest sister in Christ!
I don't have time to address this, but your link is nonsense -there is no dogma that can ever be changed in matters of faith and morals
You can find all sorts of garbage on the internet and need to be careful,dear sister
What is this Vatican Cult that you are so enamoured of? I don’t know of any Vatican Cult in the center of Rome. I looked on Google Maps and they were unable to enlight me either.
Oh good. You have finally seen the light. When are you crossing the Tiber?
Sorry, you'll have to give this up if you want to turn Catholic.
But then again, I do not believe a "perfect and harmonious world government" is even remotely possible in the first place, regardless of the "powers" it's organized under — church, state, church-state (theocracy). I suspect MNR may agree. Where we three are like-minded on this issue, we are argumentatively opposed to dear and worthy others who have also weighed in.
At this point, I just say, Peace!
May the Lord's Peace be with us all! All have witnessed to what each has seen. It just seems wrong to me to put any such witness to a "true/false test," inevitably of human construction. Also it seems terribly wrong to dredge up the historical grievances among the different confessions of Christianity; at least I don't know what purpose it could serve, here and now.
Most of all, to criticize a truly religious person for his religious/spiritual commitment is to touch him at a very deep level of his being, a place where I believe we have no right to go. A man's personal relationship with God is sacrosanct. I have no right to meddle with it....
At that point, it's just bad manners to "attack" his church....
Well, JMHO FWIW.
Thank you so much for writing, dear sister boatbums!
Thank you, too, for your comments. I also agree that we should never personally attack another's religious, spiritual commitment or his personal relationship with God, and that is not what I have tried to do here. This discussion has been mainly over the subject of the separation of church and state. That some here believe so completely in their religion as the answer to all that is wrong in this country invites a critical look at just what this particular religion offers.
No one has said that this country, or the world for that matter, will not one day be set right and I think we all agree that it will be when Jesus Christ, himself, rules and reigns over it. However, some seem to also believe - sincerely - that their religion can do almost as good a job. This is what I reject and my comments that speak to errors brought about by fallible men within this religion attest to the incapability of any human organization to bring about true and lasting peace and order.
I do not bring up past "historical grievances" to injure or purposely, personally attack anyone. As you stated, no one confession of faith led by fallible men has any corner of innocence in this, but neither does any other Christian faith seek to assert its dominance in the temporal realm. Rightfully, the founders sought to establish a government of the people, by the people, for the people and to allow real freedom in the areas that touch us at the deepest levels of our being.
I appreciate your gentle and kind spirit, as always, and your generous example which is the what we should all try to emulate, especially on the Religion Forum.
Thank you, dear sister in Christ. So beautifully (and truthfully, IMHO) said....
As different “Christian beliefs” are discussed I am moved to state that if one believes, and one must believe this to be a Christian, in the virgin birth, which establishes the deity of Jesus - the trial, conviction, and the horrendous treatment and Crucifixion of Jesus by mankind, which illustrated his tremendous love for us and absolved us of our sins - His Resurrection, which reestablished his deity and promised his return, if one believes those three things, all the other differences are academic, not religious.
Great point, MNR! To dispute details often obscures the fact that there are core beliefs that we hold in common.
I do agree with you that there certainly ARE main tenets of the Christian faith that should be nonnegotiable. The three you named are pretty much what Scripture also describes as the way we can know the faith of another is based upon truth. Jesus told his followers as well as his detractors that, "If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” (John 8:23).
There is agreement that to be a true Christian, we MUST believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be and that is he is "God with us". The fact of the resurrection is part and parcel with who Jesus is and what he came to do. The differences that I see within some Christian denominations, that is the MOST critical to our salvation, is the argument about the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.
Some claim that Jesus came to die for us to erase the debt of "original sin" and to "open the gates of Heaven", but that it is up to us to live sinless lives so that we earn his grace or participate in this grace. They say God's grace is "infused" rather than "imputed". They say the grace of God that brings salvation must be merited by cooperating with his grace by our deeds and works of "love" and that, if we sin and die before we confess our sins and do penance for them, we will not go to be with God in heaven - regardless of our faith in Christ. This, to me defies what Scripture says about the gift of eternal life by grace through faith. And this is the primary splitting-off point with which I will NOT, CAN NOT agree to disagree.
I believe our very salvation rests upon our agreement with God that he saves us by his grace through faith in the sacrifice Christ made for us so that we may be made the "righteousness of God in Christ" (II Corinthians 5:21). If we believe we MUST add our righteousness to his righteousness in order to be saved, we are saying that Christ died in vain, that his death on the cross and rising from the dead was not sufficient to redeem us. I earnestly believe this is a critical point of doctrine and I do not see how it can, or should, ever be glossed over for the sake of "peace".
I hope you will realize that you're falling into Pelagian heresy,dear sister
Oh Lord, please don't tell me that you have succumbed to this, dear bb. In spite of our differences, I feel very strongly about you. Please don't depart from Christianity any more than you already have.
LOL! Please kindly explain to me exactly what I said that leads y'all to think I have succumbed to Pelagianism.
As far as I can tell, Pelagius' main belief was that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life. I do not believe this at all. Instead, we have inherited a sin nature passed down to us by Adam and, as such, we are slaves to the sin nature and we are without hope without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins.
So, yes, I'd like to know what appalling thing I said that leads you into thinking I am a Pelagian heretic.
Catholic teaching is that our actions cooperate with the Grace God has already given us,thus, when we follow His will our will is coming in line with the will of God that produces works of love in union with God
Scripture is clear that we can refuse this Grace given to all, and this is why our actions do not move God,they only move us away from His will when we choose to sin
"The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come. A second time he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those Invited: "Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast."' Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, 'The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come. Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.' The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, and the hall was filled with guests. (Matthew 22:2-10)
You wrote: “Catholic teaching is that our actions cooperate with the Grace God has already given us, thus, when we follow His will our will is coming in line with the will of God that produces works of love in union with God.
Scripture is clear that we can refuse this Grace given to all, and this is why our actions do not move God, they only move us away from His will when we choose to sin.”
It’s refreshing to sometimes see an expression of faith written in simple words, that offer clarity of thought. So often, too many words get in the way.
I also appreciate that you write without contentiousness.
What you are describing, stfassisi, is the “Gift and Response” that is the expression of our desire for union with God and His holy will (for which we pray in the prayer of the Our Father). This Gift and Response is what our intimate relationship with the Lord embraces.
In his fine book “Rediscovering Catholicism”, Matthew Kelly writes:
“”The surest signs of holiness are not how often a person goes to church, how many hours he spends in prayer, what good spiritual books he has read or even the number of good works he performs. The surest signs of holiness are an insatiable desire to become all God created us to be, an unwavering commitment to the will of God, and an unquenchable concern for the unholy ones. But as quickly as holiness can be found, it can be lost, because in any moment that you choose to be less than the best-version-of-yourself, you have become distracted from living a holy life. This is what it means to be striving for holiness, to be continually answering God’s invitation to grasp the moments of our lives and allow God to use them to transform us into all He has created us to be. In each and every moment of our lives God’s transforming love is inviting us to choose to live holy lives”.
“Choose life” (Deut. 30:19)
Gift and Response.
Is the Church Christ created perfect and do you believe Catholicism is what Christ established as His Church- or do you believe Catholicism is man created,dear sister?
Prove that Transubstantiation is something different than believing the Eucharist is the actual,Body ,Blood ,Soul and Divinity that was taught by the early Church Fathers?
In like manner, the members of the Church must have liberty to differ before it can be shown that they really are agreed. But Rome denies her people this liberty, and thus renders it impossible that it can ever be shown that they are united. She resolves all into absolute authority, which in no case may either be questioned or opposed
From Vatican Document on Religious Freedom... http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
"In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles. In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm."
Thank you,dear friend,I am a simple person and I thank our Blessed Lord for making me this way
Let us see what St. Ignatius (a student of St. John) had to say about it:
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr's crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.
"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." - "Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ." - "Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed." - "Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons." - Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.
I had no idea that ca. 100 AD is 13th century. Thanks to all for the education.
thanks to: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
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.