Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michele Bachmann Should Not 'Get a Pass' on Past Membership in Anti-Catholic Church
Catholic Online ^ | 7/15/11 | Keith A Fournier

Posted on 07/15/2011 5:01:33 AM PDT by tcg

....some of my colleagues in the world of Catholic media, journalism and the Press have attributed the positions of this Church and Bachmanns past membership to just "being a Protestant." As someone who has worked ecumenically for decades I reject that dismissal. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod does not represent many Protestants. It is an Anti-Catholic body.

....I have worked with, prayed with and collaborated with MANY Protestant Christians, for over three decades, who would NEVER call the successor of Peter the Antichrist. The colleagues to which I refer go further, they seemingly accept the notion that if Protestant Christians felt otherwise they would no longer be Protestant. That is not only overly simplistic, it fails to recognize the substantial issues which divide the broken Body of Christ.

....Some of the other articles I have read ...attempt to dismiss it by pointing to the authors purported political leanings. So, let me speak to that for a moment. I have political leanings. I like Michele Bachmann's positions on the issues which matter most to this Catholic voter. She is pro-Life and defends marriage and the family and society founded upon it.

I appreciate her pledge to reign in the ever expanding size of the Federal government, which I fear threatens the principle of subsidiarity. Finally, I had been impressed with her intelligence, her oratorical skills, her background and her presence. All of this made her my second favorite possible candidate, until now. My first choice is obvious to anyone who reads my ongoing political commentary.

However, her political and policy positions were not the point of Joshua Green's article and focusing upon them may be a form of deflection. Green raised the issue of Michele Bachmann's long standing identification with a Church body which is clearly Anti-Catholic....

(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Mainline Protestant; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: anticatholicism; antichrist; bachmann4obama; bachmann4romney; campaign2012; catholic; catholicism; lutheran; michelebachmann; obama; papacy; pope; romancatholicism; wels
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-214 next last
To: Cronos

But the Romans have put on top of biblical statements (whose manuscripts date at latest to the first century AD, questions of the date of official recognition aside) stipulations that certain earthly artifacts not mentioned in those statements are a must for incorporation into a valid faith. We’re expected to believe that the apostles were either written a blank check from the bible with no closure of doctrine, or that they were talking about this stuff from the word go and nobody bothered to record it till much later.


121 posted on 07/15/2011 6:39:41 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Claud; SoftballMominVA
DF has given his opinion based on an article that tells us what has always been on the WELS doctrinal list. However, evidently Fournier didn't know -- as we now do from SoftballMom that this is NOT preached, not even mentioned in the WELS churches.

The article that originated this also grudgingly says that Michele disavows this and that she is no longer a member of the WELS church.

Deacon Fournier fell for a leftist media trick, just as the "let's hang some Catholics today" freepers are doing on this thread.

Thank you SoftballMominVA again for giving us the facts from the ground.

122 posted on 07/15/2011 6:40:58 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: tcg

Yo, Keith. Uhhhhhhh....why don’t you tell us a little about your views of Protestantism?


123 posted on 07/15/2011 6:41:26 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke

I am a product of your era, and a small town of many faiths and some vestiges of old world schism (socially) between protestants and catholics

however

why do I smell BS in this story and believe those kids would have beat you up regardless of any religious affiliations?


124 posted on 07/15/2011 6:42:24 AM PDT by silverleaf (All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Hmm, didn’t know that thanks. I don’t read his stuff very often.

Yeah, some of those third-way types become so doctrinaire in equal opportunity criticism that they become more rigid than the partisans they condemn.

I’m not even all that much a fan of Bachmann (for President anyway). But she’s definitely getting a bum wrap in this piece.


125 posted on 07/15/2011 6:42:27 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Claud

The discussion brings back memories of my youth, and my brothers, spent in a German Lutheran grade school. My church and school were USA oriented but also very anti catholic which had two grade schools in my city. My brother and I were very much into sports like basketball, baseball,and softball. We could barely field a school basketball team for city tournaments, giving up an extra free throw when any one had the fifth or more fouls. For softball my older brother and I joined in with boys from the other two catholic schools because we knew them and played baseball as teammates. The public schools didn’t like the parochial schools. The year our mixed softball team won the city wide tournament the city newspaper covering the games gave particular notice to my brother (he was a very good player) and me. When the principal of our school read about us playing on a team under a Catholic schools name he called us in for a lecture about the wrongs and dangers of our actions. If it had not been for influence by our godparents and others in the church we might have been expelled. Such was the religious relations/differences at the time.


126 posted on 07/15/2011 6:42:27 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tcg

Yo, Keith. Why don’t you give us a little taste of what Catholics think of Mormonism.


127 posted on 07/15/2011 6:42:33 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma
Anything within the last half millennium? Anything? Anything at all?
128 posted on 07/15/2011 6:42:43 AM PDT by starlifter (Pullum sapit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: tcg
Perhaps you should engage in something more productive....such as polishing your halo.
129 posted on 07/15/2011 6:42:47 AM PDT by verity (The Obama Administration is a Criminal Enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam; pburgh01
The original article that Fournier read was a hit-piece on Michele. It fails to mention that this is not preached or even mentioned in the WELS church. it grudgingly mentions that Michele is not a member of the WELS church and that she disagrees with this statement.

Instead it's pure divide and conquer. And our freepers are falling for it.

130 posted on 07/15/2011 6:43:06 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Amen.


131 posted on 07/15/2011 6:43:08 AM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (I'm clinging to my God and my guns. You can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
you want to talk about that, fine. Let's do it on a religious thread. But here we're talking about what Michele is supposedly to have agreed with

and THAT is bogus -- this discussion has nothing to do with Bachman but is a ploy to get conservatives to fight and perhaps then associate Michele with divisiveness.

132 posted on 07/15/2011 6:45:16 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: The Iceman Cometh

Your inlaws are Feeneyites. It is true that among the sede-vacantists and extreme “Traditionalists” you will find this asserted. It’s one reason a lot of them reject Vatican II, saying Vatican II changed Catholic teaching from “all non-Catholics go to hell.”

But that’s false. Not even Unam Sanctam says that. When Fr. Feeney started teaching it in the 1940s, he was disciplined.

If you in-laws truly believe this, they are rejecting the express magisterial teaching of the Church.

But first you need to be sure you have not misunderstood their position. The Catholic teaching is that those who KNOWINGLY reject the Catholic faith are damned. But with all the confusion for centuries following the great schisms, most people don’t knowingly reject the Church but unknowingly reject it. If your inlaws truly believe that all non-Catholics go to hell, they are rejecting Catholic teaching but may be doing so out of invincible ignorance.

Or they may be knowingly doing so. You can’t know for sure, I can’t know for sure, only God knows for sure just who is culpable for holding false positions.

All I can do is state what the teaching is—as others have posted, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus etc. If your inlaws look at the CCC and say, “I reject that because it’s tained by modernist doctrine,” then they MIGHT be knowingly rejecting Catholic teaching.

Or they might be doing so out of misinformation from their anti-Vatican-II circles. Only they can examine their conscience and decide which is the case.

But various people on this thread have cited abundantly the actual teaching of the Church. You can deny it, reject it, think you know better. And it may or may not be your fault. It all depends on what you in your heart of heart know—whether you have honestly sought to find out the truth about Catholicism or Mormonism or Marxism or Ayn Randianism or . . . . We are judged by God on whether we knew the truth and rejected it and whether we honestly tried to find the truth, whether not-knowing the truth was our fault or the fault of snake-oil salesmen we should have smoked out.


133 posted on 07/15/2011 6:47:33 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: bjcoop

The author is in the attack mode. I am in the sad mode watching the of him and you dividing Christians into warring camp. I pray God can let you see that.


134 posted on 07/15/2011 6:48:17 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: SoftballMominVA

I’m WELS too. Just wait until “they” find out only men can vote in congregational meetings!


135 posted on 07/15/2011 6:48:45 AM PDT by stayathomemom (Beware of kittens modifying your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; All
It's no secret.

WELS has it on their website: Statement on the Antichrist.

They go through the history with Luther, various Synods views and then affirm as a current doctrinal view that the Roman Catholic Papacy is the antichrist.

That few evangelicals take it seriously shows where her church exists on the continuum.

Membership in a divisive church would only add to the Bachmann-candidate Obama parallels of holding a law degree, having no executive experience and no effective legislative record.

Considering the Pope is not just a religious leader but head of state, her beliefs in this regard could make diplomatic relations difficult. She may also support efforts to marginalize the Holy See at the UN.

136 posted on 07/15/2011 6:53:31 AM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke

So you were beat up by bullies as a kid. Those bullies happened to be catholic. Those same bullies told you the priest said they were justified. And you believed them? This argument is so rediculous It’s down right pathetic. The entire catholic church is bad because some catholic kids were jerks. Ok....


137 posted on 07/15/2011 6:54:06 AM PDT by Integrityrocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoftballMominVA
Someone had to go really digging into the archives of the website to even come up with it.

And, the 'really digging' has just begun. The reason is. the left knows that the right will fall for this tactic time after time after time. Ron White is correct. 'You can't fix stupid'.

138 posted on 07/15/2011 6:56:54 AM PDT by CharlyFord (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: CharlyFord

You have this author (probably an atheist, definitely a leftist)pegged exactly. Using ancient religious fights to drive wedges between conservative Christians.

Truly despicable, and disheartening to see Christians falling for it.


139 posted on 07/15/2011 7:05:53 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: tcg

I’m thinking that we need to get denomination-specific religion out of the discussion.

John Leland (1754-1841), a friend of James Madison, led the Baptists in Virginia in the struggle for true religious freedom. “After the Constitution was adopted, Leland rejoiced that it would be possible for a ‘Pagan, Turk, Jew or Christian’ to be eligible for any post or office in the government.” (The Writings of John Leland, ed. L.F. Greene. New York: Arno Press, 1969, p. 191.)

Let’s elect a president who LOVES and defends the Constitution and the ideal of true liberty and freedom of religion. If the ideals of the Constitution are the #1 passion of a president, then every American’s equal freedom to worship will endure. If we lose that — and we are losing that — we (Christians) are screwed.

As a Baptist for 60+ years raised in a parsonage, and a conservative, a selfish goal would be for everyone in America to be evangelical Christian. But that would be so wrong under our Constitution. Everyone should be able to worship the way they want to — or not worship at all. By the same token, everyone should recognize others’ rights and not stifle them. Christians are being stifled now, and that’s because the Constitution isn’t being recognized.

Obama hates the Constitution. He hates America. He needs to be defeated if we’re to keep our freedoms.


140 posted on 07/15/2011 7:11:56 AM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-214 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson