Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
Poat 5 is gone, and has been for a while. What are you still talking about it for? You’re arguing something that no one can even read, because it’s GONE. If you still have a copy of the post, you’re going to have to re-post it in order to talk about it.
And I don’t think the RM is going to allow you to re-post a removed post.
Judith, let me ask you this. If something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has feathers like a duck, does it matter if you intend it to be a chicken or not? Like I said, I know that most Catholics would never knowingly worship anyone other than God, but look at what is being said here. Mary is Co-Redemptrix!?! That means she had a part in the Redemption of Man. I know you don't believe that she died for our sins, so why would you believe that she helps redeem us? Yes, she brought Christ into the world. For that I'm grateful beyond belief, but it's not a part of our redemption. Do you understand what I'm trying to convey here? Mary is to be honored, but only Christ is our Redeemer.
I'm not positive here and God knows I'm not defending the RCC's general practices, but I do seem to remember something about Hitler being excommunicated. I may be wrong about that, but that uncertainty is what kept me from bringing this point up in my post.
If it walks like a zotted Freeper, quacks like a zotted Freeper, and posts like a zotted Freeper is it really a NOOB?
The fact that you cannot tell the difference between veneration and ducks is NOT my problem. I know when I am worhipping, do YOU? How dare you tell me what I am doing! Honor, veneration, esteem, are all different from worship. And if you don't think so, that is not my problem. What is being said here is a lot of malarkey, if it is not the truth. And the truth is, you people can make all th mistakes you want, it doesn't translate to some sort of proof of worship on my part. God knows, I am content with that. What is YOUR problem?
Answer one question and I'll leave it alone.
Did Mary have a part in the Redemption of Mankind?
Hmmmmm.......
Hello? Do you believe in Christmas?
I don't care if you leave it alone or not. Mary bore Christ in her flesh. Of COURSE she had a part in the redemption. Are you nuts?
Your contention that you rely on your “teachers” as opposed to those of us who rely on scripture for proof of correctness of teachers.
>>And then it would be the teachers who would provide the hermeneutic.<<
>>The Catholic Church has no faulty teaching, though it has some pretty badly expressed teaching.<<
>>So one COULD view the "reliance" on the catechism and the hermeneutic proposed by the Catholic Church as obedience to Scripture, since we who approach things that way are acknowledging the student role Paul says we have.<<
I simply asked you to show where your “teachers” are correct scripturally on the assumption of Mary and asking those not living to pray for you.
You have not, nor can you, show from scripture that what those “teachers” teach can be proven by scripture as we are told we need to show.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Now please provide the scripture for the proof of the assumption of Mary and asking dead people to pray for you so that I can “search the scriptures” to show that “those things were so”.
I understand exactly what you are saying. My point is that the RCC seems to have it both ways. On the one hand, the RCC can claim that baptism into the Church is binding. On the other hand, baptism into the Church is not binding, if the Church decides a person, for whatever reason, is no longer worthy of being Catholic. So which is it? I’m curious.
Nope, not going to drop this one then. You asked for it, now grin and bear it.
Yes, Mary carried Christ in her womb. That's been established and is not in question. That, also, is not part of our redemption.
The Redemption of Mankind, per the Catholic Encyclopedia, is the restoration of man from the bondage of sin to the liberty of the children of God through the satisfactions and merits of Christ. Notice that no where in there is Mary's name mentioned? Mary was not and is not our Redeemer. Oh, and here's the link so you don't get your nickers in a twist.
So quit calling Mary the Co-Redeemer. She's not got any part in the Redemption of Mankind. She carried Christ in her womb, nothing more and nothing less. Christ redeemed us by His own sinlessness, not with any help from any human.
It is Christ and Christ alone who deserves honor and worship as our Redeemer, no one else!
This is an amazing text. Clearly Paul of all people is persuaded that there is nothing lacking in the sacrifice or the sufferings of Christ. He also knows that, of himself, he cannot produce the sinless nature that you describe, rightly, as necessary to pay the debt of atonement.
So how can we take the text seriously in the light of Paul's other teaching?
I think the key is Paul's “Now I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.”
Do you see where I'm headed?
Judith Anne, is Mary present in the Eucharist?
The Church teaches that baptism is indelible, it leaves a permanent mark. Once baptized, always baptized. The Church also teaches that baptism is salvific, but since the Church rejects OSAS it alone does not guarantee permanent salvation.
On the one hand, the RCC can claim that baptism into the Church is binding. On the other hand, baptism into the Church is not binding, if the Church decides a person, for whatever reason, is no longer worthy of being Catholic. So which is it?The product of bad theology, IE, baptismal regeneration (ex opere operato).
This is the first that I have heard of this. I've been here since Spring of 1998. You might want to post it on your home page For you I certainty will.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
for all to read and understand.
You can put it in big print, you can shout it to heaven. It won’t make you right and me wrong.
Grin and bear it? Feh! Explain to me how God restored man from the bondage of sin to the liberty of the children of God through the satisfactions and merits of Christ WITHOUT CHRIST BEING BORN OF MARY. Christ was born, or there would be no salvation. HOW was He born? From an egg? from your infamous and stupid duck? Where are the feathers? I hear no quacking. MARY BORE CHRIST.
The product of not thinking things through to the end result. And then having to go back and re-do, un-do and declare infallibly that it all makes perfect sense.
My hope is that it’s just a lack of knowing it and a resistance to hearing it. We can pray the God removes the blinders.
Many are called but few are chosen
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
I've looked this over in the Greek and the RSV as you asked and maybe I'm just not getting what you're driving at here. What has this got to do with Mary's status as Co-Redemptrix?
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.