Posted on 07/17/2011 1:06:48 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
The news and blogosphere is filled with responses to the July 14, 2011 story by Joshua Green, the Senior Editor of the Atlantic, entitled "Michele Bachmann's Church Says the Pope Is the Antichrist." That is because it raises a serious matter which should not be taken lightly, and one which the candidate must address. First, let me share some personal context. I am what is often called a "revert" to the Catholic Church, someone who returned to the Church of my childhood after a long search for the truth. I love being a Catholic Christian. I hold an undergraduate degree and a master's degree in Catholic theology. I am a dissertation away from obtaining a PhD in Catholic Moral Theology. I am also a member of the Clergy, a Deacon. However, I write this article as a private and very concerned citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Knock it off!
Just like every other Calvinist since the 16th century.
Including Slick Willie and Jimmuh.
Well I’m glad to see you have moved on from obnoxious to just plain nasty.
Palin plot?
See, now THAT you have to admit is a confusing statement. Faith? ....in...baptism? Isn't our faith in Christ and his bearing the penalty of our sins on Calvary?
I love my Catholic brothers, but they can be so turgid and unclear in their speech, and sometimes I worry that many not so active Catholics get confused and absorb the erroneous idea that going through a given ritual is a ticket to heaven.
It is defined ex cathedra (i.e., the pope speaking as the successor of St. Peter) that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It's not my point to divert this thread to that subject, so let me just confess my full submission to this doctrine and move on. Now back to the subject.
The country was founded on religious pluralism, for good or for bad. The Catholic Church tolerates that. I can tolerate Michele, and I like her a lot. I'd respect her more for holding to Christian morality even though she'd be a Wis. Synod Lutheran. At least, they stand for something. My dad was Missouri Synod, but couldn't take their doctrine that Catholics couldn't be saved, e.g., his wife and kids. Unfortunately, he migrated to the faggy ELCA and ended up a sappy liberal. I wouldn't vote for one like him.
If you must vote for someone else to fulfill your conscience very well, but don’t forget that she supports literally everything a Catholic voter would desire and that many WELS attendees (myself included) do as well. We’re a lot more alike that you’d think despite what the statement says and frankly I cannot recall a single time I’ve heard it discussed at a service or in a conversation with anyone who attends. For the most part what is discussed at WELS services and amongst the church members are three things 1) we are all sinful and deserve death and punishment from God. 2) By the Grace of God we are saved through Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection. 3) We are called to live our lives as Christ lived his in service to others in His name not to earn Salvation but in response to the free gift of Salvation...that’s pretty much what we hear at every single worship service and I’m willing to bet that’s what the Bachmanns heard as well on a very consistent basis. Hope that helps you have confidence that she’s not going to be out to vilify you as a Catholic parishoner and that you can have confidence that she does indeed try to serve the people in a Christ-like way.
Perhaps a lesson from Christ will edify us all in Mark 9:38-39 so we may all humble ourselves before Him who is ALL of our Hope whether we be Catholic or not...
38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
Blessings to all who read this...
This is where everyone is wrong. Bachmann is not dividing us—it is the Marxists/press. It is their MO—to play “gotcha”.
Everyone can be made to look foolish and ridiculous, petty and whatever! Why not repeat zero’s “57 states” or “I am a Muslim” statements? Oh, he thinks correctly—He embraces Marxist ideology and Bachmann doesn’t—so destroy her. Everyone says things or writes things that don’t really capture who they are or how they think. Media has been controlling perceptions before McCarthy. They destroy and demean whoever goes off their plantation of allowed ideology.
This is about the forcing of the Marxist ideology, that homosexuality is “good” and genetic....both lies. The anti-Catholic thing is nothing.....it is the history of Protestantism and is a no brainer. The Catholic Church made their own bed.
It is all perception—Fundamentally, Bachmann is a wonderful person and her worldview is way more solid than most people...and rational, compared with Postmodernist thinkers. So is Palin. As politicians, they both are principled—something zero never was and never will be. Are they perfect? Here is a little hint: You are not in heaven.
No one is or can be perfect. Divide and conquer is the Marxist MO. These petty things don’t matter in the big scheme of things. Her actions speak for her—her lifestyle.
Yes, if she thought like Stalin, be concerned—but NO—her Church thinks exactly like my grandfather, and he was a wonderful man and his daughter married a Catholic (and I am a Catholic). So, first of all the charges made against the Church are bogus, made by homosexuals who deny Biblical truths anyway....and deny God’s design.... who want to destroy the Rule of Law and Natural Laws and God’s Laws which formed our Constitition and the intent of Just Law. They are trying to make the Bible “hate speech” and “kill God” so they can redesign man and decide their own standards of right and wrong.
I have even thought that the popes could be an AntiChrist or that maybe the Jesuits are going to produce the AntiChrist. The last I knew, there is a freedom of thought and religion, no matter how offensive to “some”.
This offense to some—who? Sometimes offense is standing up to evil and is a good.
Had Michele Bachmann been an irreligious gal who one day walked into a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod church, heard the preacher scream, in a hateful voice, that the Pope was the Antichrist while the congregation yelled back “Amen” and said to herself “I’ve finally found the place where I can fill the spiritual void in my life,” then it would be comparable to President Obama joining Jeremiah Wright’s church and staying there for two decades. (In case you’ve forgotten, Barack Obama first visited the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, heard a hateful, racist sermon by Jeremiah Wright in which he blamed all of the world’s ills on “the white man” (the money quote is when he described the world in which we live as one “where white folks’ greed runs a world in need”), and not only decided to make this the first Christian church he ever attended regularly (and had Rev. Wright officiate at his wedding and baptize his daughters), but he entitled the book in which he described his vision for America “The Audacity of Hope,” which was the name of that first hateful Wright sermon that Obama heard.)
I’m a devout Catholic, and I won’t countenance anti-Catholic bigotry. But there’s a difference between a bigot that publishes false, hateful tracts about the evils of the Roman Catholic Church on the one hand, and Martin Luther and modern-day Lutherans on the other hand. The former are hateful persons looking to defame Catholics in much the same way that anti-Semites like Jeremiah Wright defames Jews, while the latter simply have doctrinal differences based on a different reading of Scripture (when Jesus said to the disciple theretofore named Simon “you are Peter [”Cephas” in Aramaic], and on this rock [”cephas” in Aramaic] I will build my Church,” Catholics interpret that second “cephas” as refering to Peter himself (whom Jesus had just renamed), while Lutherans interpret it as referring to “the truth that Peter had just proclaimed” (that Jesus was the Christ)). And when Martin Luther described the Pope as being “the antichrist,” it came from the Greek “antichristos,” meaning “instead of Christ” or “counterpart to Christ” (”anti” did not necessarily mean “against” in Greek), because Luther believed that the Pope was putting himself in the place of Christ by claiming to be God’s voice in the world instead of letting Scripture speak for itself. Lutheran churches today still include that among their beliefs, and just because the popular meaning of “Antichrist” has changed over the centuries it does not mean that Lutheran churches espouse hateful bigotry against the Roman Catholic Church, or that pastors at Lutheran churches insert anti-Catholic (modern definition) statements into their sermons.
moral relativism that is needed to believe that attending a racist, anti-Semitic, pro-Farrakhan church *precisely because of the preacher’s (anti-white) statements* is exactly the same as attending a Lutheran church. As a Catholic, Lutherans are, together with the Episcopalians, the least objectionable doctrinally among Protestants, since they believe in the Eucharist, have the same numbering for the Commandments, etc.), so the libetal media will have to do a lot better if they want to convince Catholic conservatives that Michele Bachmann would be an anti-Catholic president while Obama isn’t one.
Notice it is an attack on the legitamacy of the Office of Pope....not on the Christianity of Roman Catholics. I know this is upseting to many Roman Catholics. However, I get “disturbed” when a Roman Catholic tries to tell me that theirs is the ONLY true church and the rest of us are apostates to some degree from RC. This disagreement is at the heart of the Reformation and it isn’t ever going to disappear. However, the days of warring over this are LONG past. “ <<<<
My dear friend. The People of God were never left without their earthly Shepherd. Your concept of the keyes of the Kingdom has been converted, perverted, re-designed, to frequently mean the dern “Concordance”, or Bible keyes to find scriptures.
The keyes of the kingdom were given to Peter from the mouth of Christ Jesus, and quite easily rebuke Article Four as you refer. The OT establishes the sure keyes given to the chief steward, in the absence of the Master. That was not just a pleasant story, it was the pattern to which Jesus confers on Peter, the first father of the Church.
Rita, you sure have taken a bad turn in attitude.
How much work do you consider necessary for salvation.” <<<
I sure do wish you would refer to what I said that offended.
The rest of your comment is true, but I don’t think my attitude is turned bad. What did I say?
In which case an atheist would never be able to become a Christian.
Well stated...from a WELS church member)...
Let's see you back up that utterly untrue statement.
Almost all Protestant candidates would fail scrutiny by this standard because by doctrine and history, Protestantism is anti-Catholic, and sometimes obnoxiously so. Yet as citizens and Christians, we are properly obliged by civic responsibility and Christian charity to find common ground with Protestants. And we are obliged not to aggravate old wounds and to hope and pray that, with the grace of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit, Christians may in time find greater unity.
“...The question is not whether they discuss politics in their sermons but whether they discuss the Papacy being the antichrist in sermons. My guess is they don’t. But certainly without evidence that Bachmann sat there while this was being discussed in sermons I see no reason to hold equivalence between this situation and Obama’s.”
I can only speak from my experience and I’ve never heard it once in all of my time as WELS attendee. I’m a lifetime member (am 38 y/o) so have heard a lot of sermons over the years.
Are you sure you know the difference between PHIL Donahue and BILL Donahue?
” The Bible is full of verses on salvation assurance. Look up 1 John 5:13. “ <<<<
There are certainly assurances and comforts, and many caveats to attaining such assurances. Some of them are quite hard, and daily.
I just can't believe this whole thread.
"You mean, she's ..... Wisconsin Synod?!!
Oh. My. GOD!!!" <kills self>
I mean, really. Come on, people.
Knowing what The Alternative is? Half-moo, half-racist, all-Man's Country, all-abort? No, seriously?
People want to get torqued over some Lutheran woman's synod?
What is this, Helen Santmeyer's Ohio Town?
Well I’m glad to see you have moved on from obnoxious to just plain nasty.
Palin plot?” <<<
I didn’t say “Palin plot”. You have me mixed up with another poster. I said, the poster of the thread was a Palin supporter. I added “Palin Adulation Syndrome”, just referring to the vociferous Palin fans. That’s not nasty.
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.