I am through with providing any furthur sunday contributions....This bewildered socialistic cleric need psychiatric help.
Posted on 03/18/2003 4:56:14 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
CANTON, Mar 18, 03 (CWNews.com) -- An American Catholic bishop has forbidden his flock from participating or cooperating in military action against Iraq, under pain of mortal sin. Bishop John Michael Botean, the head of the Romanian Catholic eparchy (diocese) of St. George in Canton, Ohio-- which has jurisdiction over all Byzantine-rite Romanian Catholics living in the US-- invoked the full measure of his authority in a Lenten Letter to his people. The bishop declared with "moral certainty" that the proposed attack on Iraq "does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just-war theory."
The bishop announced that he "must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin."
Bishop Botean acknowledged that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2309) identifies public authorities as the final judges of whether military action is justified. But he argued that "the nation-state is never the final arbiter or authority for the Catholic of what is moral." An unjust law or order should not be obeyed, he observed.
Writing with obvious emotion, the Romanian Catholic prelate admitted that "I would much prefer to keep silent." And he pointed out to his people: "Never before have I spoken to you in this manner, explicitly exercising the fullness of authority Jesus Christ has given his apostles." However, he said, he felt a moral burden to guide his people.
Arguing that a military assault on Iraq does not fit the criteria of the just-war tradition, Bishop Botean concluded in stark terms: "Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder."
"The Vatican said Tuesday that countries which decided to wage war on Iraq without the consensus of the international community were assuming great responsibility before God and history."
And here a Bishop says:
"Bishop Botean acknowledged that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2309) identifies public authorities as the final judges of whether military action is justified. But he argued that "the nation-state is never the final arbiter or authority for the Catholic of what is moral." An unjust law or order should not be obeyed, he observed."
Which Catholic authority is correct?
I don't think the Pope could do that if he wanted to ---isn't that only for matters of theology or religion? Not politics?
I haven't left but the Church had better start cleaning house ---it's got too many independent priests and bishops who all think they're some kind of Pope and are making their own rules. Too many involved in politics too ---I sat and listened the priest here ranting and raving against the war and calling Bush the war-monger in the White House, I'll probably look for a new parish.
What I do find interesting is that you, who claim to be a roman catholic (not a Christian, but a roman catholic above all else), claim that this is indeed true; one must have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ to enter the Kingdom of God. Since, in my experience, I have never heard this from anyone in the roman catholic church I'm not sure I believe your claim that your church promotes this. You have nothing to back up your inferred claim that this is so. However, if you would care to leave the name of your priest on the thread I would love to give him a call and discuss the surprising matter with him. Please, also leave your own name since I would wish to give you credit for the post of his personal information.
If, of course you would prefer not to put your money where your mouth is, I perfectly understand. It is of course very irresponsible to post other people's private information on web sites. So, if you're not agreeable to doing it yourself, I would suggest not bringing it up again with asinine demands.
Yes, at the sake of sounding like a Pharisee, I do emphasis the need for a personal relationship with Christ. LOL! You got me there. (/sarcasm)
Ah! But is it catholic moral theology or does the catholic church think more about it's own traditions and political structure than Jesus Chrsit and His teachings. In your re-phrasing of the question you must have forgot to include the descriptor which was the whole point of the comment in the first place. Nice try.
I am through with providing any furthur sunday contributions....This bewildered socialistic cleric need psychiatric help.
It is ALL OVER the new testament, dude! It's what the WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT!
One of the things Christ was sent down here to do was to bring us out from under the Law, sola gratia. To write the Lord's commandments on our hearts. So that we will want to serve Him not because of our needs, but because of what He did on the cross for us. That can only be done through the Spirit as man's unregenerant heart runs from God.
So, if you're not agreeable to doing it yourself, I would suggest not bringing it up again with asinine demands.
I never attacked a religion based on the alleged words of someone else.
Look back to how the Pharisees treated Jesus and his disciples. You are so hung up on how you interpret one should have a relationship with Christ... you've lost site of the whole picture. For example, the Pharisees thought Jesus' disciples were deficient because of their lack of fasting. Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.'' The Pharisees fixated on their practice. They couldn't understand that Jesus' disciple were being true to God.
Am I to understand that you maintain a person is justified only AFTER he is baptized? I see no evidence of this in scripture. In fact, it is quite contrary to scripture. Sola Gratia, Grace alone my friend. Where was the thief who Christ promised paradise to baptized? Where were any of the apostles that were not baptized by John the Baptist baptized? Have you not heard the term baptized by the Holy Spirit or the 'pouring' out of the Holy Spirit? Why would Jesus have required water baptism before that Christian sacrament had even been established? This idea would have been an alien statement to Nicodemus to whom the scripture in John 3:5, of your reference, was addressed. Where does Jesus ever say that being baptized by John was a prerequisite for salvation? John the Baptist was the only dude baptizing with water back then....if you recall, Christ was baptizing with the Holy Spirit!
Man is a sinful soul from the day he is conceived (un-regenerate). If he is a member of the elect, chosen by God before the foundations of the world, at some point in his life the Holy Spirit will act to turn his will from the fleshy and earthly things of this world to things of God....he has become regenerate (at this point he is born-again! Born of the Spirit! He has been drawn to Christ by the Farther). He now has the ability to receive faith, which is a gift from God. Through this faith, he is justified, and through faith alone....not works such as baptism. (Christ did all the work for you on the cross! If all our good works are as dirty rags to the Lord, why would He even think of trading the gift of eternal life (of priceless worth) for your miserable dirty rags of 'works'? Is His sacrifice so cheap as to be purchased with your dirty rags? Don't you value His sacrifice more than that? No, faith is a GIFT....you do not PAY for a gift....a GIFT from God. God has put a seal on you the moment you were justified. He has SEALED us once we BELIEVED and put down a guarantee of our inheritance because we believed! That's it! How difficult do you want to make His beautiful message and plan!?)
And having been justified, we are sanctified...set apart for a purpose, His purpose....
And we continue to work that purpose until the day He completes the deal, the deal that He guaranteed the moment we believed, when we arrive in our eternal home. Then, our sanctification is complete and we are glorified! The sanctified, 'born-again' Christian will perform the works (fruit of the Spirit) he does.... not to acquire anything, but only because he wants to do it... because of the love of Christ; for what Christ did for him on the cross.
It is such a simple message. Catholics have is bass ackwards. God doesn't want your works for atonement or to get into heaven....Christ has performed the only atoning act that the Lord required...it is just left to you to believe with your heart! Do not try to make God your debtor by doing things on earth and then expecting Him to pay you with justification.
In fact, your name proves my overall point. Aquinas was a man. Christ was God. Why is your name not Christfan? Could it be because you apparently want to convey to people that Aquinas, a man, and his views maintain a higher place in your life than Christ's teachings? Maybe that was not your express intent, but very possibly without you even acknowledging it, it is true. And that would be absolutely consistent with what I have observed with the roman catholic church; man over God.
I don't have to. I already have catholics coming out of the woodwork asking me what the term "personal relationship with Christ" means.
QED
No, the Pharisees were fixated on traditions and laws of men. They lost track of the intent of God's Laws and they blinded themselves to scripture in doing so. SAME as the catholic church.
Now this doesn't even make sense. A human in the catholic church...doesn't really take faith seriously. In fact it is such a low priority in their life that they decide to step out and actively devote time to seeking a new church...they find a church that feeds their soul where once they were starving...and they give their lives to Christ and produce fruits of the Spirit.
If someone does not take their faith seriously, obviously they will not be concerned about seeking out Biblically correct sources...they'd just get sucked up in the world.
Come on...please, that argument is just silly.
And the only Evangelicals I have heard that hop over to the catholic faith are those that choose to elevate tradition over scripture. Those most probably occur because the majority of Christians in this day and age profess such a watered down version of Christianity that everything is believable and there is no Truth. Hence, you get the death of the church as seen in merry old England.
No, True Christian faith, as presented in scripture and preached in bold faithfullness by the likes of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon is the one true faith. Other watered down versions of Christian faith, taking away the Sovereingty of God (exalting man's 'free will' Pfth!), adding books over the original cannon and subsequent adoption of additional sacraments, prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, infallability plus more....all goes toward the tearing down of God, Son and Holy Spirit and raising up of man...and that really pisses me off.
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.