Posted on 07/23/2008 2:47:21 PM PDT by Pyro7480
When Gov. Alfred E. Smith ran for president in 1928, his candidacy was derailed in large part by anti-Catholic prejudice. It has been nearly 48 years since John F. Kennedy became the first (and so far only) Roman Catholic president, but experts say that anti-Catholic sentiment — much of it originating in, or as a response to, immigrants in New York — remains an enduring force in American culture.
That was the consensus of a panel assembled at the Museum of the City of New York on Tuesday night to consider the question, “Is Anti-Catholicism Dead?”
...The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus — a leading conservative intellectual, a former Lutheran pastor and the editor of the leading Catholic journal First Things — offered a surprising view on the question.
“To be a Catholic is not to be refused positions of influence in our society,” he said. “Indeed, one of the most acceptable things is to be a bad Catholic, and in the view of many people, the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.”
...He added that anti-Catholicism was as likely to come from the left — sometimes from commentators who believe that a “threatening theological insurgency is engineered and directed by Catholics,” with evangelical Protestants merely as the movement’s “foot soldiers.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Please see Annalex's posts on this thread, particularly POST 312.
Annalex has told us all that if a Protestant willingly and knowingly denies Rome's "Marian dogma" he will go to hell. Period.
Trent is still in effect. When and if Rome wants to become "tolerant" it can abolish the anathemas still over the heads of all Bible-believing Christians.
Thank God for the separation that geography and (hopefully) anonymity provide.
Annalex, I am sure that “doc” meant to ping you when she was soiling your name.
Unlike those who defend an improper spelling of the word "judgment."
The only reason the word "judgement" appears in some dictionaries as an alternate, secondary spelling is because so many have used the incorrect spelling it is becoming commonplace.
Much like the errors of Rome. People get used to them and so it doesn't seem like it's any big deal to err against God in such a mannter.
Anathemata refer to doctrines, not to people.
Certain doctrines, for example, those invented by Luther, indeed are, and always will be, anathema. That means that an informed freely undertaken belief in them is a grave sin and if unrepented, leads to Hell.
But the rub is in this “informed”, “freely undertaken”, and “unrepented”. Anyone can repent and convert in his heart, — therefore we cannot say if Luther is himself in hell. There is this anecdote: someone is mourning his relative who committed suicide by jumping off a bridge. Yet the priest explained to him: do not presume that he is in hell on the account of that mortal sin. There was plenty of time after the feet left the railings and the head hit the water.
Further, one may grow into a non-Catholic environment and in his most ardent desire to unite to Christ have false beliefs inculcated in him by his community of faith. That is not then an informed decision of free will: he was mislead by his pastor and parents. Such man will be judged on his works but not on the imperfections of his belief. Or one may be unaware that the doctrine was anathemized and be in a sincere error. There are many exculpatory scenarios depending on one’s culture, personal history, and education. This is why we never presume damnation, and we only proclaim factual salvation of canonized saints. All we do is point out false doctrines.
Soooooooooo
thoughtful and kind when a rabid RC rep notes when someone in the pack has cushioned a truth-arrow’s trajectory.
Thanks.
INDEED.
RUBBER PONTIFICATING at all costs.
Thank you.
Believing Mary to be a mediator between God and men when that office belongs to Christ alone is idolatry.
And what do I mean by that? An extreme example is the Jehovah's Witnesses who think that the very shape of a cross makes God angry. They argue that Jesus was not crucified but "impaled", by which they seem to mean not by what most of us mean by "impale" — to be run through, usually lengthwise, by a stake — but suspended from a stake in the ground. So they say that the mere use of a cross is bad because some pagans used that shape in their worship or syumbolism or somesuch. The fact that subsequent generations have made mush of a cross in complete and sincere ignorance or rejection of any possible pagan meaning cuts no ice with them. The cross shape is BAD.
So because some pagans had a notion of a queen of heaven who was probably a fertility-mystery figure, blending Isis, Hera and Aphrodite, (Lewis has a fine such goddess in Til We Have Faces), therefore the very phrase "Queen of Heaven" must not be used in any sense at all, even if it means to denote the Mother of our Lord who by His act was given great honor in heaven.It's a kind of irrational superstition and the sort of fearfulness from which our Lord came to set us free. We celebrate the far beyond our imagining mercy of Jesus and they mistake us for worshippers of some fertility goddess because we say something which sounds like something those other people said.
False again.
There are a billion Bible-believing Christians with no anathemas over their heads, for they are Catholics.
God bless you, — I, too have stuff to do today. Beautiful post.
Absurd and sophomoric.
More evidence, Dr. E. . . .
suggesting that
English and probably other Protty languages just don’t translate across the Tiber.
Well put.
Precisely put, brother. I wish I’d written it.
If I had a quarter...
No gibberish rule (NGR) invoked.
More proddie incoherent silliness
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.