Posted on 10/29/2009 3:45:12 PM PDT by NYer
You wrote:
“Yikes! Did you forget the sarcasm tag there?”
Nope.
“My sister is Baptist and more conservative than me.”
Politically maybe. Religiously, if she is Protestant, then she can only be a Liberal.
“My sister-in-law is Charismatic and militant conservative”
I never said anything about conservative. The opposite of Liberalism - in the religious sense - is not conservatism. It is orthodoxy.
“My brother-in-law and his wife are Evangelical and conservative militant Pro-Life”
And they’re still Liberals - religiously. It cannot be any other way.
“My niece-in-law is from an independent Bible Church and conservative.”
No, she is a Liberal no matter how conservative her political views. I never said anything about conservative political views.
“I would say that I know as many Protestant conservatives as Catholic conservatives.”
I never mentioned conservatives.
I’m not vouching for this website, but they at least have the book Liberalism is a Sin posted there:
http://www.liberalismisasin.com/
Then, I, as a very conservative, non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern/Oriental Orthodox - but Christian still - kindly request a correction to your statement that I am therefore a liberal. You are quite WRONG on that point!
No Catholic who takes his religion half-way seriously should subscribe to the NYT.
Well, Archbishop Dolan has no control over the others, except for his considerable personal influence. The Catholic conference has been in a something rebellious state since 1968.
Hilariously, this thread has proven the very point Archbishop Dolan was trying to make, as some of FR’s very own regularly (indeed, in the case of one of them, CONSTANTLY) ranting anti-Catholic posters have wasted no time jumping right in!
Nice going, guys!
The NY Times is run by a cabal of deranged, Marxist fairies. What else would you expect from them?
You wrote:
“Well, good, I see you are backtracking a bit and now saying you were not talking about “politics”.”
I’m not back tracking one bit. My comments have been consistent throughout and always are.
“It is STILL a dumb statement and especially as a reply to a paper about political liberals trashing Catholics.”
It is not a dumb statement and is grounded in the wisdom of the Church. And religious Liberalism is linked to political liberalism.
“Is it okay to trash other Christians?”
Correct descriptions trash no one.
You wrote:
“Then, I, as a very conservative, non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern/Oriental Orthodox - but Christian still - kindly request a correction to your statement that I am therefore a liberal.”
My statement was not incorrect in the least and you deserve exactly no change of statement.
“You are quite WRONG on that point!”
I am not wrong in the least.
Somehow I get the feeling Ted Kennedy voted for Obama. He was obviously a real Catholic, since he was served the Eucharist in Roman Catholic churches. And since the Roman Catholic Church sez he was a Catholic, FR opinions on his not being a real Catholic are moot.
My understanding is that although Ted Kennedy went to Mass regularly, he did not present himself for Communion. At least he didn’t at the Papal Mass.
If voting for Obama or McCain or any of the political clowns is definition of liberal/conservative, then indeed there are plenty “liberal” communion-receving Catholics. But if you look at the political philosophy that comes out of Catholicism you will find that the very idea that getting someone elected constitutes legitimate government is laughable. It is a very Protestant idea, same kind of mental infection that is your private interpretation of the Holy Scripture. Protestantism is a form of liberalism. Vladimir is absolutely right.
Pro-murder Democratic Roman Catholic politicians partake in the Eucarist. Since they are not forbidden, but welcome to the table they are "real Catholics." That was my point.
Now, which Christian group would that be, that holds to the big lie that individual judgement in the area of interpreting the Scripture may supercede and even publicly protest the judgement of the Church?
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.
Say Amen?
So who would that be?
Not I, according to many RCs here.
Trent, they have said, only applies to those who lived in the time of the decree.
So why haven’t the pro-murder politicos been booted.
Someone who pings the moderator as much as you probably shouldn't make that comment.
MUWAH HAHAHAHAHA
************
One might expect that someone would have the integrity to at least use the full quote before commenting.
The condemnation of private interpretation of the scripture, that I quoted, is an infallible decree for all times.
Regarding excommunications, the Church does not do that in haste. Remember, Christ came to heal those who are sick, not to condemn them.
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.