Skip to comments.
A Deeper Look at the Many Evangelicals Turning Catholic
NC Register ^
| August 5, 2010
| MATTHEW WARNER
Posted on 08/05/2010 12:36:10 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 221-225 next last
To: Natural Law; Alex Murphy
Not surprising that your paragon of truth and objectivity publically endorsed Obama for President and was fired from the National Review and is now writing what amounts to a gossip column for Tina Brown... Catholics put obama in office, as they did Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi and any other number of liberal, Democratic politicians.
The Catholic vote could go a long way to turning this country back to conservatism. Too bad most Catholics are so liberal.
Given your church's voting history, you're in no position to cast stones about people's political views.
141
posted on
08/05/2010 9:47:24 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Natural Law; ansel12
Patently not true. "But when we hear that 54 percent of American Catholics voted for President Obama last November, and that this somehow shows a sea change in their social thinking, we can reasonably ask: How many of them practice their faith on a regular basis? And when we do that, we learn that most practicing Catholics actually voted for Senator McCain." - Archbishop Charles Chaput.It's really irrelevant whether they practice their faith regularly. The Catholic church is more than happy to count them as members in spite of that.
It should own them under all circumstances, or start enforcing its own teachings and deny them communion and not count them as part of that one billion strong.
142
posted on
08/05/2010 9:50:28 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: gedeon3
In larger evangelical groups I’ve been a part of 1/4 t 1/3 were ex-Catholics....who never heard the gospel or clear biblical teaching in the ceremony-only Churches of their youth.
With Beckwith and others...they just returned to the Church of their youth. And some, like Scott Hahn were fraudulently hyped...”Presbyterian minister” my eye! He went to seminary, and was an elder in tiny tiny house church—and while teaching at a Christian school (where he had fraudulently sworn that he believed their statement of faith—when at the time he did not) converted to Rome. His real story is not nearly as dramatic as the spin about it.
I can’t say I’m worried about any Evangelical-to-Roman Catholic trend, as there are far more ex-Roman Catholics in Evangelical circles, than ex-Evangelicals in Roman Catholic circles.
To: Natural Law
Interesting that the years you cited in your chart are the same years that Ronald Reagan voted Democrat. No they aren't, in 1952 for instance Reagan was already publicly campaigning for Eisenhower, and again in 1956 and also against John F. Kennedy in 1960 and so on.
144
posted on
08/05/2010 9:52:12 PM PDT
by
ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
To: metmom
"Catholics put obama in office,.." There are many who never learned or lived their Catholic faith (like you), but as stated by Archbishop Charles Chaput: "But when we hear that 54 percent of American Catholics voted for President Obama last November, and that this somehow shows a sea change in their social thinking, we can reasonably ask: How many of them practice their faith on a regular basis? And when we do that, we learn that most practicing Catholics actually voted for Senator McCain."
145
posted on
08/05/2010 9:52:57 PM PDT
by
Natural Law
(Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
To: Clemenza
The Papists and Cromwellites can fight all they want: The fastest growing religious demographic in the US is the nonreligious.
"Non-religious" a nice way of saying, "those who are addicted to their vices" or "those who have made themselves god."
146
posted on
08/05/2010 9:53:31 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(It's a degenerate society where dogs have more legal rights than unborn babies.)
To: Natural Law
LOL, yes it is patently true, 54% of Catholics voted for Obama.
147
posted on
08/05/2010 9:56:32 PM PDT
by
ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
To: RnMomof7
The numbers leaving the Rc are enormous ..one need only look at the empty churches to see it..
Really? When was the last time you were in a Catholic Church? Ours is full. We generally have 25-40 converts in our parish alone each year.
Here are the facts for those of you who are invincibly ignorant: Those dioceses that have been punished with a liberal bishop are dying. Those dioceses where the bishop is faithful to the teachings and traditions of the Church are thriving.
148
posted on
08/05/2010 9:58:54 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(It's a degenerate society where dogs have more legal rights than unborn babies.)
To: RnMomof7
Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reigns of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome.
The historical obtuseness of this post is stunning. First of all, it's got a really moronic spelling error. (reins, not reigns). Second of all, it draws from a pagan source, Zosimus, who wrote 170 years after Constantine's death and *hated* him with a blinding passion.
So we have Protestants using pagan Zosimus to excoriate the first Christian emperor of Rome. Doesn't that strike you as just the slightest bit strange?
149
posted on
08/05/2010 10:04:13 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(It's a degenerate society where dogs have more legal rights than unborn babies.)
To: Natural Law
"But when we hear that 54 percent of American Catholics voted for President Obama last November, and that this somehow shows a sea change in their social thinking, How would that show a sea change, Catholics have been voting liberal since they started arriving in the 1830s and 1840s.
Gore got their vote in 2000. Obama in 2008, Clinton cleaned up with them of course.
150
posted on
08/05/2010 10:04:23 PM PDT
by
ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
To: NYer
151
posted on
08/05/2010 11:57:48 PM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: NYer
When push comes to shove, a world-view trumps a navel-view. Too often, evangelical Christians present and understand their faith in Schleiermacher's terms, as a sub-rational intense
experience. When life throws a curve-ball at you, though, and your experiences are contradicting your expectations, it takes cold, hard, theological facts to keep your life on track. If the pulpit does not offer content, our people will go where they can find some.
In another trend, many thoughtful evangelicals are also embracing the more rigorous and fact-oriented branch of our own tradition, the Calvinist approach to understanding "life, the universe, and everything." This is causing some turmoil among Baptists -- Ergun Caner, the recently disgraced and demoted dean of the Liberty University School of Theology had a passion for impugning Calvinists.
152
posted on
08/06/2010 1:15:15 AM PDT
by
RJR_fan
(Christians need to reclaim and excel in the genre of science fiction.)
To: HKMk23
To: Genoa
>> “swimming the Tiber.” More picturesque.
What a horrid thought.
154
posted on
08/06/2010 2:04:32 AM PDT
by
Gene Eric
(Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
To: GailA
Gail, I'm glad you left the bastard - but you know very well the Catholic Church does not
prohibit divorce, and that being civilly divorced is NOT a bar to the sacraments.
What the Catholic Church prohibits is remarriage after divorce if the other party is alive.
Crazy as it seems, this does appear to conform to Matthew 19 and all of Christian history prior to about 1950.
155
posted on
08/06/2010 2:13:49 AM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(If the answer is "Republican", it must be a stupid question.)
To: Clemenza; NYer; Petronski; All
The Papists and Cromwellites can fight all they wantYes they can (and they love to do it), but they are disobedient when they do so:
Mark 9:38-41
38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man 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. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
156
posted on
08/06/2010 2:19:10 AM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(If the answer is "Republican", it must be a stupid question.)
Comment #157 Removed by Moderator
To: metmom; GailA
People who blame the victim are despicable. Youre accusing her of something which you have no knowledge of. The only thing that sounds nasty is you. And Catholics wonder why people leave the Catholic church. Yeah the problem is that I do know what I am talking about. She knew on the very first date that something was "a bit off", but she chose to ignore it. And worse she stuck with him after the first time he hit her, and subjected her children to it.
The children are the only victims here, after the first punch, hit, or slap, she was a willing particpant.
158
posted on
08/06/2010 3:38:37 AM PDT
by
verga
(I am not an apologist, I just play one on Television)
To: Bosco
Well, I can tell you that my departure from the RCC involved none of the list you supply. Nice language on #4, verga. How does both bitter water and sweet water come from the same spring?You looked for an excuse to justify your departure, iof that makes you feel beter great but that won't do you a bit of good on judgement day.
BTW look at how Jesus described the Pharisee's and Sudduces, and ask me again about bitter and sweet water.
159
posted on
08/06/2010 3:43:02 AM PDT
by
verga
(I am not an apologist, I just play one on Television)
To: metmom; papertyger; GailA
When you talk about someone, youre supposed to use enough FReeper etiquette and ping them. I did ping her, to say other wise is for you to bear false witness
And GailA volunteered nothing that indicated that she knew beforehand that he was abusive.
She didn't have to "volunteer" it, I have worked with more than enough abuse "victims" (Male and Female) to know that each and every one of them knew long before they got married, exactly what they were in for.
There are true victims of abuse, they get out after the very first incident. She didn't there fore she gave tacit approval of the abuse.
Point number two in vergas post was pure speculation on his part. It was totally uncalled for, so, yes, he did accuse her of something of which her had no knowledge, blaming her for marrying a man she knew was abusive. And it remains despicable that he would blame the victim.
Your correct if I was not an expert on abusive situations it would be speculation, the problem is that I have been dealing with it in adults and children male and female for about 15 years.
The problem is that you are so blinded by hatred for the Catholic Church, that you will believe anything nasty about her so that you can attack. This is the part where you say, "Whoa, that Verga is one smart dude, I better apologize and try to make things right."
160
posted on
08/06/2010 3:57:05 AM PDT
by
verga
(I am not an apologist, I just play one on Television)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 221-225 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson