Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...
Guess what? The Roman Catholic Douay Rheims Bible says the exact same thing.
(48) And the Gentiles hearing it, were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to life everlasting, believed.
Let's see what Calvin says about the verse...
The matter of the Gentiles' joy was this, [viz.] when they heard that they were not called to salvation at a sudden, as if this had not been decreed before by God, but that that is now at length fulfilled which was foretold many years before. For doubtless it was small confirmation of their faith, because salvation was promised to them by the coming of Christ, whereby it did also come to pass that they did with more earnest desire and reverence embrace the gospel. To glorify the word of God may be expounded two manner of ways, either that they did confess that it was true which was prophesied by Isaiah, or that they embraced the doctrine which was set before them with faith. Assuredly there is a full subscription noted out, because they dispute or doubt no longer, so soon as they saw that Paul had gotten the victory. And surely we do then honor the word of God as we ought, when we submit ourselves obediently to it by faith; as it cannot be more grievously blasphemed than when men refuse to believe it. And here we see how the Gentiles were not hindered, by that stubbornness which they saw in the Jews, from giving their name to Christ. With like courage 4 must we despise and tread under foot the pride of the wicked, when, by their obstinacy, they study to stop the way before us. And they believed. This is an exposition of the member next going before, at least in my judgment.: For Luke showeth what manner [of] glory they gave to the word of God. And here we must note the restraint, [reservation,] when he saith that they believed, (but) not all in general, but those who were ordained unto life. And we need not doubt but that Luke calleth those tetagmenouv, who were chosen by the free adoption of God. For it is a ridiculous cavil to refer this unto the affection of those which believed, as if those received the gospel whose minds were well-disposed. For this ordaining must be understood of the eternal counsel of God alone. Neither doth Luke say that they were ordained unto faith, but unto life; because the Lord doth predestinate his unto the inheritance of eternal life. And this place teacheth that faith dependeth upon God's election. And assuredly, seeing that the whole race of mankind is blind and stubborn, those diseases stick fast in our nature until they be redressed by the grace of the Spirit, and that redressing floweth from the fountain of election alone. For in that of two which hear the same doctrine together, the one showeth himself apt to be taught, the other continueth in his obstinacy. It is not, therefore, because they differ by nature, but because God doth lighten [illumine] the former, and doth not vouchsafe the other the like grace. We are, indeed, made the children of God by faith; as faith, as touching us, is the gate and the first beginning of salvation; but there is a higher respect of God. For he doth not begin to choose us after that we believe; but he sealeth his adoption, which was hidden in our hearts, by the gift of faith, that it may be manifest and sure. For if this be proper to the children of God alone to be his disciples, it followeth that it doth not appertain unto all the children of Adam in general. No marvel, therefore, if all do not receive the gospel; 6 because, though our heavenly Father inviteth all men unto the faith by the external voice of man, yet doth he not call effectually by his Spirit any save those whom he hath determined to save. Now, if God's election, whereby he ordaineth us unto life, be the cause of faith and salvation, there remaineth nothing for worthiness or merits. Therefore, let us hold and mark that which Luke saith, that those were ordained before unto life, who, being in-grafted into the body of Christ by faith, do receive the earnest and pledge of their adoption in Christ. Whence we do also gather what force the preaching of the gospel hath of itself. For it doth not find faith in men, save only because God doth call those inwardly whom he hath chosen, and because he draweth those who were his own before unto Christ, (John 6:37.) Also Luke teacheth in the same words, that it cannot be that any of the elect should perish. For he saith not that one or a few of the elect did believe, but so many as were elect. For though God's election be unknown to us until we perceive it by faith, yet is it not doubtful or in suspense in his secret counsel; because he commendeth all those whom he counteth his to the safeguard and tuition of his Son, who will continue a faithful keeper even unto the end. Both members are necessary to be known. When election is placed above faith, there is no cause why men should challenge to themselves any thing in any part of their salvation. For if faith, wherein consisteth salvation, which is unto us a witness of the free adoption of God, which coupleth us to Christ, and maketh his life ours, whereby we possess God with his righteousness, and, finally, whereby we receive the grace of sanctification, be grounded without us in the eternal counsel of God; what good things so ever we have, we must needs acknowledge that we have received it of the grace of God, which doth prevent us of its own accord. Again, because many entangle themselves in doubtful and thorny imaginations, whilst that they seek for their salvation in the hidden counsel of God, let us learn that the election of God is therefore approved by faith, that our minds may be turned unto Christ as unto the pledge of election, and that they may seek no other certainty save that which is revealed to us in the gospel; I say, let this seal suffice us, that
And when the Gentiles heard.
"whosoever believeth in the only-begotten Son of God hath eternal life," (John 3:36.)
“Hmm, somebody else who has no clue about the history of the Scriptures. Suggest that you look it up. You may be surprised when you compare it to your platitudes.”
Nice try; if the only reply is baiting and no reference except to “look it up,” it means you have nothing. But wait... you never did.
Again — Fail.
My platitudes come straight from the Scripture... so please do tell: are they breathed-out by God, or not?
You must be watching CNN. It was never the teaching of the Church. It wasn't even thought about until after the death of Augustine and it was summarily dismissed until Calvin disinterred it. Now, like Frankenstein's monster, it lumbers around the fringe of Christianity.
The idea that all of Protestantism is Calvinistic, or that it historically did not emphasize repentance and works, or that anything close to all believes that the Bible does not warn of souls casting away their faith or denying it by impenitent sinning, (Gal. 5:1-4); Heb. 10:25-38) is not true.
As for denoms, an informational chart w/ the position on eternal security (Wesleyan or Arminian usually no), is at the top of this page: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2020660/posts
Stats:
Pastors who embrace the term “Wesleyan or Arminian” currently account for 32% of the Protestant church landscape – the same as those who claim to be Reformed.
The director of the study, David Kinnaman, clarified that respondents were not given definitions of these terms. [this can mean a wide variation in degree and emphasis]
Despite the common public view of Reformed churches being doctrinally conservative, a greater proportion of these leaders described themselves as “theologically liberal” than was true among Wesleyan/Arminian leaders (17% versus 13%). - http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/447-reformed-movement-in-american-churches
Charismatics are found throughout the fabric of American Christianity. Although just 8% of the population is evangelical, half of evangelical adults (49%) fit the charismatic definition. A slight majority of all born again Christians (51%) is charismatic. Nearly half of all adults who attend a Protestant church (46%) are charismatic.
36% of Americans accept that designation. That corresponds to approximately 80 million adults. (For the Barna survey, this included people who said they were a charismatic or Pentecostal Christian, that they had been “filled with the Holy Spirit” and who said they believe that “the charismatic gifts, such as tongues and healing, are still valid and active today.”)
research showed that one-third of all U.S. Catholics (36%) fit the charismatic classification. Framed differently, almost one-quarter of all charismatics in the U.S. (22%) are Catholic.
7% of Southern Baptist churches and 6% of mainline churches are charismatic, according to their Senior Pastors. - http://www.barna.org/congregations-articles/52-is-american-christianity-turning-charismatic
*Calvin, in his Institutes,, states: “With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31)” (p. 592); and, “surely no one can embrace the grace of the gospel without betaking himself from the errors of past life into the right way, applying his whole effort to the practice of repentance” (Book III, p. 593). “Repentance has its foundation in the gospel, which faith embraces” ( Book III, Chapter 3, p. 593)
“To repent of sin and to believe in Christ as a Savior from sin are really two aspects of one and the same spiritual transaction...Some recognition of Christ and some measure of appropriating faith must thus be involved in all true repentance On the other hand such recognizing and appropriating faith seems to require as its condition some deep consciousness of sin and guilt and impending doom such as will impel the convicted soul to look away unto Jesus for the deliverance it needs.
The practical fact is no one repents worthily except in the sight and vision of as a possible Savior from sin nor does any one truly attain sight and vision of Christ without finding his wicked nature subdued within him and his eyes filled with penitential tears. Whether therefore we place faith first and repentance subsequent as the Symbols do or reverse the order of the two elements should never forget that both are in reality parts of the gracious experience logically set in a certain procession chronologically and spiritually one and inseparable. So we ever interpret the tender injunction so often repeated in the Testament Repent and Believe.
The biblical conception of acceptable repentance is well in the language 87 of the [Westminster] Shorter Catechism a saving whereby a sinner out of a true sense of his sin and of the mercy of God in Christ doth with grief and hatred of sin turn from it unto God with full purpose of and endeavor new obedience.
The Larger Catechism 76 expands the in terms but adds nothing except that this saving grace is to be wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word God. The [Westminster] Confession emphasizes the sense of the filthiness odiousness of sin as contrary to the holy nature and righteous of God and defines the scope of repentance in the declaration the penitent soul is henceforth resolved to walk with God in the ways of his commandments. Other descriptive phrases in the Minutes 279 and elsewhere Such an experience is course to be radically differentiated from all experiences might seem to be in any way related to it from natural arising from some perception of the loss or other harmful consequence providential or retributive that may be following indulgence in transgression from moral remorse the sting outraged conscience in view not so much of evil results from a sinful course but rather of the intrinsic wrong the of wickedness in the sight of the personal reason and judgment that must rise up occasionally in every soul not seared and deadened by personal sin also from what may be termed penitence
Calvin has comprehensively defined acceptable repentance as a true conversion of our life to God proceeding from a sincere and serious fear of God and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and of the old man and in the vivification of the Spirit.
The Augsburg Confession Art XII says Repentance consisteth properly of two parts one is contrition or terrors stricken into the conscience through the acknowledgment or recognition of sin the other is faith which is conceived by the Gospel and doth believe that for the sake of Christ sins be forgiven and comforteth the conscience and freeth it from terrors.
The Catechism of Heidelberg defines repentance as twofold the dying of the old man and the quickening of the new heartfelt sorrow for sin on the one side causing us to hate it and turn from it always more and more heartfelt joy in God on the other side causing us to take delight in living according to the will of God in all good works.
The Second Helvetic Conf teaches that repentance is a change of heart produced in a sinner by the word of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit and includes a knowledge of native and actual depravity a godly sorrow and hatred of sin and a determination to live hereafter in virtue and holiness.
Repentance say the Irish Articles 40 is a gift of God whereby godly sorrow is wrought in the heart of the faithful for offending God their merciful Father through their former transgressions together with a constant resolution for the time to come to cleave unto God and to lead a new life One of the Confessions embodies the whole in the simple declaration that true repentance is turning to God and all good and turning away from the devil and all evil Nearly all of the Protestant creeds contain similar definitions though with some confusion in many cases between repentance and faith on one hand and repentance and conversion as a consequence of faith on the other.” — THE WESTMINSTER SYMBOLS, pp. 482-83 by Edward D Morris D D LL D Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology In Lane Theological Seminary, 1900
Thomas Watson, an old Puritan, said in The Doctrine of Repentance, “Two great graces essential to a saint in this life are faith and repentance. These are the two wings by which he flies to heaven.” “Christians, do you have a sad resentment of other things and not of sin? Worldly tears fall to the earth, but godly tears are kept in a bottle (Ps. 56.8). Judge not holy weeping superfluous. Tertullian thought he was born for no other end but to repent.” “It is a bad sign when a man on his deathbed bequeaths his soul to God and his illgotten goods to his friends. I can hardly think God will receive his soul. Augustine said, ‘Without restitution, no remission’. And it was a speech of old Latimer, If ye restore not goods unjustly gotten, ye shall cough in hell.”
When God begins to draw me to Himself, the problem of my will comes in immediately. Will I react positively to the truth that God has revealed? Will I come to Him? To discuss or deliberate over spiritual matters when God calls is inappropriate and disrespectful to Him. When God speaks, never discuss it with anyone as if to decide what your response may be (see Galatians 1:15-16). Belief is not the result of an intellectual act, but the result of an act of my will whereby I deliberately commit myself. But will I commit, placing myself completely and absolutely on God, and be willing to act solely on what He says? If I will, I will find that I am grounded on reality as certain as God’s throne.
In preaching the gospel, always focus on the matter of the will. Belief must come from the will to believe. There must be a surrender of the will, not a surrender to a persuasive or powerful argument. I must deliberately step out, placing my faith in God and in His truth. And I must place no confidence in my own works, but only in God. Trusting in my own mental understanding becomes a hindrance to complete trust in God. I must be willing to ignore and leave my feelings behind. I must will to believe. But this can never be accomplished without my forceful, determined effort to separate myself from my old ways of looking at things. I must surrender myself completely to God. — My Utmost for His Highest (The Golden Book of Oswald Chambers;1992, “The Drawing of the Father”)
The sedevacantists do teach error, as do the Jansenites, as did the Cathars, as did the Marcionists et al. The fact that they can teach error from correct Scripture demonstrates that while Scripture is written as intended (inerrant), it cannot be infallible which refers to outcomes of interpretation.
Where is infallibility defined as outcome of interpretation? NCE, Infallibility: “The supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.” “when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching...nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility.” Also, Orig. Catholic Encyclopedia: “infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error.”
Yey again (consistent to your definition), the fact that sedevacantists can teach error from (presumably) correct magisterial teaching demonstrates that the magisterium cannot be infallible which refers to outcomes of interpretation.
It [infallibility] has to do with not only the words but with the interpretation of them. If I can defend a heresy using only Scriptural quotations, then the idea that the Bible cannot teach wrong is rendered invalid.
If Scripture says what it is meant to mean, it is inerrant. If it is interpreted correctly, the interpretation is infallible.
Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus . . . reaffirmed the decisions of the Council of Trent and emphasized that the Bible in all its parts was inspired and that a stated fact must be accepted as falling under inspiration, down to the most insignificant item; that is, the whole Bible is the Word of God. "Origin, Inspiration, and History of the Bible" preface in New American Bible, Church Edition
So first 1 is redefined from pure transmission to one that cannot have bad reception, yet a certain receiver is assuredly infallible even though it can be misapprehended or misconstrued.
And (consistent to your definition) thus the words of the Lord Jesus and prophecies concerning Him were not inerrant or infallible (presuming a distinction) when such spoke about Him and Hs death and resurrection to His disciples, because they were misunderstood.
What is correct? We believe that the Catholic Church (not just the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome) was given the Holy Spirit to watch over the Church and to guide it through its responsibilities which include interpretation.
As said before, Rome's claim is based upon her infallible declaration that she is who she says she is, according to her AIM, which is infallibly declared to be infallible when speaking in accordance with her infallibly declared formula. And which presumes that she is worthy of the implicit trust that she requires.
We understand that is your belief, which is not the issue, but how one ascertains this, as one cannot know for sure from the Scriptures, which you assure us cannot be. Contd below. As for “Catholic Church,” what is not said in your careful wording is what this includes. If the infallible magisterium includes the Orthodox, then it excludes the Roman papacy, and her purgatory, etc.
We have the Faith that she is, handed down for 2000 years and supported by Scripture and other documentation. That is what I, as well as all Catholics, believe.
But since “Scripture cannot be infallible” by your definition, nor (by your rationale) any other source that can be misconstrued, then one cannot assuredly know from it that the RCC is the OTC, to whose infallible magisterium he should implicitly submit. And if that is the only infallible sources, then one he needs to submit to it in order to ascertain that it is infallible.
However writings were established as being Scripture and the faith was preserved (among a remnant, per usual) in the Old Testament without an assuredly infallible magisterium.
Nor is authenticity assured by formal historical decent (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44) nor is that required for authenticity under the New Covenant, though formal ordination is the norm, but the authenticity of a true believer or church is based upon Abrahamic type faith in the gospel of grace, (Rm. 2:28,29) with its Scriptural conformity and transformative effects which attests to it, by which faith the church has its members. (1Cor. 22:13) And as God could raise up children to Abraham from stones, so he can save souls in the desert and raise up bodies from stones like Peter who effectually confess the Lord Jesus, which continue to build His church, and perpetuate it, as it overcomes by faith.
your fellow RCs basically tell us that it is (capital C) and the rest need to submit to her
Which ones?
You mean which ones tell us that the RCC is the one true Church? And that we need to submit to her? Surely you know which ones do not is the question.
Well, there are chauvinists of every stripe. The fact is that the Church is the Church, made up of the five original sees.
They would hardly agree with your reproof or disunity. But besides my aforementioned statements as regards authenticity, in the past a stricter understanding as regards what was formally necessary for salvation seems to be in evidence:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff.. Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, #8 http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanto.htm
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38
LUMEN GENTIUM: 16. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26)
For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...
They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
This does lead to somewhat of an agreement inasmuch as somebody needs to interpret these words - either the Church Magisterium or somebody else, often in the comfort of their own home.
That the assuredly infallible magisterium (“AIM” for future use) does not prevent the need for fallible interpretation is what should see agreement.
Not sure what you mean here
That what is obvious is that that the assuredly infallible magisterium does not prevent the need for fallible interpretation, though it provides parameters. And evangelical SS type churches have their core truth and parameters as well, and evidence even more unity among members in certain core truths and moral values, despite diversity.
Your excerpts do not indicate that Luther thought that men were predestined to hell. There is nothing that says this in your quote. Do you have more?
Based on moonshine, certainly. Where are the verses that indicate that Luther believed in predestination to hell?
Yes, fatalism is very often fatal.
I am. For any reason, excepting self defense and the defense of my own.
Thanks for the input, but the comparison is mainly btwn evangelicals as a sub group of Prots as well as RCs, and what is being effectually conveyed, if not necessarily officially taught, while regardless of total persons the percentage is what is relevant.
If you quote from a certain cartoon website, I would have the same reply. The same mindset, the same propaganda.
Nice try; if the only reply is baiting and no reference except to “look it up,” it means you have nothing. But wait... you never did.
Are you saying that the KJV materialized in everybody's hand back in the year 29?
My platitudes come straight from the Scripture... so please do tell: are they breathed-out by God, or not?
What do you mean breathed-out? Do you mean dictated?
That's very encouraging. Thanks.
Belief must come from the will to believe. There must be a surrender of the will, not a surrender to a persuasive or powerful argument. I must deliberately step out, placing my faith in God and in His truth. And I must place no confidence in my own works, but only in God. Trusting in my own mental understanding becomes a hindrance to complete trust in God. I must be willing to ignore and leave my feelings behind. I must will to believe. But this can never be accomplished without my forceful, determined effort to separate myself from my old ways of looking at things. I must surrender myself completely to God.
Amen And all that is only accomplished after the Holy Spirit has regenerated a person to know the things of God, to repent, obey and believe.
All good things come from God, including our ability to discern right from wrong, to loathe our sins, to love Christ and to sorrow for offending our perfect Creator. God willing, He will "give (us) repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Tim. 2:25)
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13 "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
Christians yes but Catholics don't. They have their own bible, the catechism. Their traditions nullify God's Word.
This is why the Reformation is so damaging to men's souls. They have taught people that the Word of God is not Jesus, it is whatever book that happens to be in their hands.
“The comparison is mainly btwn evangelicals as a sub group of Prots as well as RCs, and what is being effectually conveyed””
Is there some group of Evangelicals that are thought of as a higher class of sub groups in evangelicanism that knows better than other protestants?
Seems very strange if this is true
We have a very Christian minded neighbour with a compact Kubota tractor who assisted us very very well. Even so, it took nearly half an hour to clear our driveway alone!!! And it is only about 50 feet long!!!
Where is infallibility defined as outcome of interpretation? NCE, Infallibility: “The supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.” “when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching...nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility.” Also, Orig. Catholic Encyclopedia: “infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error.”
Yey again (consistent to your definition), the fact that sedevacantists can teach error from (presumably) correct magisterial teaching demonstrates that the magisterium cannot be infallible which refers to outcomes of interpretation.
The sedevacantists hold with Church teaching on Scripture; they do not hold with the succession of the Popes, which is extra-Scriptural.
We understand that is your belief, which is not the issue, but how one ascertains this, as one cannot know for sure from the Scriptures, which you assure us cannot be. Contd below. As for “Catholic Church,” what is not said in your careful wording is what this includes. If the infallible magisterium includes the Orthodox, then it excludes the Roman papacy, and her purgatory, etc.
The differences are in the Latin penchant for definition, whereas the Orthodox are Greek and prefer to leave certain things as undefined.
That what is obvious is that that the assuredly infallible magisterium does not prevent the need for fallible interpretation, though it provides parameters. And evangelical SS type churches have their core truth and parameters as well, and evidence even more unity among members in certain core truths and moral values, despite diversity.
SS type?
I have no intention of debating U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East with anyone. It’s not an area that I know enough about to debate and it doesn’t really bear upon the subject I was discussing.
As I said: Nixon had a Quaker background and Kennedy was Catholic but Viet Nam, for example, was neither A Quaker or Catholic war. So the truth of the below......well, views may vary. I don’t do policy analysis’s for the U.S. government.
My point being, and I shouldn’t have to explain it as obvious as it is, is that the religious background of the presidents makes little difference in U.S. foreign policy.
“It (Catholic Encyclopedia)does not have full authority - the stamp is of a local bishop which says that he can find nothing wrong with it. As I said, I find it useful but not completely authoritative. Many of the articles are a century old and the site is a private one, not a Church one”
Thank you, we are in agreement then but that really has nothing to say about whether the aforesaid is accurate in what it says reflecting Catholic belief and practice.
If it is not I’m sure you can point that out.
lol. You continually tell other FReepers to do your homework for you.
Figures.
Ask aruanan. He posted some of the excerpts (and he correctly attributed them both as to their authorship and content.)
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.