Sadly you appear to have bought into the easy-peasy and antiCatholic rhetoric that has lured so many Catholics away from the Faith.
Posted on 07/15/2011 5:01:33 AM PDT by tcg
....some of my colleagues in the world of Catholic media, journalism and the Press have attributed the positions of this Church and Bachmanns past membership to just "being a Protestant." As someone who has worked ecumenically for decades I reject that dismissal. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod does not represent many Protestants. It is an Anti-Catholic body.
....I have worked with, prayed with and collaborated with MANY Protestant Christians, for over three decades, who would NEVER call the successor of Peter the Antichrist. The colleagues to which I refer go further, they seemingly accept the notion that if Protestant Christians felt otherwise they would no longer be Protestant. That is not only overly simplistic, it fails to recognize the substantial issues which divide the broken Body of Christ.
....Some of the other articles I have read ...attempt to dismiss it by pointing to the authors purported political leanings. So, let me speak to that for a moment. I have political leanings. I like Michele Bachmann's positions on the issues which matter most to this Catholic voter. She is pro-Life and defends marriage and the family and society founded upon it.
I appreciate her pledge to reign in the ever expanding size of the Federal government, which I fear threatens the principle of subsidiarity. Finally, I had been impressed with her intelligence, her oratorical skills, her background and her presence. All of this made her my second favorite possible candidate, until now. My first choice is obvious to anyone who reads my ongoing political commentary.
However, her political and policy positions were not the point of Joshua Green's article and focusing upon them may be a form of deflection. Green raised the issue of Michele Bachmann's long standing identification with a Church body which is clearly Anti-Catholic....
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
VERYYY good point. The media doesn't say anything about this -- evidently Bachman is troubling to the left...
The lutherans here, especially the ones IN THE KNOW are calming the influence of the latter group, thankfully
As would the number of non-Catholics who voted for Obama — ...
Agreed, she is. The MSM wants Romney to get the nomination.
And, tcg? I’m still waiting for an answer. Are you giving Romney a pass for being anti-catholic?
Correct. And look at all the lunatics supposedly on the right who simply do not question that. They are the same ones who supported McCain.
And, tcg? I’m still waiting for an answer. Are you giving Romney a pass for being anti-catholic?
I believe that he is, now that you mention it. Well, tcg? Any comments?
Sadly you appear to have bought into the easy-peasy and antiCatholic rhetoric that has lured so many Catholics away from the Faith.
ping to post
Are you Catholic?
Ah.....slightly large group to choose from dontcha think?
“Sadly you appear to have bought into the easy-peasy and antiCatholic rhetoric that has lured so many Catholics away from the Faith.”
You got THAT from;
“I left that church body for a variety of reasons, none of which I need to explain to you”
How, exactly? Or is everyone that is familiar with the teachings of your church but not interested in being a member “anti?”
I did not say "anti". I said that Catholics are being away from the Faith by an appeal to expediency and easiness. Catholics who leave the Faith do so for personal reasons. Converts who join the Faith do so for theological ones. I have never seen any examples of anything to the contrary.
No, I left for reasons that I don’t wish to discuss on a public forum! They are none of your business but certainly have NOTHING to do with easy-peasy BS!
Actually I left for theological reasons in addition to personal reasons. I follow God’s word (the Bible) rather than man’s word (the Catechism/the Catholic church’s interpretation). And just for your information, I’m now much more active than I ever was when a member of the Catholic church and certainly not taking the “easy way”.
So, now you’ve heard of an “example to the contrary”!!!
yes, the overwhelming number of those who did vote for the jerk were non.
In other words this is not a statement about any living Jew or Protestant, but on those who at the hour of death do not join the Church as they face the judgement of Christ.
Protestants believe that people are saved by their faith alone. So naturally, they think that a faith different from theirs condemns to hell. Catholcis know from the Holy Scripture that we are saved by faith and also by our works of love. Therefore it is the totality of your works at the time you die that makes you Catholic and therefore saves you.
This might seem as a confusing point but since you venture into what you think Catholics teach, you should ask a Catholic before you jump to conclusions. I am Catholic, I consider your religion, Protestantism, heretical and a grave danger to your soul; but I do not know if you are going to hell or not; I likewise do not know if I am going to heaven or hell. I know what to do to get to heaven, but I cannot say with certainty who among non-Catholics would go to hell or heaven. They may all go to heaven for all I know; many of them are fine people and much holier than me, and how it happens despite the heresy they profess is a mystery.
On the main topic, I think it is natural for a Protestant to be somewhat anti-Catholic, and besides it is Bachman's past membership, so I don't think it is a big deal. On the other hand, we should be curious about a politician's religion; it is often the most important thing in a man.
It SHOULD be but history teaches us we cannot depend on this. If it were true, all Catholic lawmakers would be pro-life and in fact it is the Catholic lawmakers who are notoriously pro-abortion.
That is not a criticism of the Catholic church and I'm more than willing to use the example of that liberal Paul Simon as an example. I wouldn't have voted for him for dog catcher but yet he was a member of my church--the LCMS. I'll vote for a conservative Catholic, just about any religion as long as they have the same values as I.
The only religion I cannot tolerate is Muslim.
No matter what verse I reference, you won’t agree with the interpretation of it that I would give.
That you can’t see the centrality of the Church throughout the NT (try Ephesians, Colossians, Acts of the Apostles for starters) then you won’t see the meaning of specific verses.
This is what is called invincible ignorance—someone just “can’t see it.” It happens all the time in all sorts of ways. Anybody who’s been married very long knows that sometimes one’s spouse just can’t see what you are talking about. No amount of argument will convince her.
Ditto for politics. Some liberals are devious and dishonest, but a lot of people who disagree with us conservatives “just can’t see” what we see. You can put it right in front of their eyes and they just can’t see it.
Jesus spoke about this when he instructed the 70 disciples: if you come to a place where they “just don’t get it, shake off the dust of your feet and move on.”
Oh, and by the way, perhaps you missed the part about “getting into heaven only through the Church” in which some people get into heaven through the Church even though they never had anything to do formally with the Church here on earth. Anyone who is saved, even if he never met a Christian or heard about Christ, if he is saved by obeying the voice of Truth that God engraved in our hearts (Rom 1), is saved by Christ in and through Christ’s Bride the Church, even though this person has had nothing to do with the visible Church here on earth.
So, “you can’t get into heaven except through the Church” includes those who’s “through the Church” happens through Christ’s mysterious action in this cosmos. Where Christ acts, Christ acts with his Bride. Marriage is forever and it is a real union that cannot be undone or busted apart. So if you are in Christ you are in the mystical Body, the Church, even if you think you are not and even if you are not part of the visible Catholic Church on earth.
A lot of people brought up “in the Catholic Church” have not, in fact, made the acquaintance of Her teachings. I teach university students with 12 years of Catholic education and most of them are utterly ignorant of the classic claims of the Catholic Church. They are astonished when I explain them. I also warn them that now that they’ve been given the real story, they might lose their invincible ignorance—that they at least now have to check out whether what I’ve taught them is in fact the Church’s teaching or not. They are ignorant. It’s simply a fact.
I have no idea whether you were presented with the straight story or not or, if you were given the full teaching, whether it registered with you. A person can be invincibly ignorant and be sitting right in the middle of the Church today. Especially because so many priests and teachers have taken to teaching Protestantism as Catholic teaching, a lot of people not only did not get the correct teaching but they have a much harder time being open to accepting the true teaching if it is given them, because they’ve been told something else is Catholic teaching.
I have in mind things like the Catholic teaching that the Church’s teaching does not just roll with the Zeitgeist but is perennial and eternal, that doctrine develops but does not change or reverse. Or the teaching that the Church is both divine and human (most students think it’s just another sociological group because that’s what a lot of Catholic parishes are like).
Sorry, but I guarantee that you operate just as much with an interpretation of Scripture as do Catholics. There is no such thing as a Christian who does not depend on an interpretation.
The issue is which interpretation is true and how does one know. Catholics believe Jesus gave the answer when he authorized the apostles to teach and bind and lose (govern), thus the apostolic teaching office is the guideline for interpretation.
What’s your guideline for interpretation? Pastor Bob? John Calvin? Your local assembly of Christians? (If so, just who decides within such a congregation when two members disagree on interpretation? Do you vote? Or do you have elders or a church council that decides? Everyone has a mechanism—although for some the mechanism is simply that the two disagreeing parties divorce and presto, two congregations where once there was only one).
I guarantee you have a set of interpretations. No one does not.
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.