Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
I think she grew. I think again we're dealing with the static black-or-white view that just isn't subtle enough to deal with the mystery.
A child's faith can be perfect,but it will still be childish -- it's perfection is kind of a "so far" perfection. It will only be defective if it doesn't mature as the child matures. it's not 'defective' to be a child, it's only defective to STAY a child.
So Mary's understanding could be weak and yet she could be without sin. Immaculate only means perfection with respect to guilt and sin. It doesn't mean ALL perfection.
To the best of my recollection all she said at the temple was "Why did you do this? We've been grieving." What's wrong with that?
The only mention of the virgin birth in the prophecy is that a virgin conceive and bear a son.
It says nothing else at all about said virgin remaining a virgin perpetually, nothing about her being sinless or holy, or any of the other stuff associated with Mary.
The prophecy was fulfilled when she conceived and gave birth. That's all that was necessary.
But it seems co-redeemer was a fairly modern fabrication...
Redeemer is an English word...Co is also an English word...So we know what co-redeemer means...If you guys want to say that co is a Latin word, you should use the Latin word for Redeemer to avoid obvious confusion, or delusion...
I wouldn't want to guess how many Catholics who don't study the bible, who don't know a lick of Latin go away from your Masses hearing Mary, co-redeeme rand actually thinking Mary is an equal redeemer along with Jesus??? I'll bet the number is staggering...
I understand that . . . to a point.
I think you can understand that . . .
for any collection or combination of ritualized Christians to say on the one hand that
any
Proddy minister is intolerably off the wall and unBiblical for some PART of their assertions—rendering them totally unfit for breathing air and taking up space . . .
yet Montfort
can say however much IN PART, some brazenly UNBiblical and blazingly idolatrous things and he’s still a cherished model of the RC faith . . .
is more than a bit much outrageous hypocrisy.
Of course your not. You can’t because both of those “doctrines” are extra Biblical. Your “teachers” teach you things that are “doctrines of man”.
Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
The idea that Mary is the queen of heaven has no basis in scriptural whatsoever, the practice and belief comes from the proclamations of priests and popes of the Roman Catholic Church.
So don’t make statements like “I follow the Bible.” like you did in post 1051 because clearly that is not true. You follow the teachings of the RCC which are not in “the Bible”. And don’t chastise those of us who would “show that these things are true” from scripture as not being subservient to some “teacher” who teaches unbiblical doctrine.
I have long understood those good points.
The man in the street won’t likely and won’t care to go there to the least degree. More likely, he’ll just respond emotionally to his gut impression that it’s an ostentacious, arrogant affectation meant to ‘loftisize’ the RC speaker vs the serfs and slaves outside the cloister.
Well put.
No, it doesn't. It says to not bow down to any idols or graven images. The meaning is any object that itself is presumed to have some powers or properties. Iconoclasts have been perverting that verse for over 500 years.
YOU understand me quite well.
imho, You are free to speak about my convictions and person however freely you feel led to.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Very well put.
Yeah, little ole’ you.
In Luke, Elizabeth calls her the mother of My Lord.
Jesus is Lord God, is He not?
Your question is an example of theology not explicitly contained in Scripture.
But, it is a question (and heresy) that arose in the very beginning.
I hope you are not disappointed to find out you have not
found a new silver bullet with which to pierce the heart of the church.
It is a heresy which calls into question the nature of Jesus.
Would you consider that important?
And to what and to whom did the councils turn for guidance?
Scripture, early church Fathers and Tradition.
Just as they had turned to these things in defining the doctrine
of the Trinity, and the Canon of Scripture. One a truly novel
concept, never before held or taught by the faith to which Jesus belonged.
Both Catholic in origin
and yet you have no problem accepting it.
You lost me there...What does all of that scripture have to do with your Nicene Creed???
That cannot be repeated enough. That is the point the Catholics seem to miss wholesale.
NOPE!
WRONG!
Humans self-label positively and negatively quite askew from reality all the time for a variety of conscious and unconscious reasons.
I suspect you saw that plenty inaccurate self and other labeling on the psych wards as well as in your normal social realtionships. It's a human tendency.
Or are you claiming to be the 2nd or 3rd (which is it?) IMMACULATE CONCEPTION?
I suspect you also saw plenty of DENIAL on such wards and in your normal social relationships.
And, the Chinese have an excellent point with their proverb that THE ONLOOKER SEES THE GAME BEST.
When it walks like a duck,
flies like a duck,
swims like a duck,
waddles like a duck,
lays eggs like a duck,
drops feathers like a duck,
smells like a duck,
. . .
Onlookers have a right--even an obligation in some contexts--to say it's probably to certainly a duck.
The behaviors confirming Proddys assessments in such matters are layers thick, quite shrill and intense; abundantly plentiful and relentless in their providing sky high piles of evidence.
DENIAL may be comforting in front of the mirror. It won't wash in front of God Almighty.
I have learned several new words from this discussion.
Replacmentarianism, Churchianity and now e-pologist.
Fascinating.
That is true. But they have to believe it because the Vatican promotes it as truth and they will abide by that. It's group think thereafter.
The catholic leadership has to promote fairy tale idols in order to keep the members occupied with anything and everything "mystical"...it's a distraction from Christ...though they will attach His name to every one they create. Just as the heathen have done for centuries and all other false religions.
They are unable to accept or practice that which does not require fluff and grander of some sort or another....anymore then the heathen who entered the church centuries ago wouldn't....and thus the catholic church gave in to their demands and have carried these on ever since.
You can go to any foreign third world country who practice witchcraft, voodoo, and a host of other heathen practices and find their rituals combined within their catholic churches. The will not put them aside and the catholic leadership allows it....and yet continues to acknowledge these churches as catholic christian churches.
LOL!
Mothers do not give birth to natures. They give birth to persons. She gave birth to a person who was God. She is the mother of the person she gave birth to. That person was God. She is the mother of God.
That's not tradition, that's reason.
If she is the mother of God, she must be present in the Eucharist, when the ACTUAL BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST are changed from wafers and wine.
I still don't get it. We call her Mother of the Eucharist. It is His body and blood, not hers. If I get cut is my mother wounded? If I go to New York is my mother tripping the lights fantastic?
You know, or should know, that that is the Spiritual Body of Christ, being formed even as we speak. Show me where Paul says You are being formed into the body of Christ. And You know or SHOULD know that we think of time differently from you in any case.
SO, a dispensationalist tries to teach me my Church's Eucharistic Doctrine!
As I have said many, many, many times on this forum, I confine myself to the usage of the doctrinal formulations. I do not know that "literal" or "actual" mean with respect to the Body of Christ. I use "real" or "substantial" because I have some faint clue what they mean in the context. If you can teach me what my church teaches, can you explain the terms "literal" and "actual" as applied to the body of Christ? I certainly can't. What sort of letters, what kind of act?
“And for anyone who doubts it, Adam and Eve had Scripture that was just one verse long and they STILL blew it.”
I have to break my own rule and respond to this just to give you major kudos.
That is the most succinct Truth I have ever read here:)
With your permission, I would so love to use that with my catechism class.
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.