Free Republic

Antichrist means "in place of Christ."

Wow are you smart!!!!!!!!!

Anti means "a person who is opposed to something." The phrase you are misremembering as in the place of Christ is "alterus Christi."

So according to your logic, if the Vicar of Christ is the anti-Christ, that would include all of them including Christ's hand-picked successor Peter!!!!!!!!!!

So Peter was the anti-Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow!!!!!!!!! Who'd ha' thunk it dude???????????????

You have far more respect for the Pope than I, then. He's the head of the RCC. Nothing he says could surprise me. Well, if he said, "All our made-up doctrines are damning nonsense; from now on, we must preach the pure Word of God alone, the grace of God alone, the glories of Christ alone! Oh, and I quit!" — that would surprise me.

Dan, you might want to pick up a book called "Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice" by Philip Jenkins. I haven't read it, but have read another book of his (Hidden Gospels) which debunks the loony heresies of groups like the Jesus Seminar. I was impressed with Jenkins' scholarship and insights. I mention this because your comments seem to reflect an animosity toward the RCC bordering on prejudice. And prejudice is usually rooted in ignorance. This isn't meant as a slam at your intelligence - you're obviously a bright guy, but I'm skeptical about where you're getting your information about the Catholic church that causes you to show such disrespect toward such a brilliant and saintly person as John Paul II. Ronald Reagan wasn't a Catholic, but held the Pontiff in the highest regard. Ditto Margaret Thatcher. Do you think you know him better than they did?

One can certainly find plenty of fodder for despising the Catholic Church. It has LOTS of enemies in the world. Didn't Jesus say to his disciples that the world hated Him and would HATE them as well? Tellingly the world doesn't hate the left-leaning "mainstream" Protestant churches. Indeed the world praises the likes of Bishop Spong (oxymoron) and the Jesus Seminar scholars (ditto) and the National Council of Churches. Doesn't that tell us something?

Who does the world utterly and virulently hate most of all? I'd say it hates both the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelical Christians. That suggests to me that Catholics and Evangelicals share something in common and that "each other" is not the real enemy of our shared faith.

Catholics believe the Pope is deserving of respect because he is the legitimate successor to Saint Peter, head of the universal (that's what catholic means) church established by Jesus Christ as recorded in Matthew 16:13-19. Jesus specifically entrusted Simon/Peter with the care and feeding of Christ's flock. John 21:15-17.

These passages are the Biblical basis for the primacy of Peter, the doctrine of apostolic succession and how Jesus envisioned the continuation of His work and teachings after His Ascension. Tellingly, Jesus didn't say to Simon, you are Peter (Petras in Greek, Cephas in Aramaic, which mean rock) and upon this rock I will write my Bible. Rather, He said upon this Rock I will build My Church. Which means the Church (with Peter as its head) and not the Bible that is the pillar and bulwark of the true faith. 1 Timothy 3:15. (Funny how Catholic Scripture begins to look when you look at the Church's actual teachings and writings of the Church Fathers instead of the Jack Chick comics strawmen.} While you might reasonably disagree with the Catholic Church's interpretation of Scripture on the above points, you cannot reasonably contend that its interpretation has no basis in Scripture. I'm not so sure the same can be said for the two principal Protestant doctrines: sola scriptura and sola fide.

Sola scriptura is mentioned nowhere in sacred Scripture. It is therefore unscriptural and self-contradictory since the Bible never says 'follow the Bible only.' If you profess to follow the Bible only, then you aren't following the Bible because the Bible doesn't tell you to do that. Further, not one of the Church Fathers from the earliest days of the Church through the end of the Patristic era professed anything like sola scriptura. Rather, the doctrine originates from the time of the Reformation. So if sola Scriptura isn't one of those made-up doctrines you so deplore, please explain why we see no evidence that anyone from Jesus Christ Himself to the Apostles to the Church Fathers to the great doctors of the Church ever professed it.

Sola fide is even worse as it actually goes against the explicit teaching of sacred Scripture. James 2:18-26. Interestingly this passage is the only place in the New Testament where the relationship between faith and works is explicitly discussed and it says rather unequivocally that we are justified by works and not by faith alone (empasis mine). James 2:24. Then, in case we missed it, James reiterates two verses down: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." James 2:26. That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement for sola fide. Which raises the question, whose "made-up doctrines are damning nonsense" anyway? It wasn't any of the Popes who thought up this one. :-)

My point here isn't to claim we're right and you're wrong on issues that have divided Catholics and Protestants since the Reformation. My point is simply to show that the Catholic Church isn't as unbiblical as you might think and that Protestant doctrines may not be as biblical as you've heretofore assumed.

I believe it can be demonstrated to any fair-minded reader that the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church are consistent with what the Church has always taught for 2,000 years. The teachings of the Church aren't (and shouldn't be expected to be) static, but rather develop organically over time. That's because the enemies of the faith are constantly promulgating new false teachings that simply weren't issues when the books of the New Testament were being written. Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth about issues and disputes affecting that community. He didn't venture any thoughts on The DaVinci Code. As Chesterton famously explained, there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. The Bible doesn't enumerate, much less attempt to refute every conceivable wrong angle. As the written Word, it simply points to the living Word as the only place at which one stands. But where do we go from there?

I have a fondness for those admittedly tacky bracelets with the letters "WWJD". They are great because they remind us to ask the question and usually the answer will be self-evident. But there are times when I've asked the question but had no clue to the answer. Looking to the Bible doesn't always give the answer because the Bible alone does not and cannot supply unambiguous answers on a myriad number of questions and moral issues that its authors never faced. So if it ever becomes necessary for the Church to tackle the idiotic DaVinci Code heresy that Jesus and Mary Magdelene had a secret love child, a Bible only approach won't suffice. Clearly the Bible doesn't say that Jesus and Mary Magdalen were married, but it doesn't say they weren't married either.

If you study the history of what you call "made-up doctrines" promulgated by the Catholic Church, you'll find they were always in response to some new heresy or false teaching that threatened the lambs and sheep entrusted by Christ to Peter's and his successors care. And they weren't "made-up doctrines [that] are damning nonsense," but carefully and prayerfully and thoughtfully considered doctrines derived from sacred Tradition in union with sacred Scripture to refute some "damning nonsense" that attacks from a new angle in order to make us fall down.

What difference does an old relic make for christianity?

relic worshipping is paganism.

The earliest Christians thought otherwise, as evidenced by the eyewitness account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who learned the Gospel at the feet of John the beloved disciple.

“The centurion then, seeing the strife excited by the Jews, placed the body in the midst of the fire, and consumed it. Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.”

Martyrdom of Polycarp

Ironically, it was the pagan and Jewish enemies of Christ's Church who vehemently tried to prevent the "worship" of Polycarp's bones by his companions and fellow disciples. Here you are, nearly 1,900 years later, flogging the same strawman. :-)

“But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, "lest," said he, "forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one." This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow-disciples!”

Polycarp taught his charges well.

I missed your original postings. FWIW sorry you got zotted. The Viking kitties cause us to lose much quality entertainment.

Judging from your summary of the content of your pulled threads, I would have guessed you were a Democratic operative pretending to be a Christian in a feeble attempt to dampen the Evangelical vote for Bush.

That would have actually made sense.

But Democratic operatives would have better things to do now than crying over pulled threads (like crying over the election results and plotting how best to undermine GW's second term, for starters). So I'm forced to conclude that -- as farfetched as it seems -- you were actually sincere in your attempts to persuade other conservative Christians to cast write-in votes for Jesus Christ.

Rather than trying to debate the merits of such an . . . uncoventional strategy or try to understand the thought process(es) involved, I just want to know one thing:

Have you placed a bid on ebay recently for a partially-eaten grilled cheese sandwich that looks like this?

Kerry lost? Does this mean Christopher Reeve won't be able to walk again?

Courtesy of Anywho:

Smith, Phillip E
11600 E Irvington Rd
TUCSON, AZ 85747
520-290-4714

Wolff, W Todd [proud parents presumably]
2307 W Catalina View Dr
TUCSON, AZ 85742
520-219-0732

2. Buy EV a new car.

There are two men in the race. You know what they say, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." If you are on the worldwide web helping LG bash Keyes, you are by default promoting Obama's campaign.

So when President Lincoln was criticizing McClellan handling of the Army of the Potomac, he was by default promoting Lee's campaign???

If I posted on the Florida threads gloating that Betty Castro was gonna win and Martinez is a right-wing lunatic and a national joke, Luis Gonzalez would hit the abuse button so quick the thread would be zotted in a blink of an eye

Your analogy is seriously flawed. Now, if you posted on a Florida thread that Larry Klayman was "a national joke", then your analogy would be quite apt. But if you did that, Luis, Poohbah and the others who predicted this disaster wouldn't be pushing the abuse button. They would be agreeing with you.

BTW if Keyes' critics represent a "useful idiot Obama Cheerleeding Squad" because they criticize Keyes, then Alan Keyes himself must be a useful idiot member of the Kerry-Edwards cheerleading squad given his numerous gratuitous swipes at Bush-Cheney.

Why is it unconservative to attack someone who by your own standard is "a useful idiot for Kerry-Edwards?"

Tourist Guy is missing.

Thus, we have the dumbing down of already lukewarm Catholics to the mental level of a Texas armadillo (not that I intend to degrade the hairy bellied armadillo's intelligence).

You know, a little Botox to smooth out those ridges might improve the armadillo's self-image.

See what it did for John Kerry:

Before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .After

I guess my primary concern is by what power (and by what reason) could government deny "married couples" access to readily available, over the counter birth control.

The Connecticut legislature got together circa 1958 and voted it into law. I don't know the reason. The court didn't mention it in the opinion.

Here are the relevant sections:

Section 53-32: "Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned."

Section 54-196: "Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender."

The Griswold decision is here.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as a right to to privacy, or that this right was wrongfully used to justify the "right" to abort?

Of course there's a right to privacy; it just isn't in the Constitution. The Supreme Court discovered a previously unknown new Constitutional right to privacy in Griswold within the “penumbras” of certain amendments in the Bill of Rights. As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.

Having invented a Constitutional privacy right out of whole cloth, the Court then "interpreted" this right to require overturning a local law against selling contraceptives to married couples in Griswold, and five years later, to strike down laws restricting or prohibiting abortion in all 50 states in Roe v. Wade.

Whether the laws in question are good or bad is beside the point. In order to overturn those laws, it was necessary for the Supreme Court to say they were unconstitutional. They did so only after a tortured process of discovering a new Constitutional right not expressly found in the text of the Constitution and then interpreted this privacy right in such a way as to find a Constitutional violation. The approach is so transparent and the arguments applied so disingenuous that it’s clear they first decided what the result should be, then came up with a way to reach the preferred result.

Legislatures pass all sorts of laws. Some laws are stupid. Some laws are bad. It isn't the Supreme Court's job to overturn or rewrite stupid or bad laws, but to decide cases and only when it’s absolutely necessary, to strike down unconstitutional laws. Otherwise, the Court is simply rationalizing the substitution of its own non-existent legislative authority for the legitimate law-making authority of the appropriate legislative body authorized to write the law.

What the Supreme Court did in these cases is equivalent to an umpire overturning a manager's decision not because it was illegal, but because the umpire thought the manager's decision was foolish. Imagine if an umpire during the deciding game of the American League Championship announced that he was overturning Grady Little's decision to leave Pedro Martinez in the game. Imagine the umpire justifying his bizarre actions by claiming that the umpire thought Little's decision was foolish. The outcry and furor would be immense and the umpire would immediately be fired. Why? For starters, because everyone knows it's not his job to make managerial decisions. Even if most people think Grady Little's move was dumb and the umpire's was smart, no one would tolerate an umpire substituting his non-existent managerial authority for Little's legitimate authority. More importantly, an umpire’s interfering in the manager’s authority undermines the umpire’s own legitimate authority because an umpire is supposed to be impartial and acting to correct the mistake of one of the teams is decidedly partisan act.

The problem is crystal clear when we use an example like baseball. But few question when the Supreme Court does basically the same thing on the judicial playing field.

Now wait a minute William, the fact that the government may have wrongfully denied rights to citizens for decades does not translate into the fact that the government was right in doing so. Women were denied the right to vote for 120 years after the creation of the nation, and blacks for the same 189 years that the government wrongfully gave itself the "right" to deny access to birth control to citizens.

The context of my statement was in response spunkets' claim that there was an "absolute right to birth control." I was simply pointing out that if this was an absolute right, it’s odd that no one ever thought it was for most of our nation’s history. The history of voting rights doesn’t refute my point because there isn't an absolute right to voting either. Otherwise felons, non-citizens, infants and mental patients would all be permitted to vote.

I think it's absurd to speak of a "right" to birth control, much less an absolute right. It’s like saying you have a “right” to Play Station or Xbox. No one disputes that you can buy video games, but it seems decidedly odd to me to frame the purchase and enjoyment of Final Fantasy as the exercise of an absolute right. At best, birth control is arguably loosely related to healthcare. Is there a "right" to healthcare? Is there an *absolute* right to healthcare?

To say that someone has an absolute “right” to something implies that someone else has a responsibility to provide it unless the right is self-executing, like free speech. (BTW free speech rights aren't absolute either. Otherwise you could shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater or publish planned troop movements to our enemies.) Condoms and IUD's don't grow on trees, they cost money, so someone else has to pay for them if they were an absolute right and you couldn't afford them.

Whose job is it to provide free birth control to those who cannot pay for it? If no one has such an obligation, and you agree you only have the “right” to obtain whatever birth control you can afford free of interference from the government, then you've qualified it, so it's no longer absolute.

I assume that by absolute right to birth control, spunkets means an absolute right to *effective* birth control. After all, a right to defective condoms, for example, clearly isn't much of a right. There is no 100% effective form of birth control, so I don’t see how anyone can have an *absolute* right to something that doesn't even exist.

I didn't get a chance to answer spunkets' post to me from last night. He seemed to assume he considered the source of our rights to be the "sovereign will of the individual." I was going to say that wasn't obvious since when Jefferson wrote all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain rights,” he assumed a very different source for our right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

I noticed that in subsequent posts, spunkets seemed to be saying that rights derived from the sovereign will of the individual or the Creator are basically the same thing. I disagree. As an example of the former, I would include rights mentioned in a document the Declaration of the Rights of Man. As an example of the latter w/b the rights Jefferson spoke of. I believe Danton, Robsepierre & Co's list was rather different from Jefferson's “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Even if they're both speaking of the same right, the meaning is entirely different precisely because they originate from different sources.

To say that the Creator is the source of certain rights means we deny to governments or to the mob the authority to issue or take away these rights. By contrast, whatever rights the "sovereignty of the individual giveth, the same individual can taketh away. Soviet citizens were legally granted with most of the rights and privileges we enjoy as American citizens, plus lots of other rights and privileges we don't even claim to possess. The rights of Soviet citizens were bestowed by “the people” and they were frequently arbitrarily stripped by “the people” as well.

OK I will stick my two cents in from time to time. Forewarned. ;-)

I've actually had folks condemn homosexuals (not their place to do, btw, only homosexuality is to be condemned) even as they assert that their practice of birth control -- by which they purposefully exclude absolutely the Creator from the process -- is somehow acceptable to God.

Yes, they can be infuriating. My problem is, I can't seem to peg the holier-than-thou apostates without myself turning into a holier-than-the-holier-than-thou-apostates in the process. Love the sinner, hate the sin is a lot harder than it sounds. Most of us end up loving both or hating both. I'm guilty of both errors, but working on it. I guess that's the first step.

Thanks. My wife was actually concerned how'd I'd react to one of the parts being voiced by Ellen Degeneres. I told her that unless her character launched into a lecture about lifestyle "choice", she really needs to lighten up!

LOL thanks for the heads-up. I had a similar experience re: the Acts of the Apostles on DVD with James Brolin playing Peter. It took a bit of work to suspend disbelief.

Thank you askel.

LOL I'm still one post behind everyone else. Gotta learn to type/proofread faster.

On my way to buy Finding Nemo right now.

FReegards,
WW

I missed your follow-up posts to formerlib and his last responses. You explained your position far better than I could and appear to have corrected whatever misunderstanding there was. Sorry for butting in.

BTW, welcome back! :-)

The right to birth control is absolute and is retained by the parents that make up the family.

There's no such thing as a “right” to birth control, only a sundry variety of techniques/devices of varying effectiveness for preventing pregnancy.

For starters, there is no judicially recognized “right” to birth control. The Supreme Court struck down laws banning the sale of contraceptives to married persons on the basis of a suddenly discovered “right of privacy” somewhere within the “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights, not on a “right” to use birth control per se. That happened in 1965, so it's a curious species of “absolute right” that wasn't even asserted for 189 of our nation's 228 years of existence.

If there was an absolute “right” to birth control, then you should be able to exercise it without restriction on an otherwise deserted island save you and a member of the opposite sex. After all, there are no laws or other people around to infringe upon the exercise of your absolute right. I think you'll find your claimed “right” to be guaranteed only if you refrain from having sex or one of you is unable to reproduce. That doesn't sound like an absolute right to me.

It appeared that you were suggesting that we could not prohibit "homosexual marriage" without making some move against childless heterosexual couples. If you were attempting to make some other point by introducing them into the discussion, I seem to have missed it.

Respectfully, I believe you did miss askel's point. I don't believe she is making an apologia for homosexual marriage generally or painting a moral equivalence between homosexuals and married couples who are unable to have children. I think what she's saying is, there is not all that much difference between a homosexual couple wanting to get married versus a heterosexual couple who regard marriage as a living arrangement terminable at-will and children as a decision or lifestyle choice. Both put their own selfish interests first and foremost. Both act in defiance of God's will and the natural law.

As Peter Kreeft says, the Bible contains the world's oldest and simplest sex instruction manual, with only two simple rules: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” and “Be fruitful and multiply.” IOW, no sex outside the sacrament of marriage, but within marriage -- the more, the merrier.

There is a sinister relationship between the condom distribution mentality and the abortion-on-demand mentality. The U.S. Supreme Court understood this if only subconsciously, when it found a married couple's “right” to use contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut in the same imagined “zone of privacy” that later justified abortion as choice under Roe v. Wade.

Married or unmarried couples who use contraceptives implicitly assert a “right” to engage in sex without any responsibility for bearing and rearing children, who are the natural consequences of sexual activity. Since contraceptives don't always work, couples who experience pregnancy after contraceptive failure inevitably consider themselves justified to have an abortion. After all, why should they be “penalized” because the contraceptive failed? After all, didn't they acted “responsibly” by using contraceptives in the first place? If you assume the answer to both questions is “yes,” then the decision to abort is easily rationalized as a simple correction of a “mistake” that happened only because the contraceptive failed.

The topic of this thread is how does gay marriage damage marriage. If/when we write the obituary for the notion of marriage as sacred union of man and woman, the scapegoating of homosexuals when we decide to “round up the usual suspects” is both irrational and unjust. It's irrational to blame the recent phenomenon of homosexuals getting married for a slew of pathologies and disturbing trends that long predated the spectacle of Rosie and her new “spouse” exchanging their “I do's” without the necessary equipment to consummate the vows. Their “marriage” is a sham of course, but that holds equally true for anyone with the physical tools but not the intention to honor their vows.

There's plenty of blame to go around and the “if it feels good, do it” contraceptive mentality and the perpetrators/enablers of the abortion holocaust are good places to start.

Humanae Vitae was right.

Thank you my FRiends for letting me know of Jayne's passing. This is sad news.

I got to know Jayne fairly well over the years. She was a wonderful lady, patient and kind, an inspiration and example to others. She had the rare gift to see the best in others, and gently encouraged us to live up to her belief in what we could achieve.

My condolences to Brad on the loss of his mom. May God bless and comfort you in your mourning. All of us whose lives she touched are diminished by her passing. But our lives were all the more greatly enriched for having known her.