With Pope Benedict coming to visit the United States next week relations between Roman Catholics and Protestants will likely be the subject of media scrutiny. The pope's itinerary includes a visit to the White House with President Bush, a Protestant, who was re-elected with 51 percent of the Catholic vote in 2004, despite running against a Catholic.
Although certain doctrinal differences remain in place, conservative Catholics and Evangelical Christians have been drawing closer together in recent years, according to a new book that explores the growing influence of Christian voters.
Deal Hudson, the executive director of the Morley Institute for Church and Culture in Washington D.C., describes some of the key factors responsible for the convergence between conservative minded American Catholics and Protestants in his just released book.
Age old grievances have gradually receded to the point where Christians from various denominations have joined together to resist secular assaults on shared values, Hudson argues in "Onward Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States."
A highly sophisticated, media savvy subculture of religious conservatives has taken hold in America, Hudson explains in his book. He credits Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family for their special contributions in this area. While Evangelicals have been leading the way in terms of media penetration, Catholic outlets are beginning to make important inroads, Husdon observes in his book.
"Catholic radio's 150-plus stations can hardly compare with the more than 2,000 Evangelical stations, but in the area of television, conservative Catholics have produced a powerhouse comparable to a Dobson or a Robertson: The Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) and its shortwave radio broadcast, Eternal Word Radio Network."
Until recently, conservative Catholics have had more difficulty becoming organized on behalf of cultural and political causes because the major institutions have been dominated by the left, Hudson said in an interview. The United States Conference on Catholic Bishops in Washington D.C. and the United States Catholic conference, both off-shots of Vatican II, have been plugged into the Democratic party, almost from their inception, he explained.
"But we are in the last generation of left-leaning bishops," Hudson said. "Within the next decade will see a shift over to Pope John Paul II's appointments. This does not mean the bishops will suddenly be in line with the Republicans, it just means they will no longer serve as an interface for the Democrats."
Hudson now writes and blogs at InsideCatholic.com, the web presence for what was formerly Crisis Magazine.
Most recently, he wrote a piece offering advice to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on how he could successfully attract Catholic votes.
—Kevin Mooney is a reporter with CNSNews.com
Comments Policy
Mr. Mooney, I respectfully
April 10, 2008 - 12:27 ET by motherbeltMr. Mooney, I respectfully submit that you should have said Bush ran against a "Catholic" (with quotes). John Kerry's Catholicism only extended to which church he chose to attend. He is the classic "cafeteria Catholic" agreeing to live by some teachings and not others, as he chooses, and as suits his purposes.
If religion was a factor, I think that is why President Bush got more of the Catholic vote; true Catholics were not as forgiving of his a la carte Catholicism as some others were.
you are correct in
April 10, 2008 - 17:15 ET by mjgyou are correct in describing why Kerry lost the Catholic vote and Bush gained it. It was also Kerry's stance on abortion which didn't fare well with most conservative Cathoilcs.
That's because John Kerry
April 10, 2008 - 20:10 ET by futbolisgreat1That's because John Kerry is NOT a Roman Catholic...end of story, period.
"John Kerry's Catholicism
April 11, 2008 - 13:04 ET by misterbee241"John Kerry's Catholicism only extended to which church he chose to attend. He is the classic "cafeteria Catholic" agreeing to live by some teachings and not others, as he chooses, and as suits his purposes."
And this problem is just as rampant in protestant churches too. We have lots of cafeteria folk - buffet grazers who take the things they like and discard the things they dont. And then get mad at the preacher when he confronts them from the pulpit.
There is none so blind as they that won’t see. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
The term Protestant is dated and no longer relavant
April 10, 2008 - 12:52 ET by exLibAs they say, it's so 16th Century.
As far as I know, the only people "protesting" the Catholic church are not Christians, but homosexuals, feminists and various forms of atheists.
The term is very akin to Jews and Gentiles as far it's used today.
I have never referred to myself as a Protestant, except maybe when I was very young and living in a neighborhood were i was the only non-catholic.
I don't see any reason why people who practice their faith can not work together for common goals, in terms of anti-abortion legislation, and other conservative Christian issues.
My only problem to "working with" certain Catholics are the ones whose lives do not at all reflect any faith or works and yet feel the need to pull out their membership card anytime the discussion comes up. These people are more likely to vote Dem anyway, since they don't feel the Church's rules have to be followed. They make the rules and the Church is just supposed to go along and keep them on the roll. From my experience, here in Massachusetts it's the overwhelming majority.
Coming to this site has encouraged my that there are quite a few Catholics who are living lives consistent with Jesus and the Scriptures. And the new Pope seems to be laying out some key scriptural tenants that are not at all PC, yet in today's society need to be said, and it's good to see he gets the publicity for it and it's negative publicity - so I know it's right.
I agree with your assessment
April 10, 2008 - 13:08 ET by motherbeltI agree with your assessment that Benedict XVI is more "traditional" which liberals don't like. They think they can "push" for the Church to accept homosexuality, women priests, divorce and abortion, and maybe get their way with enough pressure.
Pope Benedict XVI is "more
April 10, 2008 - 13:34 ET by lotrPope Benedict XVI is "more traditional" through the eyes of contemporary liberalism, but not with respect to any of his predecessors. Liberals weren't exactly fond of JPII either, and they would've considered everyone before John XXIII to be "facist." The reality is, Benedict's "positions" on homosexuality, male priesthood, divorce and abortion are no different than any of the 200 or so some odd popes before him.
I didn't mean to imply that
April 10, 2008 - 14:00 ET by motherbeltI didn't intend to imply that this was anything new, or that he was "more" traditional than his predecessors...only that he was more traditional than liberal, and liberals didn't like that.
I never mentioned Pope Benedict's "positions" as if every Pope has a different one.
I was talking about the Church's positions. I have been a Catholic my whole life, and I'm well aware that the Church's teaching on homosexuality, priesthood, etc. have not changed. I was simply commenting that liberals seem to think that they can bring about change in the Catholic Church with enough public pressure.
MB
April 10, 2008 - 17:12 ET by lotr"...liberals seem to think that they can bring about change in the Catholic Church with enough public pressure."
Yep -- that's their game plan, in fact. But they are sorely mistaken if they think a Pope is going to come along, take a popular vote and then "make it so." That's one of the things I (and apparently millions of others) find so "attractive" about genuine Catholicism -- the truths about God are not subject to any man's whims, be he the Pope or not.
→ lotr? Say what?
April 10, 2008 - 17:18 ET by Cool Arrow"the truths about God are not subject to any man's whims, be he the Pope or not."
Yes, they are subject to the whims of man, hence religious disagreement even among Christians.
♣ a seal
Sorry, cool, the truths
April 10, 2008 - 17:30 ET by motherbeltSorry, cool, the truths about God are unchanging. Man's whims, disagreements, and not even a "consensus" can change that.
My favorite story of Abe Lincoln involves him asking someone how many legs a dog has if you call the tail a leg. The guy says 5. Lincoln says no, 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. That's the truth..even if he got a "consensus" to call the tail a leg.
Men may have disagreements about their opinion or interpretation of God, but God is unchanging.
→ thanks motherbelt
April 10, 2008 - 17:33 ET by Cool ArrowThanks for pointing out to me there is absolutely no matter of Faith upon which we could possibly disagree.
I'm betting there are just a few points we would disagree on and insist both standpoints are the will of God.
♣ a seal
Please point out where I
April 10, 2008 - 18:24 ET by motherbeltPlease point out where I said there was no matter of faith, (or anything else for that matter) that we can disagree on, because I certainly didn't intend to say that.
→ Thanks mb
April 10, 2008 - 18:28 ET by Cool ArrowYou're right.
We can agree then that the traditions of any Church are truly putrid if they are contradicted by Scripture (The oracles of God) which was entrusted to the Jews.
OK, we agree.
♣ a seal
Cool, going back to your
April 10, 2008 - 18:57 ET by Indiana JoeCool, going back to your original objection, all the disagreements as to faith, worship, tradition, etc. involve man's interpretation of scripture. Those can disagree significantly, as we all know. That is, I think, your point. I think we can agree on this.
MB's point (I believe) is that God Himself doesn't and hasn't changed. Our interpretation of His Word is naturally flawed, leading to disagreements among us. But He remains as He always was, is, and ever shall be. Once again, I think we'd all agree with that.
So, you're both right. It's just that you're discussing different things. I think....
→ Right Indiana
April 10, 2008 - 19:02 ET by Cool ArrowThat's why I stated my last post as an absolute we all can agree on.
If it is stated in scripture, contradictory tradition is nothing.
♣ a seal
Hold on there
April 11, 2008 - 01:57 ET by KC MulvilleNo, we can't agree to that.
Catholics believe that genuine scripture and genuine tradition do not contradict each other. However, we must be clear about what "scripture" and "tradition" mean. Catholics believe that bishops decide what is a genuine interpretation of scripture, and they alone have the authority to decide what is legitimate teaching about it. Parallel to scripture, the church has established certain traditions that also reflect the original teaching of Christ. Not every "tradition" is part of this. Many traditions were simply local or tribal customs, and weren't part of the real tradition set forth by Christ. But again, the bishops decide which ones are real, and which are merely local cultural practices or beliefs that can be dropped as culture evolves.
Catholics see the role of scripture differently than Protestants. Catholics rely on the fact that the Christian church had been up and running for several generations before the New Testament had been decided upon. That's important; it means that scripture's truth isn't separable from the authority of the church. In fact, it was the Church that decided the canon of the New Testament in the first place. That's why we object to the statement "If it is stated in scripture, contradictory tradition is nothing." No, quite the contrary, it could be everything.
This is our belief as Catholics. If you have a different belief, well, thank God we live in a free country. That's what we can all agree on.
→ Thanks, KC
April 11, 2008 - 08:24 ET by Cool ArrowBut I'm surprised it took so long to extract that point.
♣ a seal
delete
April 10, 2008 - 19:29 ET by motherbeltdelete
Cool Arrow, first you
April 10, 2008 - 19:30 ET by motherbeltCool Arrow, first you didn't point out where I said there isn't anything we can disagree on. Now you are extrapolating that to something even farther out.
It's pointless to try to have a discussion in that situation. I give up.
→ Sorry mb
April 10, 2008 - 19:38 ET by Cool ArrowThat tradition vs Scripture thing usually does cause problems.
♣ a seal
Cool, I don't even know
April 10, 2008 - 19:44 ET by motherbeltCool, I don't even know what you are arguing about. That is a completely different subject from what I was talking about.
I said that God is God, and what our mortal perception of Him doesn't make Him become that. That's all.
I'm not looking for a tradition vs. Scripture argument. If someone else wants to go down that road, that's their choice.
→ mb
April 10, 2008 - 19:46 ET by Cool ArrowAnd you are correct.
I'm sure God cares how we understand His truths.
♣ a seal
And once again you come
April 10, 2008 - 20:26 ET by motherbeltAnd once again you come back with a non sequitur....
Have fun with your own solo discussion....
No problem mb
April 10, 2008 - 20:32 ET by Cool ArrowAgreeing with you is a "non sequitur"?
Conceding that your original post is correct is a "non sequitur"?
And I honestly do believe God cares how we interpret his truths.
♣ a seal
not worth it?
April 11, 2008 - 09:08 ET by bulbasaurIt is an obvious truism that scripture is historically, psychologically, and logically preceded by something prior: the revelation, the encounter with God. Scripture reflects on, and is an expression of, something prior to itself. The opening chapter in the Gospel of John said "In the Beginning was the Word." It does not say "In the Beginning was the Bible." There is a difference, and I'm glad you seem to get it.
The error of sola scriptura has yielded rotten fruit such as the TV evangelists, and the (in my opinion) criminal "health, wealth and prosperity" scam artists who pollute our television screens and bastardize the meaning of scripture in every possible way. Even worse, the hijacking of Christianity by liberals, and their turning Jesus into a mere "ethical teacher -- of democrat party talking points" is a direct result of the reformation and the regrettable error of sola scriptura.
The Catholic Church was and is 100% justified in maintaining that a Magisterium is required in order to pass the gospel on faithfully and reliably.
→ Bulba
April 11, 2008 - 13:12 ET by Cool ArrowI've got ten bucks. You wouldn't know where I could buy a plenary indulgence, would you?
And you want to talk about scam artists while claiming moral high ground for the RCC for millenia.
♣ a seal
not worth it
April 11, 2008 - 14:50 ET by bulbasaurdelete
→ Bulba
April 11, 2008 - 14:54 ET by Cool ArrowGreat post.
I'm sooo shattered.
♣ a seal
Cool, I'm still trying to
April 11, 2008 - 14:56 ET by LeonCool,
I'm still trying to figure where all those hippies destroying recruiting offices are...
Did anyone tell Bulba it's 2008?
→ Leon
April 11, 2008 - 15:00 ET by Cool ArrowI think they've gone to the Ray Repp concert.
♣ a seal
Ha. Doesn't that sound
April 11, 2008 - 15:02 ET by LeonHa.
Doesn't that sound like fun...
I just love when oldheads talk about hippies as if they still exist.
I agree with you the
April 10, 2008 - 17:18 ET by mjgI agree with you the Catholic church is not a democracy and doesn't exist because of a majority vote.
Benedict's the 265th pope,
April 10, 2008 - 21:50 ET by Lord ElicaniBenedict's the 265th pope, to be exact.
Murrow turning over in his grave
Murrow turning over in his grave
Ed Murrow had a child and the damn thing went wild
- Lindsey Buckingham
Pope Benedict XVI a Critic of Iraq War
April 10, 2008 - 13:45 ET by ChuchulainnAs a Catholic myself, I would remind my fellow Catholics that Pope Benedict is a critic of the Iraq war.
Pope Benedict: "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a just war." Source: Houston Catholic Worker Newspaper.
A simple internet search will reveal other quotations along the same lines from the Pope, but, of course, true Catholics know his stance on the Iraq war already.
I suppose that according to the standards of some on this list that anyone who disagrees with the Pope on this issue would be a "Cafeteria Catholic."
Good point.
April 10, 2008 - 13:49 ET by sarcasmoAnd so was John Paul 2, as if either inconvenient fact will matter to certain people...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
When the Catholic Church
April 10, 2008 - 14:22 ET by motherbeltWhen the Catholic Church decides that those who think the Iraq war is just have voluntariliy excommunicated themselves, that will be different. The Church has already said that with regard to support for abortion.
Besides, the ability of most lay people to affect those things is minimal....If I agree that the Iraq war is not just, am I a self-excommunicated Catholic because I do not join in anti-war protests, but merely pray for an end to it? Politicians such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy who claim to be Catholic yet publicly support, provide money for, and enact laws in favor of such things as war and abortion, are in a different category. Yet they have to deal with "separation" issues too. It's not an easy task, I agree. Is it OK to be against the war just because one is a pacifist, but not because one's Church teaches against it? The result is the same.
These questions aren't going to be solved any time soon, but they sure make for interesting discussions on forums such as this.
Fallibility
April 10, 2008 - 14:13 ET by ChaitealoverI believe the term "Cafeteria Catholic" refers to those who would pick and choose between the various doctrines of the church, and that the pope is held to be infallible in regards to those doctrines only. The war in Iraq is not a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore Pope Benedict's opinion is his own, to be agreed with or not, depending on one's own conscience.
Chai
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you…of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you. Nikita Khrushchev
I think Pope Benedict is
April 10, 2008 - 17:21 ET by mjgI think Pope Benedict is gravely concerned with the Christians in Iraq, especially the Chaldeans who are leaving the country in droves and afraid to practice their own religion out in the open. Th pope is concerned with matters of the Church and religion.
Nah - that is not the same thing
April 11, 2008 - 10:48 ET by KC MulvilleThey are not the same. The bishops have a clear right to define legitimate teaching, but only about faith and morals. If the bishops come out with a pronouncement that the west coast offense is better than the Lombardi sweep, you can happily ignore the bishops. Their authority is strictly limited to questions of faith and morals. When the bishops define something about faith and morals, a Catholic can’t pick and choose whether they like the teaching (“cafeteria Catholics”). But when it comes to questions outside their authority, Catholics have every right to make up their own mind.
It is true that Benedict and John Paul II are/were against the Iraq war. The question is whether their beliefs about the war were moral declarations of authority. I think you’ll find that neither pope considered their opposition to be an exercise of moral authority. Like most Europeans, they simply had their own opinions about whether Saddam constituted a security threat.
If Bush had stood up and said, “we have no real excuse to invade Iraq, we just want the oil,” then you could make a case that Bush was acting immorally, and the pope’s opposition would have to be based on the immorality of a unjust war. But that’s not what’s happening here. Bush’s rationale for going to war was a defense of his country, and that isn’t immoral. The pope has no authority to condemn it morally. And, therefore, if an individual Catholic supports the war, he has no need to worry about having a different opinion than the pope.
Good
April 10, 2008 - 14:15 ET by planetrepublicanGood, I am glad to hear it. Now the only group we need is moderate Muslims. One day we will kick their liberal-God-hating asses back to hell where they came from.
Pope Benedict said what?!!
April 10, 2008 - 16:12 ET by mustangsallyAre you deliberately misleading or just stupid? The quotation is not from Pope Benedict but from Cardinal Ratzinger (who is now Pope Benedict) in 2003. Note closely what he says about the nature of this judgment:
"Q: Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a "just war"?
Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.
The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."
http://www.zenit.org/article-7161?l=english
The Pope can give his
April 10, 2008 - 17:12 ET by futbolisgreat1The Pope can give his opinion about whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Unless he makes it Doctrine, Dogma, Roman Catholics have the freedom to tell the Pope that he is wrong.
I am a practicing Roman Catholic, and if Cardinal Ratzinger did say that the Iraq War may not be a Just War, that is his personal opinion. I disagree with him.
If he now says the same thing as a Pope, I would still disagree with him. Now, if the Church made it Doctrine that the Iraq War was evil and an Unjust War, well if I want to continue being a Roman Catholic, I would have to abide by this Doctrine.
The Pope, in the Roman Catholic Church, is infallible ONLY in matters of Dogma and Doctrine, everything else is his personal opinion and personal world view.
Someone said it very well, as a Roman Catholic if I help, participate, have an abortion, I am excommunicated, and only a Bishop can forgive this grave sin. If I vote for a candidate for the sole purpose that the candidate will push the pro-murder babies agenda, I am also excommunicated. But supporting or not support the Iraq War doesn't mean you are sinning.
As for Protestants, Evangelicas in this case and Roman Catholics getting closer and closer together, I would have to agree. The deep divide is not as big as years past.
However, and this is not so much Evangelicals, but other Christian denominations, are still very, very, I mean incredibly anti-Roman Catholic. Just look at individuals like Trach (who I would question whether they are true Christians of any kind), he hates the Roman Catholic Church with a passion that I had only seen in Liberal atheists, feminazis and other left wing wackos. He is not alone, it is not the first time that I run into a crazed out Calvinist who condemns to Hell anyone that is not a Calvinists. Regardless, Christian denominations are slowly, but surely trying to come closer together, trying to find common grounds to unite.
Ecclesial community
April 10, 2008 - 17:07 ET by CurtPardon me for asking, but is this the same Pope Benedict, who, as both Cardinal and Pope, stated that Protestants cannot actually have churches. Our congregations are merely "ecclesial communities" which do not have "the means of salvation," according to the Pope (and official RC doctrine for a long time).
In other words, unless we join the RC church, we're all going to hell - but we can still talk about those things we hold in common!
Not me.
Curt
Curt, Care to cite your
April 10, 2008 - 17:18 ET by futbolisgreat1Curt,
Care to cite your sources please? Sounds like a lot of hearsay.
What I believe the Roman Catholic Church says of whether or not others that are not Roman Catholics can be saved or not is....
If you are not a true practicing Roman Catholic out of your own, willful ignorance, then you are in trouble. That is, if you know in your heart (and only God knows what you truly think and what you feel in your heart) that the Roman Catholic Church holds the truth to salvation and that following the Dogma, Doctrine and Theology of the Church will lead you to Heaven, but you freely, willingly choose not to follow these RCC Dogmas, Doctrines and Theology, then you are in trouble.
Now, if you are not a Roman Catholic because you have never had the chance to become one, because you don't know the Roman Catholic Church, because you honestly, whole heartly believe the Roman Catholic Church is wrong....you can still be saved as long as you follow Natural Law instilled in all humans.
The Church teaches that even an atheist can reach Heaven and that a Catholic can fry in Hell. Being a Roman Catholic doesn't guarantee you Heaven, just like being an atheist doesn't guarantee you Hell, according to Roman Catholic Dogma, Theology and Doctrine.
I am unsure where you got your talking points from, but I am sure that you either misunderstood what the Pope said, or you were lied to. Either way, your statements are 100% wrong.
Fut, Here. You should
April 10, 2008 - 17:21 ET by LeonFut,
Here.
You should do a little research before you tell someone they're 100% wrong.
The view that Protestants cannot have churches was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican "ministry" for doctrine. A commentary attached to the latest text acknowledged that his 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, had caused "no little distress".
But it added: "It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."
LINK
Leon,do you love putting
April 10, 2008 - 17:32 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon, do you love putting your foot in your mouth constantly? Leon/Hater....PLEASE!!!
read my post before you claim things that I never said... Where in my post did I say Curt was wrong about what the Pope said about the Protestant "churches" not being Churches? No where!
I corrected Curt on his believe, lie, whatever you want to call it that the Pope has said that only Roman Catholics can be saved.
Do yourself a favor and as I told you yesterday....shut-up. Stop posting.
Furthermore, I would also question The Guardian when it comes to being honest reporters of what the Pope has to say. I mean, these are the same liars that claimed that the Church had come out with new sins.
Leave it to you, Leon, who are 100% ignorant about the Roman Catholic Church to give an opinion which is based on anti-Catholic media.
Regardless, I never questioned Curt assertion about the Pope and the Protestant churches, I question Curt on his assertion that the Pope said only RCCs can be saved.
Do yourself a favor, please open up a book and educate yourself, ok?
I am unsure where you got
April 10, 2008 - 17:40 ET by LeonI am unsure where you got your talking points from, but I am sure that you either misunderstood what the Pope said, or you were lied to. Either way, your statements are 100% wrong
If you were only challenging one of his statements, why you say 'statements' plural? ha.
Everything that Curt said was true and based on hard documentation. The "ecclesial communities" and his salvation comments are 100% accurate. By proclaiming that there is only one Church (the Catholic Church) the pope clearly stated that salvation can only come from one church. Meaning, you can't get salvation from anywhere but the Catholic Church.
The new document, formulated as five questions and answers, restates key sections of a 2000 text the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which riled Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."
The commentary repeated church teaching that says the Catholic Church "has the fullness of the means of salvation."
"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," said the document.
LINK
You should probably apologize to Curt for claiming he was wrong. It was you that was wrong.
You consistently make things up and attack others who challenge you, even in the face of hard evidence. It's hilarious.
Reading your post, it's hard to believe that you're a functioning adult.
Looks like you're the one that should be opening a book. You have no clue what you're talking about. Some Catholic expert you turned out to be.
Leon/Hater.... where does
April 10, 2008 - 17:54 ET by futbolisgreat1Leon/Hater.... where does your ignorance and arrogance end? \
Sorry you are still wrong.
1) Cutting and pasting from Boston.com and The Guardian means nothing, zero, nada.
2) Instead of spewing out what the media has brainwashed you to believe, as it is obvious by your cutting and pasting from MSM websites, why don't you find the Doctrine, Dogma, Theology, DIRECTLY FROM THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH!....why are you so lazy? Get it straight from the horses mouth. Where in the official Roman Catholic Cathecism does it state what you claim? I want chapter, question answer and page. Until you find this, don't bother to post anymore about a subject that you are so incredibly ignorant about.
3) Obviously, you believe everything the MSM tells you to believe.
4) No where in what you bolded, cut and pasted that your MSM sources claim that the Pope says show that the Pope declared Doctrine, Dogma, Theology of the RCC that only RCCs can be saved.
Saying the "fullness to the means of salvation..." saying "Christ established one Church" while both statements very true, doe not equate to, "Only RCCs can reach Heaven." Doctrine, Dogma, Theology.
I repeate, do yourself a favor, shut-up. With each post you show your hate, ignorance and lack of education.
Fut, 1) Decrying the
April 11, 2008 - 09:19 ET by LeonFut,
1) Decrying the source is a classic tactic of someone who knows they are wrong. Here's the document those articles were quoting. I'd love to see you figure out a way to challenge this one. LINK
2) The media hasn't brainwashed me to believe anything. I just know how to read, unlike you. You can only achieve salvation through the church, there is only one church, therefore you can only receive salvation through the one true church. How can you not understand this? It's so simple. A child could understand this.
3) "Fullness of means of salvation" means exactly what curt and I have said. What's the definition of full? Do you know Fut? Complete, entier, maximum, containing all that can be held. So when you say the Roman Catholic Church has a fullness of means of salvation, you're saying that they have the ONLY means to salvation, the maximum. Again, I'm not sure how you don't see this. Clearly, you're just ignoring the reality b/c it goes against your argument.
4) The MSM didn't tell me what to believe, your pope did. The MSM merely reported on his direct words and the resulting hoopla it caused in the Protestant community.
5) Keep shouting as if you think it will hide your ignorance. You have no idea what you are talking about and you have been fully exposed. I guess we could say you have a fullness of means of ignorance around here. haha.
6) As for your advice, methinks it's better suited for a loud mouth like you.
Heat, but no light
April 10, 2008 - 17:38 ET by Curtfutbol,
If the means of salvation is only in the RC church, then how does have access to those means when outside the RC church?
Let me assure you on another front. I am one of the Calvinists with whom you seem to have so much trouble. Well, let not your heart be troubled. I neither desire that you go to hell nor have the authority to make it so. That is between you and God.
Curt
a little perspective, ladies and gentlemen
April 11, 2008 - 11:45 ET by KC MulvilleRemember the history of the early church. Catholics believe that the apostles had authority over what Jesus’ true teaching was, because Jesus expressly gave it to them. After Jesus’ death, the apostles spread out, all over the Roman world.
The apostles would go to different places, and establish Christian communities, and when the time was right, they’d move on to the next town.
Naturally, other believers went out and established communities, but not all of those disciples were apostles. Some were just very enthusiastic converts, but whose grasp of the essential Christian message was flimsy, at best.
Naturally, very soon, the issue of authority arose. What did Jesus really teach? Who was going to decide what teaching was legitimate?
Now, also remember that the original apostles all knew each other. What kept the whole church together was really the unity among the apostles. The apostles were eventually succeeded by bishops, but just as the apostles kept their unity, so too did the bishops. Within a couple decades, the authority of the church depended on the common unity (i.e., communion) of the various churches. If you weren't following a bishop who belonged within the communion, you weren't listening to a legitimate bishop. And remember, at the time, there were plenty of nutty heresies floating around. If the genuine teachings of Jesus saved you, then it was crucial to know which were the genuine teachings of Jesus. (And, we believe, it still is.)
So, after all that, here’s how Catholicism works. What saves you? Answer: belief in Jesus. But, what is the true belief in Jesus? Who decides what Jesus’ teaching is? Answer: the bishops. So, for Catholics, anyone who doesn’t follow the bishops isn’t in communion with the whole church. That’s what leaves you without the full legitimacy of salvation, because salvation depends on Jesus' teaching, and only the bishops can define legitimate teaching.
Non-Catholics are quick to be offended by this idea of "outside the church." But it isn't an insult to any individual's faith or goodness. It's an ancient conviction that only the legitimate authority of the church can reveal Jesus' true teaching, and that's what saves you.
→ Thanks, fut
April 10, 2008 - 17:30 ET by Cool ArrowBut as an enlightened ex-Catholic, that church no longer has a grip on me.
Praise God.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, But that is
April 10, 2008 - 17:41 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
But that is just it, if you truly, in your heart, in your brain believe that the RCC is wrong, so be it, you can still reach Heaven. This is Catholic Dogma, Doctrine, Theology.
I, however, do find your words "...grip on me..." some what telling. If you truly believe the Church had a grip on you, then you do not know the Church as well as you may think you do.
However, my bigger point is, that it is a lie to claim that the Church Dogma, Doctrine, Theology says that only RCCs can be saved.
This is a great lie spread out by the enemies of the Church.
Fut, By lie spread out by
April 10, 2008 - 17:43 ET by LeonFut,
By lie spread out by enemies of the church do you really mean document released by the church?
Ha. It's fun to watch you wallow in your own ignorance of the church you proclaim to love so much.
clueless
April 10, 2008 - 17:45 ET by CurtI respect the Rc church's right to believe what it believes. In fact, it's refreshing when some bishop stands up and says that a pro-death political candidate should be barred from the sacraments.
That does not mean, however, that 2+2=5. Salvation is either only in "the one church" or it isn't.
Curt
Curt, "That does not
April 10, 2008 - 17:53 ET by futbolisgreat1Curt,
"That does not mean, however, that 2+2=5. Salvation is either only in "the one church" or it isn't."
This is YOUR personal interpretation of what the Pope ment....However, do you not think that if the Pope ment that ONLY Roman Catholics can be saved, he would have said this directly? YES! If the Pope said this, show it.
As I asked Leon, please point out to the Roman Catholic Dogma, Doctrine, Theological believe that says only Roman Cahtolics can reach Heaven. I want sources and not hearsay from The Guardian, Boston.com....I don't want an interview interpreted by the MSM, translated by the MSM, I want direct Vatican sources, I want to see Dogma, Doctrine, Theology.
Not YOUR interpretation, Leon's interpretation, The Guardian's, Boston.com's interpretation of the teachings of the Church.
Stop relying on the MSM to inform you about the RCC or for a fact about anything.
You are interpreting the Pope's word from a Calivinist's, Protestant's point of view.
Stop putting words into the mouth of the Pope.
and I don't have a problem with all Calvinist, only those that I have run into that are zealots, crazed out, eyes popping out of their heads zealots.
Surely you jest
April 10, 2008 - 18:03 ET by Curtfutbol,
You wrote: "I want sources and not hearsay from The Guardian, Boston.com....I don't
want an interview interpreted by the MSM, translated by the MSM, I want
direct Vatican sources, I want to see Dogma, Doctrine, Theology."
Frankly, I don't care what you want. The Pope's words are open to interpretation - and I think I've given a reasonable interpretation - just are any other person's words.
When we interpret Scripture we call it "doing theology." This is not catholic-bashing. It is a response to "non-catholic bashing."
Curt
Curt, Of course you don't
April 10, 2008 - 18:11 ET by futbolisgreat1Curt,
Of course you don't want to research whether you are right or wrong on your attack on the Roman Catholic Church, on the Pope. It is much easier to feel secure in your believes than have them shaken by the truth.
The fact is that you wrong, admitted or not, you are 100% wrong.
You interpreted the Pope's words in the matter that fit your dislike and maybe even hate for the Church. To do otherwise would not fit your Calvinist believes.
Furthermore, you interpreted the Pope's words according to the Theology of many other Protestant theologies which do state that only through them can you be saved.
Now, why are you unwilling to do the research to see if the Roman Catholic Church truly believes, and teaches that only Roman Catholics can reach Heaven. I mean if this is a teaching, you should be able to find it in the official Roman Catholic Cathecism, right?
The Pope never said what you claimed he said Curt. In fact, he even used language that supports what I am saying, "...fullness of Salvation..." right? at what point again did he say, "The only way to salvation is through the Roman Catholic Church"?
If he said this, if the Church teaches this, you should be able to find it directly from th eRoman Catholic Church, right?
OK
April 10, 2008 - 18:23 ET by CurtI give up. Your towering intellect has trumped me, indeed. NOT. futbol, you seem afraid to actually think. Your only link to reality appears to be documents of your church.
Jesus taught that salvation is through Him and Him alone. I do not agree with any "Protestant" church which says that it has a lock on all the salvations which can be issued. Nor do I accept that this is the case with your church. The church (your and mine) has a role in the life of the believer and in the life of the community. That role is to share the Word of God and its blessings. It is not to usurp the authority of God, Himself.
I cannot argue with someone who simply says "show me from my own documents," yet refuses to accept that words can have meaning; that phrases are full of meaning beyond the actual statements made; and that there can be logical inferences made from pronouncements made.
By the way, you really do exude a hatred of Calvinism. You should have that looked at.
Signing out.
Curt
Curt, curt... So, I
April 10, 2008 - 20:31 ET by futbolisgreat1Curt, curt...
So, I should listen to the interpretation of the Pope, the Churc as given by those that want to attack it and discredit it? hahaha!!!
you are funny Curt.
and stop projecting my friend, I don't hate Calvinist. You on the other are the one....how did you put it....exuding hate towards the Roman Catholic Church.
So, according to you, if I want to find out what Einstein ment by E=mc (squared) I should read everyone that interpreted Einstein, except him?
Why would I look anywhere else except inside the Church to find out what its Dogma, Doctrine and Theological teachings are?
Are you suggesting that if I want to know what Republicans believe in I should check out the Democrat's believe of the Republican party? haha!!! I truly hope not.
If I want to know what the Republican platform is, guess what! I look within the Republican to find out, not what the Democrat Party has to say about the Republican party.
Amazing that you are so incredibly lazy and so comfortable with your lack of knowing the facts that you rather have Boston.com, The Guardian, etc tell you what the Pope ment.
I guess you also believe, like the MSM spewed out a few months back that the Church has come out with new deadly sins, right?
and you probably also believe that in Roman Catholic Dogma the Seven"deadly" sins are the worst sins you can commit, right?
Please, if I want to find what the Church stands for, what it teaches, what its Dogmas, Doctrine and Theological teachings are, of course! I am going to look inside the Church.
Or, maybe you are suggesting that if I want to find out more about your family, I should ask all those that hate your family, right?
I am sorry that you believe that I want to prove that I am superior to you intellectually. Honestly Curt, I just can't stand the immense, and incredible ignorance that is spewed out about the Roman Catholic Church as truth.
It is just like a few weeks back when the MSM, Foxnews, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and even Conservative bloggs came out with the story that the Pope and th eRoman Catholic Church had come out with NEW sins. Obviously, the next day we found out that this was NOT the case. But do you think anyone right or left cared to correct their story? NO!
Curt, do you believe that if I want to know more about Calvinism I should read all the anti-calivinists books, the interpretation of anit-calivinists about Calvinism? I hope not. If I want to know more about Calvinism, I ask a Calvinist, I read books written by Calvinist theologists, right?
It is not about me thinking I am superior or that I am more intelligent...sorry, it is about me pointing out that you can't believe at face value everything you hear about the MSM.
If the Roman Catholic Church taught that only Roman Catholics can be saved, believe me, you would find it in the Roman Catholic offical Catechism, you would find it in many places in Roman Catholic Doctrine. Obviously you can't find it, thus your very week response to my challenge to you.
I am sorry that your hatred for the Church doesn't allow you to see how you have swallowed so many lies about the Church.
Fut: Unless he makes it
April 10, 2008 - 23:24 ET by tracheostomyFut: Unless he makes it Doctrine, Dogma, Roman Catholics have the freedom to tell the Pope that he is wrong.
Anyone else here see a problem with that?
Fut: So, I should listen to the interpretation of the Pope, the Churc as given by those that want to attack it and discredit it? hahaha!!!
Or. . .perhaps truly unite the divisions under one faith without having to "gradually mitigate" certain truths. HMM?
Fut: So, according to you, if I want to find out what Einstein ment by E=mc (squared) I should read everyone that interpreted Einstein, except him?
Could we substitue Augustine for Einstein and predestination for E=mc (squared)? Or does that only work your way Futbol?
Fut: Why would I look anywhere else except inside the Church to find out what its Dogma, Doctrine and Theological teachings are?
Well. . .howabout when blatant contradictions and fuzzy logic show up in the Catholic Encyclopedia? Would that be acceptable?
Fut: If I want to know what the Republican platform is, guess what! I look within the Republican to find out, not what the Democrat Party has to say about the Republican party.
I think it's high time you started practicing what you preach. If you really did what you recommend, you'd find the problem all your opponents are honestly pointing out.
Fut: Honestly Curt, I just can't stand the immense, and incredible ignorance that is spewed out about the Roman Catholic Church as truth.
I agree 100%. I suggest going straight to the Catholic Encyclopedia if you want to know the truth. Wiki entries tend to link to CE a lot.
Fut: If I want to know more about Calvinism, I ask a Calvinist, I read books written by Calvinist theologists, right?
And yet. . .you actually haven't done that. Hmm.
Fut: If the Roman Catholic Church taught that only Roman Catholics can be saved, believe me, you would find it in the Roman Catholic offical Catechism, you would find it in many places in Roman Catholic Doctrine. Obviously you can't find it, thus your very week response to my challenge to you.
Oh, GOOD ONE!! As a matter of fact, it's totally the opposite. Despite St. Paul and the apostles, everyone gets saved in the RCC. There's loads of backdoors to the sheepfold.
So please Futbol, could you do us the polite favor of. . .
1. Defining "anathema."
2. Tell us what you must do in order to merit Hell?
Pretty please. . .?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach... You are a
April 11, 2008 - 00:54 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach...
You are a joke...you are not here for the truth, you are here to bash that which you are not smart enough to understand.
You don't understand Roman Catholic teachings, thus you attack them.
keep on going, you have become quite amusing....
as I said, you are not in search for the truth, you are here to interpret the Bible as you please so it fits your believes.
you are a joke, a fake, an individual that does great harm to Christianity.
Trach: Oh, GOOD ONE!! As a matter of fact, it's totally the opposite. Despite St. Paul and the apostles, everyone gets saved in the RCC. There's loads of backdoors to the sheepfold.
and here you go again, interpreting St. Paul as you see fit so that you feel all warm and fuzzy with the hateful god, time limited god, no free-will god that you have created.
did you ever find that one espeical Bible chaptre, verse, etc, etc that tells us all how to interpret the Bible?
why are you interpreting the Bible....didn't you tell me that the Bible was the ultimate authority? So, why are you twisting the Bible authority by interpreting? When will you live by what you preach and let the Bible speak for itself?
did you ever find that book in the Bible that tells you how to conect Bible chapters and verses? tick, tock, tick. tock...
can you think on your own?
can you spew out any other propaganda besides the fake things that Sproul and Calvin have to say?
can you not see how you have so wrongly grabbed on to parts, less than half of St. Augustine's believes (sadly enough the ones that he wrote while he was living in great sin) and you ignore all the corrections he makes to all of his early believes?
and by the way....no, you don't allow St. Augustine to speak....you use Sproul, Calvin etc interpretations, plus your own to have St. Augustine say what you want it to say to support your hateful, no free-will, time limited "god".
you really need to try next time....you are not doing too well.
Oh, wait, I know...you missed quoting countless chapters and verses from the Bible to mean what YOU want them to mean to support your McDonald's Menu religion.
Fut,
April 11, 2008 - 17:11 ET by tracheostomyFut: You don't understand Roman Catholic teachings, thus you attack them.
With your links, by page, and with zero alteration. I consider the RCC doctrine of gradual mitigation a true Godsend.
Fut: As I said, you are not in search for the truth, you are here to interpret the Bible as you please so it fits your believes.
Yet, you hardly ever quote the Bible yourself. And when you do, it's so freaked out that even other Catholics would question your approach, like your assertion that Gabriel originally spoke in Aramaic, and that the English Bibles were translated from Latin. Koo-koo.
Fut: and here you go again, interpreting St. Paul as you see fit so that you feel all warm and fuzzy with the hateful god, time limited god, no free-will god that you have created.
Yet you have zero proof to the contrary. I have proven through scripture that God is love, not confined to time, and that man's free will is the same as how Augustine described it. It would be insane to assert our free will is 100% unlimited, or else we could "will" to shoot lasers from our eyes or "will" to change toads into princes. You truly don't understand how outrageous your assertions really are. You are quite literally asserting that man can change this stone into bread.
Fut: did you ever find that one espeical Bible chaptre, verse, etc, etc that tells us all how to interpret the Bible?
Actually, I found several. The problem is that. . .
[Fut: So, why are you twisting the Bible authority by interpreting?]
. . .my hands are tied. LOL! You can't challenge me and then declare everything I'll say invalid before I accept. You won't allow me to say anything simply because I'm not RCC.
If I give you the scriptures you challenge me to find, then you up and accuse me of "twisting." Then you later accuse me of never finding them to begin with. But if I registered under another name, claimed to be a Catholic, and showed you the same problematic assumptions you cling to, would you listen to me then?
I read your links and illustrated the flaws. Gradual mitigation owns you. Jerome made a mistake translating "favored one." You cheated when Augustine became too clear for you to accept anymore. This is all public record. All you're doing at this point is smack-talking on the basketball court when you still haven't made a single shot.
Fut: and by the way....no, you don't allow St. Augustine to speak....you use Sproul, Calvin etc interpretations, plus your own to have St. Augustine say what you want it to say to support your hateful, no free-will, time limited "god".
That's a bold-faced; blatant lie. As previously demonstrated. . .
1. Your handpicked redactor cited the exact same online library and the exact same book I did. A book unknowingly hosted and approved by other Calvinists (the introduction alone made me LOL.)
2. Your handpicked redactor pulled a Michael Moore on the quotes and spun the whole thing out of context without regards to the rest of the passage, even arbitrarily removing and inserting key words to make it "acceptable" for him.
3. I defended the passage on my own without outside help. Augustine spoke plainly enough and it doesn't need help. It's Augustine; not Shakespeare.
You're making Catholics look really bad here, Fut. I resent that. You don't speak for the Tridentine Catholics either, but I guess they're going to heaven too.
Fut: Oh, wait, I know...you missed quoting countless chapters and verses from the Bible to mean what YOU want them to mean to support your McDonald's Menu religion.
If that were the case, you would have found me contradicting myself at one point or another. But you haven't. Quotes please! If your interpretations fail to match mine, then you would be able to demonstrate it without falling back on your argument from authority fallacies.
- John Calvin isn't my pope.
- My religion isn't based on my arbitrary choice of which doctrines I like and those I don't. Thus, you are calling my type of Christianity nothing more than rank pagan individualism.
Fut: So, it is ok for you to gag the Roman Catholic Church, but if you feel that someone else is gagging someone else in the Bible you go after them?
Wow....Liberal "logic" at play on your part Trach. Typical Liberal, Do as I say, not as I do.
Nope. Totally fair, since both sources you cite appear to be doing the same thing.
Personally, I prefer you keep talking. I really want everyone to know about the doctrine of gradual mitigation hidden in the Catholic Encyclopedia that you relied on as your main source. I would LOVE IT if everyone knew that. So nope, no gag on the RCC Fut, I'd totally love every Catholic to see that.
Fut: Same thing with the Bible. You guys don't accept the Roman Catholic Church to tell you the meaning of the Bible, which is infallible since it is matter of Dogma, Doctrine Theology, but you will accept your own interpretation and that of Sproul, Calvin and others?
Not infallible if it relies on one giant argumentum ad verecundiam, which it does!
Futbol's sources are merely credible because they simply "are" and because he simply "says so." But it falls apart when you go to the Greek, or examine Jerome a litte bit, or actually get off your lazy ass and read Augustine without a Michael Moore-type redactor reading it for you.
Fut: The problem is that Protestants love to interpret the Bible and twists it words and match verses, etc, etc that don't mean what they want it to mean.
Well, okay. . .you might be able to prove this with say, Church of Christ Campbellites, a church in the Word of Faith movement, a member of the Emergent church movement, or a couple ministers that Leon is closely affiliated with, but you cannot prove any twisting on my part, other than your empty assertion of it. This goes double for Botg as well. You'll have to prove he twisted also Fut.
Fut: c'mon bring it on and refute this. I know Trach will point out to countless Bible verses, without noticing that the second he does this, he is falling into his own trap of interpreting the Bible to mean what he wants it to mean.
This statement ^^^ is a presupposition of a pre-determined outcome. You must actually prove how my interpretation twists away from the original content. And you've never done that. Not once. Get to work. You've fallen way behind in your Biblical slothfulness.
Fut: By the way, have you taken the gag off from the Archangel St. Gabriel? have you?
Oh, you mean your Gabriel that spoke in Aramaic-only and interpreted exclusively by Jerome? It turns out the truth of the matter is that Gabriel stated "Hail, highly favored/blessed one." So what is there to gag? The Greek for "grace" is conspicuous in its absence.
You failed and you're just fronting to cover it up.
Fut: and let us not forget the biggest joke....you using St. Augustine to suit your believes, using his thoughts and believes during the 20 years that he was living in sin and then going ahead and ignoring all the corrections that he made after he realized how wrong he was.
This is a blatant super-lie. The sheer size of this double whopper with bacon and cheese is ASTOUNDING.
The works your own redactor quoted came after Augustine's conversion to the one holy catholic and apostolic church that has since gradually mitigated his own writings!!! But there's nothing wrong with that, right? Because they still have a feast day and call him a father of the church. Whatever. Hypocrites all, honoring with their lips when their hearts are far from it.
Fut: Now go away...I asked you to stop addressing me.
Why? I have every right to answer your statements in public.
Fut: You are no different than the crazed out left wing lunatics, atheist that go into Roman Catholic Churches and throw used condoms on the congregation.
This is an internet forum. No latex. . .just silicon and teh cable internets. You're quite safe I assure you, and your condom example is outrageously absurd!
Fut: As I told you, at least with Syrious, Leon, Balboa, you know what you are getting into. You, on the other hand, are a wolf in sheeps clothing. You are the Pharisees that Jesus Christ warned us about.
How so? You have thus far not demonstrated this during our Woodshed debate or here. Your mere "say so" does not automatically make it so.
Fut: Go worship the "god" that you, sproul and Calvin have created...a god with the limitation of hate, limiation of time, limitation of lack of Free Will.
See above.
Fut: No Trach, what I said was that Aramaic was the language spoken by Jesus Christ and all of his Apostles. At first the Gospels were passed on through word of mouth! in what language? Aramaic.
Christians were very, very careful not to keep too many written records during the Ancient Roman persecution of the Christian, which far surpassed many modern day persecutions, in fact, I believe it mirrors in many ways, the Jewish Holocoust...not in the numbers, but in the cruelty of the Romans towards the Christians.
Regardless Trach, my point to you was that the Gospels were all first spoken in Aramaic and when they were written down, there are many scholars who argue that some part of the Gospels were first written in Ancient Aramaic, the human language of Jesus Christ and then translated by the same author into Ancient Greek. The only Gospel that was written from beginning to end in full Ancient Greek is the Book of Revelations by St. John, the only Prophetic book left in the Bible.
Wow. Awesome!
*applause*
Thanks for bringing this out into the open. You may proceed to get laughed off the board now.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach,So, while you
April 11, 2008 - 10:41 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
So, while you claim (obviously you are wrong) that I don't let the Virgin Mary speak for herself, that I don't let St. Augustine speak for himself, and you ask me to take the gag off of these two individuals.....YOU don't accept the Roman Catholic Church to speak for herself!!
So, it is ok for you to gag the Roman Catholic Church, but if you feel that someone else is gagging someone else in the Bible you go after them?
Wow....Liberal "logic" at play on your part Trach. Typical Liberal, Do as I say, not as I do.
HAHAHA!!!
are you and your Protestant friends truly this blind to your own hypocrisy?
So according to Trach and Curt, I must let the Virgin Mary and St. Augustine speak for themselves, right? but not the Roman Catholic Church? HAHAHA!!!
So, according to Calvinists, according to curt and trach, I can't interpret the words of the Virgin Mary, St. Augustine, St. Gabriel etc, but YOU TWO and others can interpret the words of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church?!!!
BWAHAHAHA!!! you kids are quite amusing and funny.
only someone blinded by their own pride, their own arrogance can't see the hypocrisy of their own statements.
Trach, trach.....you are not an honest individual. You are not an intellectually honest person.
Same thing with the Bible. You guys don't accept the Roman Catholic Church to tell you the meaning of the Bible, which is infallible since it is matter of Dogma, Doctrine Theology, but you will accept your own interpretation and that of Sproul, Calvin and others?
So blind to your own hypocrisy.
BWAHAHAHA!!!! you guys are quite amusing.
Curt, By the way, the
April 10, 2008 - 18:15 ET by futbolisgreat1Curt,
By the way, the last thing you have given is a reasonable interpretation of what the Pope said. What you gave is Curt's interpretation of the Pope's word to fit his dislike of the Church.
You yourself came in here with fighting words and dislike for the Church.
The Pope's words are NOT for you to interpret, my friend. Take it for what they mean, and not for what YOU want them to mean.
Same thing with the Bible.
Never ceases to amaze me how many people will attack the MSM for interpretting the words of politicians that they support, yet this same individuals in the same breath will interpret the words of the Pope. Incredible.
→ Same thing with the Bible??
April 10, 2008 - 18:22 ET by Cool ArrowIf it were any other subject, I'd think you were kidding.
♣ a seal
:ahem: I second that CA.
April 10, 2008 - 23:30 ET by tracheostomy:ahem:
I second that CA.
I'm stunned that was Futbol that actually said that.
BTW Fut, you ever take Mary's gag off? Just checking.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Eh?!! what?! The
April 11, 2008 - 00:22 ET by