The Washington Post's On Faith website loves to post liberal writers who thumb their noses at traditional religion. Take liberal professor Robert McElvaine and his blog, "Impeach the Pope." He was so upset at Pope Benedict's remarks on Islam, his resistance to ordaining women, and his lifting an excommunication of a Holocaust denier, he exclaimed:
I am a Catholic and the idea that such a man is God's spokesperson on earth is absurd to me.
There are, of course, no provisions in the hierarchical institution set up, not by Jesus but by men who hijacked his name and in many cases perverted his teachings, for impeaching a pope and removing him from office. But there ought to be.
This betrays a serious refusal to accept the concept of papal infallibility, that the Pope's declarations on faith and morals are guided by the Holy Spirit to avoid error. There's a word for people who do not recognize the Pope as an authority: they're called Protestants.
But this inflammatory article may be simply a ploy to sell books:
As I detail in my latest book, "Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America" (Crown), the cardinal sin of the Catholic Church -- a literally deadly sin, if ever there was one -- is its opposition to birth control. Far from being, as the Church contends, part of its moral doctrine, this policy is, plainly, the immoral doctrine of the Church. The use of condoms is a pro-life position.
Why does the Church persist in such a manifestly immoral doctrine? One suspects that it must be the usual twisted thinking about sex and women. The Church's opposition to birth control is largely an outgrowth of its all-male composition and those males' attempts to degrade women's physical powers by asserting that women and the intercourse into which they supposedly tempt men are necessary evils ("It is well for a man not to touch a woman," Paul instructed the Christians of Corinth), the only purpose of which is procreation.
Actually, the verse McIlvaine cites (from 1 Corinthians 7) is not an anti-female passage. It says "A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife." That sounds like a rather modern vision of gender equality.
Rather than argue convincingly from the Scriptures or church history, McIlvaine simply imagines a male chauvinist conspiracy against the sexual powers of womanhood. This position opposing artificial contraceptives isn't a novelty. It's been the Church's position for centuries. It's every other Christian faction over the last century that's dropped its opposition. There's a simple word for Chrisitians who believe their church should define artificial contraception as acceptable: Protestants.
But McIlvaine wasn't done in attacking that woman-haters club known as the Catholic Church:
Misogyny may not be "the Church's one foundation," but it is a major part of the base on which it was constructed.
It should be obvious that the sin in an over-populated world is not attempting to control birth, but attempting to control birth control.
And now for the pope to go so far as to indicate that condom use worsens the spread of AIDS -- there's an outrage that tops Madoff and AIG!
Let's start a movement within the Catholic Church to impeach Pope Benedict XVI and remove him from office. While we're at it, let's replace him with a woman.
He reversed the excommunication of a Holocaust denier. Will he excommunicate me for pointing out that he is a misogyny denier?
If this be heresy, make the most of it.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Impeach the Pope?
March 18, 2009 - 23:22 ET by dborschjr68Even as a Protestant, I must laugh outloud, (HA HA!), at the absolute absurdity and arrogance and audacity for someone to even suggest such a ridiculous thing.
If it were me, and it isn't, as Pope I would dispatch some crafty church-sponsored tough guys to whip this weenie's ass. And then make him say like 100 Hail Mary's or something like that. In Latin, too.
======================
To the MSM: It has been said that, "The pen is mightier than the sword". So I'll tell ya what- how's about you hold onto a pen and see if it stops me from slapping your face. I'm just sayin'...
The bottom line ...
March 19, 2009 - 09:42 ET by Dave PierreThe bottom line is that this guy, who calls himself "Catholic," doesn't know what he's talking about. And this is far too common in the Church today.
For example, there is a very simple, easy-to-understand explanation for why the Church cannot ordain women. In the Catholic Church, Holy Orders is a sacrament. Sacraments were instituted by Jesus himself. As Pope JPII explained in 1994, the Church simply does not have the authority to change the nature of a sacrament. Now ... There are more explanations, more theologically deep, but this simple reason should be understandable to everyone.
As far as the writer's claim of "hijacking the teachings of Jesus," I'd love for him to show which teachings have supposedly been "hijacked."
There's more ... but you get the idea.
_+_+
Latest from TheMediaReport.com:
Book Review: William Lobdell : Losing My Religion
Church Abuse Attorney John Manly : An Index
Which proves that it is
March 19, 2009 - 10:56 ET by MrSnugglesWhich proves that it is liberals like himself, who want female priests and gay marriage, that are attempting to hijack Jesus and his message.
I am a Catholic and the
March 18, 2009 - 23:28 ET by botgI am a Catholic and the idea that such a man is God's spokesperson on earth is absurd to me.
well then if you truly believe that, you are not a Catholic, ergo you are a liar.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Only God's Spokesperson on earth
March 19, 2009 - 04:17 ET by Daniel BakerCan discredit a proclaimed spokesperson on earth
-------------------------------------------
Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.
As far as I am concerned, if
March 19, 2009 - 10:58 ET by MrSnugglesAs far as I am concerned, if you do not go to mass at least a few times a month you are not a Catholic. I seriously doubt this guy goes to mass, except maybe on Easter and Christmas. Those people irritate the hell out of me.
to be or not to be?
March 18, 2009 - 23:30 ET by BDelaneyEveryone wants to believe in greater things than themself, but only if it coincides with what is convenient for them. Well not everyone... It's sad to say I think it is the general consensus in America though.
True
March 19, 2009 - 04:17 ET by Daniel Baker-------------------------------------------
Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.
Hey!!!!
March 18, 2009 - 23:36 ET by RESTLESS 1"There's a word for people who do not recognize the Pope as an authority: they're called Protestants."
Don't try to pawn this clown off on us!!! :/
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Aw come on
March 19, 2009 - 01:38 ET by KC MulvilleCan't you just take him for a little while?
Second mention today,
March 19, 2009 - 01:52 ET by Indiana Joeand apologies to those who saw the first, but Tim is backed up by Florence King on this one.
When told by acquaintances that they were "Catholic, but disagreed with the Church on [some issue]," she informed them, "Congratulations, you're Protestants."
Because, by definition, that's the origin of Protestantism.
Sorry, but he's all yours! ;^)
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
Not happening--sorry.
March 19, 2009 - 02:12 ET by Mike BrattonApparently, he doesn't want us, either.
Between lying about what the Bible says, and his hatred for both Protestant and Catholic denominations of Christendom, he apparently doesn't have much use for Jesus, either.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
There is one other word that applies
March 19, 2009 - 10:21 ET by RESTLESS 1"atheists". Toss him in their camp. Sheesh! :/
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
There's another word . . .
March 19, 2009 - 07:19 ET by WingletDriver"There's a word for people who do not recognize the Pope as an authority: they're called Protestants."
Sometimes they aren't Protestants. Depending on their reasoning, sometimes they're just morons. This guy fits squarely in the latter category.
Professor McElvaine/McIlvane
March 18, 2009 - 23:40 ET by BurnsideIs plainly not a Catholic. He is plainly a liar, a phony and someone who is trafficking in misinformation to flog his already dead-horse book.
I hope he receives a lot of prayer because he desparately needs as much as he can get. Personally, I just find it increasingly difficult to pray for men like this. I know it's unfortunate (more like wrong), but prayers for this type of liar get stuck in my throat.
Oh Wow!
March 18, 2009 - 23:49 ET by someloudthunderWhat an @ss. Seriously. It's part of Catholics belief system. Do you ask for the Caliph of the Islamic religion to be impeached because he finds that 40 lashes for a rape victim is fair? Why can't people just respect the beliefs of others? You don't have to agree with them. I certainly don't. I love birth control because I love sex. However I also have the maturity to realize personal and religious beliefs mean things to people.
How do you get the latex
March 18, 2009 - 23:57 ET by RESTLESS 1How do you get the latex smell off of your hand. ;)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Funny, RESTLESS1,
March 19, 2009 - 02:09 ET by Indiana JoeLow-brow, but fun-neee!
;^D
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
Aw.
March 19, 2009 - 09:49 ET by someloudthunder:(
Impeach the Pope?
March 19, 2009 - 02:06 ET by Indiana JoeWho does this guy think Benedict is, George Bush? Seriously, he's just another liar. If he was ANY kind of "Catholic," he wouldn't say half the things in this column, and, very likely, in his book.
This is an old dodge by now. Claiming to be Catholic seems a prerequisite for the media when criticizing a Pope. I guess it's because if they admitted to not being Catholic, they'd basically be told it's not their business. Which it isn't.
It's really very simple: Follow the Pope, be Catholic; don't follow the Pope, don't be Catholic.
(That's ROMAN Catholic, of course. The Orthodox Catholics have their own versions, called "patriarchs," I believe.)
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
It's the old "some of my
March 19, 2009 - 06:14 ET by HockeyKidIt's the old "some of my best friends are black" dodge. Libs like to claim association with a group as some kind of ward against evil spirits when they trash that group. They think it makes them appear to be introspective. In reality, it reveals their masochistic tendencies.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Just like all those
March 19, 2009 - 09:49 ET by sherylsimsJust like all those "lifelong Republicans" the media is always dredging up for us to hear from.
Let's come at this another way
March 19, 2009 - 02:28 ET by KC MulvilleTell me something. Do you like the idea of cloning people, injecting the clones with a cancer, or some horrible disease, just to experiment on treatments? And what if the clone suffered horrific side-effects ... would that make you a little squeamish? Morally nervous? Petrified?
Think it'll never happen? Guess again. They already started with the "Take morality out of science! Don't impose your religion!" crap. (As we all know, even if huge majorities currently oppose it, any progress in any poll means that the youth of tomorrow will adopt it, so why bother opposing it now? Look at gay marriage.) Very soon, you're going to hear more of this kind of nonsense. Take morality out of science! If we can help cure one disease, it'll justify any scientific experimentation! Cloning!
_____
Gee whiz. If only someone, some person with religious authority, could stand up and say, Stop!
In his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul6 argued precisely that. He said that for all the wonder of science, there were some places where technology didn't belong. The immediate question was birth control, but Pope Paul's teaching wasn't based on hatred of women or any such nonsense. Paul was a bright guy. His argument was based on the fear that science doesn't belong everywhere. That's why he banned artificial birth control, but not all birth control. Sure, natural birth control may not be as effective, but Paul wanted to be clear that effectiveness isn't the only concern.
They laughed at Paul. They said he was just stupidly against rubbers. Thirty years ago, he was warning about using scientific technology to "fix" nature (how naive and arrogant that sounds!).
This Professor McIlvaine has his own arguments for birth control. Fine. But the least the Professor could have done is research what Paul was talking about. The Professor obviously no idea. He's worried about his trojans, but Paul was warning about so much more than just rubbers. Paul was worried about a catastrophic arrogance of human hubris, thinking we could experiment and play God.
am a Catholic and the idea
March 19, 2009 - 03:04 ET byam a Catholic and the idea that such a man is God's spokesperson on earth is absurd to me.
well then if you truly believe that, you are not a Catholic, ergo you are a liar."
The idea the pope is "God's mediator" or "spokesman" is BIBLICALLY condemned as a lie. I realize that you people think you can do whatever you want and God is going to accept it but unfortunately the bible says that ain't gonna happen. The idea of "papal infallibility" is based on the INCORRECT PREMISE that the Pope IS the mediator between man and God, get it? See, if the pope IS the mediator between man and God then he would HAVE TO BE INFALLIBLE because he'd be getting all his info from the Lord, right?
But what if the Pope ISN'T the mediator between man and God? What if he ISN'T? Then he would be a LIAR right?And since the church that he leads rests it's idea's of scriptural authority on the PREMISE that the pope IS that mediator between man and God, it would be pretty disastrous if he turned out NOT to be that MEDIATOR right?
Turns out there is a "mediator" between Man and God, turns out it AIN'T THE POPE.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
So, now what my Catholic Friends? Is your allegiance to Christ or to tradition and a man? I have just shown you conclusively that the pope is not the SPOKESMAN for Christ, he is not the "mediator" between man and God. There is only ONE and it is Christ. So now what?
You going to keep calling me names or are you people actually gonna READ your bibles and learn something? He's not the mediator. Therefore he CANNOT be "infallible" because he is a LIAR. Would the "spokesman" for Christ CAUSE YOU TO BLASPHEME? Make no mistake about it, every time you address the Pope as "HOLY FATHER" you COMMIT BLASPHEMY!
It doesn't matter what you think of me. You can call me names, think me cruel, "intolerant" whatever. But if you call yourselves "Christians" then you are BOUND by the WORD OF GOD. Jesus is the one who DECIDES what you get to call yourself in HIS CHURCH, get it? Not you. Not yo' momma. And not your tradition. CHRIST IS THE DECIDER! And this is what Christ "decided" on the subject of what NOT to call the leaders inside HIS CHURCH. You people would at least grant that JESUS gets to decide what goes on in His Church, right? Can we at least agree on that??????
Matthew 23:9 (New International Version)
9. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Is the Pope a subset of ANYONE? So i guess calling this impostor "HOLY FATHER" would be exceptionally blasphemous, would it not? Please don't respond to a scriptural argument with your feelings. "Feelings" are like BUTTHOLES, everyone's got 'em and not all of them are good!
Come up with SCRIPTURE that says there is MORE THAN ONE MEDIATOR or something that says it's okay to call a priest "Father", if you have a problem with plainly printed scripture. Go read MATT 23! The in-context reading is actually WORSE than the out of context one, because you'd get to see that Christ is only talking about the LEADERS OF THE CHURCH and what they should or SHOULD NOT be called!
"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of DEATH."
You make yourself the pope I see
March 19, 2009 - 04:13 ET by Daniel BakerYou are interpreting scripture for others. Who gave you this right to be spokesman?
-------------------------------------------
Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.
Good morning, Mr, Baker,
March 19, 2009 - 04:33 ET by Indiana Joe"Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind."
I use GoodSearch, and have for years. Usually get pretty good results, and they donate a penny per search to a charity of your choice. Even local ones. Mine goes to my son's Catholic school.
And I've never owned an Apple product (except maybe some software that came as a bundle, like Quicktime). My son does have an iPod, but what are you gonna do? He's 11, and wanted it for Christmas. But I swear, that's all! Promise! ;^)
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
Scroogle
March 19, 2009 - 08:28 ET by KylerkI use - www.scroogle.org
The Scroogle Scraper uses the same search engine as Google -
without putting any money in Google's pocket.
Thanks. Scroogle is now added to my searchbar
March 19, 2009 - 16:18 ET by Daniel Baker-------------------------------------------
Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.
That's the typical DODGE of
March 19, 2009 - 13:30 ET byThat's the typical DODGE of a proponent of false doctrine, "You're interpreting scripture for others", but I'm NOT "interpreting", I'm READING. I show you a scripture where the speaker is JESUS CHRIST and He says call NO ONE ON EARTH ,"FATHER"and like a whiny liberal you hate on me as "interpreting". CAN YOU READ? What do the words, CALL NO ONE ON EARTH FATHER mean to you? Moron. Is the pope a subset of ANYONE? And is the POPE on EARTH? That's all you need to answer numbnutz.
~Acts....like a tool
March 19, 2009 - 13:46 ET by choselife3xMoron.
numbnutz.
Do we have to have this conversation again?
"And I have asked you to be civil to people. I don't say anything to you till you start being rude."
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Acts...... like the devil
March 19, 2009 - 16:22 ET by Daniel BakerThe devil quotes scripture and tells Jesus what he can and cannot do.
-------------------------------------------
Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.
Acts...
March 19, 2009 - 16:33 ET by sherylsimsThis right here is what makes me know that when you say you are just trying to LOVE people by correcting them that you are lying. You are just being proud and hateful and NOBODY responds to that. I used to know a lot of people like you and I understand what you think you are trying to do, but you are wrong. Did Jesus anywhere in scripture call ANYONE a moron or numbnutz. No he did not. So if you are going to be close to Jesus you need to be LIKE Him. You are not an accurate representation of a Christian at all. (And to think I was thiiiis close || to apologising to you and telling you that maybe I had misjudged you.) <sigh>
You're obviously very well versed in the Bible,
March 19, 2009 - 04:23 ET by Indiana Joebut you make a common mistake of non-Catholics. The Pope is not considered infallible as a "mediator" between God and Man. The Pope is considered by Catholics to be infallible in matters of Church doctrine. As in, if the Pope says fasting during Lent means abstaining from meat on Friday, then that is Church doctrine. No ifs, ands, or buts. Formerly, Catholics were commanded to abstain from meat every Friday, again, purely a Papal decision. That was changed by a later Pope. See? It's in doctrine that the Pope is the final authority.
And there are as many interpretations of scripture as there are divisions of Christianity. So, I'll continue to call my pastor "Father," just as I called my father "Father." If your argument is that any child who calls their male parent "father" is violating God's law, sorry, I don't buy it. Your "out of context" line from Matthew 23:9 does say "anyone on earth," does it not? But you then claim he's "only talking about the leaders of the church." Seems your interpretation is at odds with the actual words you quote.
And please don't rebut with more scriptural passages filtered through your own interpretation. I am Catholic, and Catholic I shall remain. I shall neither try to enlist you to my religion, nor try to separate you from yours. Do me the same courtesy.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
No you're wrong and you need
March 19, 2009 - 13:41 ET byNo you're wrong and you need to read your bible. The section in Matt where this is being discussed is TALKING ABOUT RELIGIOUS LEADERS, that's what I was referring to by the "in context" line. Read the chapter why dontcha. If you continue to blaspheme the word of the Lord by calling your priest father after reading Matt 23:9 that would be your stupidity, but you have been warned. You won't ever be able to say "I didn't know". So have at it. There are no multiple faith's in Christ. There is only ONE faith. You are either IN it or you are NOT. If you read the new testament purely as a detective novel and listed the things that were taught by the Apostles as NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, you would have to conclude that the Catholic church is neither "Christian" NOR teaching what the bible teaches in regards to salvation. Since you think you have the right to some separate faith, how many people in the bible are baptized in the manner of the Catholic church? And since Ephesians 4:5 states that there is only ONE BAPTISM why is that not relevant to you since it's NOT the baptism that you had!
There is no one in the bible baptized in the titles, "Father, Son and Holy Ghost". The only baptisms in the bible are either in NO NAMe, before Christ, or in JESUS' NAME after His ascension, the ones performed BEFORE by JOHN were CHANGED to baptism in JESUS' NAME in Acts 19:1-6.
If you think I know so much about the bible, which I do, it would do you well to READ FOR YOURSELF THE RECORD in the book of Acts. I will give you TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for EVERY baptism that was performed in the manner of the Catholic Church! Is that enough to get you reading? And if you can't find ANY and if you mosey on over to EPHESIANS 4:5 and discover that the bible is only recognizing ONE baptism, and it ain't the one you got, will you listen then? Hope so.
Matthew 16
March 19, 2009 - 08:27 ET by moderncommentaries83Funny, because Matthew 16:15-19 would beg to differ.
"Spokesperson" and "mediator" are incorrect terms. The Pope is the guardian of the Church and the faith, a role appointed BY CHRIST to Simon Peter (Peter) the first Pope. To wit, SCRIPTURE says:
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Nice try. But the word
March 19, 2009 - 13:51 ET byNice try. But the word "POPE" doesn't exist and certainly can't be used to describe PETER. Since you've mentioned this particular set of scriptures you ACTUALLY PROVED MY POINT! Thanks. Christ gave Peter the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN which you accurately provided for us, thank you.
So why do you go to a church that DOESN'T OBEY WHAT PETER SAID TO DO?????
On the Day of Pentecost after the Holy GHost was given to the APostles they came down onto the street speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4), once there, there were some people who mocked them as being drunk (acts 2:13), Peter then launches the FIRST SERMON EVER THAT WAS HOLY GHOST INSPIRED! He teaches them that the tongues they were mocking is the SIGN of the outpouring of God's Spirit and that they all needed it. He teaches them that Jesus was the messiah and that David was not. At this point his preaching convicts the hearts of some who wanted to believe and they cried out to Peter to ask what they must do to be saved! Let's join the story at that point shall we? (You can read all of it in Acts 2:1-38)
Acts 2:37-38 (New International Version)
37. When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38. Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
If Peter is your first "pope" a word not found in scripture and therefore meaningless, WHY DOESN'T YOUR CHURCH OBEY THEIR "FIRST POPE" AND BAPTIZE IN JESUS' NAME?
Answer because they are the false church descended from those who listened to the doctrines of DEMONS prophesied by Paul here, 1Tim4:1-4.
You provided the proof yourself when you spoke of the pope mandating an abstention from certain meat. Did you know that the doing of that, MARKS HIM AS A LEADER OF THE FALSE CHURCH? That is what Paul told Timothy!
Thanks for proving my point.
~Acts...like a tool
March 19, 2009 - 08:48 ET by choselife3xI gave you a pass on one thread because you pointed your crazy gun at a troll. Your pass is now revoked, return to solitary.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Someone here will know this
March 19, 2009 - 09:01 ET by sherylsimsIsn't there a place in the Bible (I know there is, just not where) that Jesus says that they will know we are Christians by our LOVE? Can someone please find that reference for our friend Acts? He seems to like certain parts of the Bible and not the whole big picture of salvation.
~Sheryl
March 19, 2009 - 10:10 ET by choselife3x"By this shall all men know ye are my disciples by your love one for another" as I recall.
I'd have to look it up to get chapter and verse.
here ya go
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Here you go.
March 19, 2009 - 10:13 ET by Mike BrattonIt's from John 13:
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after Judas, inhabited by Satan, left the group to betray Christ.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
The problem is you don't
March 19, 2009 - 13:57 ET byThe problem is you don't even know what love is. In your cracked world love is You worship Christ your way and even if it's apostate, no one gets to criticize you. That's INSANE. Look at the plethora of scripture that demands that we all speak the same thing! LOVE is correction. Love is someone who has the gifts of the Holy Spirit taking time out of their day to correct your errant worship of the Lord! THIS IS LOVE BABY.
I don't care about your accolades or being "right" in your eyes. I have the WORD OF KNOWLEDGE. I KNOW that you're wrong. I have laid out the case that the catholic church baptizes incorrectly, THIS IS NOT "OPINION". This is an easily discoverable FACT. There is after all a RECORD of baptisms all throughout the book of Acts! YOu are either baptized like they were or you are NOT. Now, that's okay if it DOESN'T MATTER how you're baptized but the bible says IT DOES! Eph 4:5! So how is it NOT love to tell well meaning people, "that they might have missed a spot"?
Acts
March 19, 2009 - 14:08 ET by sherylsimsOk, well then let me lovingly admonish you. You have PRIDE. You do not engage in the full council of the Word of God but instead get wrapped up in one aspect of God's word, baptism. God said in his Word that he resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Whether you are right or not at this point is irrelevant because you have lost all your value as a messenger since nobody cares for your insulting, arrogant, lopsided point of view.
Don't try to do the Holy Spirit's job for Him. He is much more fully qualified to convict people's hearts than you are. And also, you are probably on the wrong forum for most of what you post here.
In Christ's love,
Sheryl
The next verse is
March 19, 2009 - 10:22 ET by jcollins9Nor are you to be called 'Teachers,' because you have only one teacher, the Messiah!
Does this mean that every schoolkid in the world is damned?
Anyone can cherry pick verses to make just about whatever point they want to make, within reason. This passage is a direct reference to the pharisees. He said, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." If you want to make an arguement that the same thing is happening in the Church, do so, but when read in context, it doesn't really support the argument you are trying to make. Actually, right now you are kind of doing what Christ is railing against. I'm just saying...
Man is not free unless government is limited. - Ronald Reagan
AGAIN. WRONG. The Lord was
March 19, 2009 - 14:02 ET byAGAIN. WRONG. The Lord was talking about what to be called within THE CHURCH! Not the WORLD. The Lord is the one who demanded that His doctrine be kept pure. That is what I am doing. I showed you that the apostles prophesied of a coming FALSE CHURCH, I showed you how you would RECOGNIZE that church ( 1Tim4:1-4). The catholic church is the ONLY christian church that falls into that category! You see "judgmentalism" where you should see loving correction. The scribes and pharisees DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW THAT THEY TAUGHT. I have received from the LORD the very Gift of the Holy Spirit, I am urging YOU to receive. I HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED in Jesus' name, the exact same way the apostles baptized and the same way I AM URGING YOU TO BE BAPTIZED, so how the heck and I a scribe or pharisee? I have done that which I am advocating, UNLIKE either a scribe or a pharisee who did not lift the burdens they placed on the shoulders of others!
Is Jesus a LIAR?
March 19, 2009 - 14:13 ET by sherylsimsHe told the thief on the cross next to Him that he would be with him in Paradise. Too bad that thief didn't get a chance to be baptised like you and all those apostles. I guess he is now wishing he had gotten that opportunity before he died.
Theology Lesson
March 19, 2009 - 07:28 ET by Sprice2586Threads like this always produce theology lessons from Secular "Catholics" and Evangelicals. Simple fact. The Pope is the leader of the church. The position he stated was nothing new. You are free to be you own "pope". No one is going to take your King James bibles or stop your mind from choosing at the "cafeteria".
Isn't that the truth?
March 19, 2009 - 12:59 ET by katiejaneListening to the diatribes of Evangelical posters like March 19, 2009 - 04:04 ET by Acts 2_38 is enough to send me over to the pagan side. No one is as good a believer as they are, no one understand Christianity as well as they do.
For some reason the concept of allowing other Christians the freedom of religion they so often whine about being denied by the non-religious people escapes them.
You are not a "BELIEVER"
March 19, 2009 - 14:08 ET byYou are not a "BELIEVER" unless you have received the SIGN THAT CHRIST GIVES TO HIS BELIEVERS! You just think you are. And I DIDN'T SAY IT Jesus did. (Mark 16:15-20) and here is the SIGN being poured out ( acts 2:1-38) HAVE YOU DONE THIS?
I'm not saying that YOU CAN'T! I'm not part of some club from which I am seeking to exclude you. I am trying to INCLUDE you! I am trying to show you that there's more to this thing than you have been taught by showing you what a church preaching false doctrine would NEVER show you! Has your preacher told you why they are baptized in Jesus' name in the bible but somehow it's okay for him to baptize you differently? Or did he just NEVER SHOW YOU HOW THE PEOPLE IN THE BIBLE WERE BAPTIZED? The latter I'll bet.
When you believe you receive the same sign that the Apostles did. Period. All yu have to do is REPENT. Acts 2:38 and you WILL receive it. I URGE you to receive it and I'm not trying to make you a member of MY church! There is no financial gain to be had for me! I SIMPLY want you and everyone else who claims the mantle of Christianity to know that we are living in the decieved age but that the way out of that is to RETURN TO THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES!
That'll do, "Acts," or whoever you are.
March 19, 2009 - 16:00 ET by Mike BrattonYour shrieking, browbeating, and insults are not attempts to "include" anyone. If you are a Christian, put a halt to all that immature, churlish nonsense; if you are not, keep on pretending--because you're not doing a very good imitation of a growing, maturing follower of Jesus Christ, and you're fooling no one.
Except, perhaps, yourself.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
In other words . . .
March 19, 2009 - 08:24 ET by KylerkIn other words - they want a Pope who's not Catholic.
Bingo!
March 19, 2009 - 09:21 ET by moderncommentaries83Bingo!
That pretty much sums up what the media, non-Catholic critics, and "Catholic" dissenters want: to be Episcopalians.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Great summary...
March 19, 2009 - 08:40 ET by jmtKinda says it all there, doesn't it?
jmt
http://www.jmichaelt.org
He is NOT a Protestant!
March 19, 2009 - 09:53 ET by RiiightDon't be offensive - by disobeying Ut Unam Sint are you not also a dissenter from Rome?
A Protestant is a Chrsitian who believes that the Bible as God's very words is higher in authority than the teachings of men. Not just anyone who happens to not be a Roman Catholic faithful to the magisterium. There aren't 5.5 billion Protestants in the world. . . .
As to the dogma of papal infallibility, that has only been around for 150 years, generations after Rome exiled the Bible-believing Catholics. And 850 years after the Roman church was excommunicated by the Ecumenical Patriarch for its arrogating rule of the whole Chrsitian Church to itself.
As to B16 I wholly back him in these statements, and I"m an evangelical Catholic(Augsburg), not a Roman Catholic.
What I can understand is how
March 19, 2009 - 20:18 ET by jdhawkWhat I can't understand is how the stock price of WaPo has held up in this downturn. While it is 1/3 of its price a year ago, it is still sporting a 50 P/E. There are few stocks that sport such a high P/E in the current market. Given that it has turned in 1/5 of its EPS than a year ago, this stock has a ways to go - down.
While this may seem off topic, it is fundamental to how much hubris these dimocratic organs have to spout crap like this author has. If WaPo was suffering the kinds of downsizing that some of their liberal brethern have, you may not see this kind of crap freely spewed to the public.
The one wild card that many may not be aware of is that Warren Buffet has a sizable interest in this company. In other words, it is not likely to go away any time soon, despite the growing numbers of people that link fish wrap and bird cage droppings catcher with it name.
Robert McElvaine, you are NO
March 20, 2009 - 13:32 ET by rbosqueRobert McElvaine, you are NO Catholic.