GMA Frets That Pope is ‘Pushing his Pulpit’ and ‘Interfering’ in U.S. Politics

Photo of Scott Whitlock.

On Friday’s "Good Morning America," ABC anchors and reporters worried that the Pope may be "interfering in American politics." Correspondent Dan Harris discussed the Pope’s comments about pro-choice Catholic politicians and an ABC graphic offered this leading question, "Is Pope Pushing his Pulpit?"

Talking to conservative pollster Kellyanne Conway, Mr. Harris adopted a tone of surprise that the Pope, who lives way over in Europe, could have an impact on American politics:

Harris: "So even though he doesn't vote here, he doesn't live here, wasn't elected here, he can impact the race here?"

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Kellyanne Conway: "Oh, sure. The Pope can have an impact."

Now, certainly the Pope can have an effect on American Catholics and how they might vote, but Harris seemed slightly horrified over this possibility.

Earlier in the segment, after co-host Robin Roberts teased the piece by wondering if the Pope is "interfering in American politics from half a world away," Diane Sawyer speculated on the "tough spot" the head of the Catholic Church had placed certain candidates in:

Diane Sawyer: "Next up in the news now, politics and the Pope. Is the Pope trying to influence American politics? Change the race for the White House? Did his aides edit his transcript? He's putting some presidential contenders in a tough spot this morning. ABC's Dan Harris is here to explain. Diane?"

ABC Graphic: Is Pope Pushing his Pulpit? Will Comments Affect Candidates?"

Harris went on to cite a speech given by the Pope that some took as a call for excommunication of Catholic, pro-choice politicians. (The Pope’s spokseman has since clarified that he was calling for denial of communion, not excommunication.) Shortly thereafter, Harris cited a liberal theologian who suggested that some Catholics would object to the Pope "dictating our political policies":

Harris: "Nonetheless, this comment will likely be taken to heart by many."

Chester Gillis (Professor of theology, Georgetown): "Both by Catholic politicians, who have some fear in their hearts now, by some American Bishops, and some Catholics who may say, ‘Oh, this is not a good sign. This means the church is going to be dictating our political policies."

Chester Gillis, who Harris later refers to by the more familial "Chet," has been used by ABC more than once to decry the Pope’s influence. A 2005 MRC study on religion and the media noted how the network spun the controversy over whether 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry should receive communion:

On ABC’s World News Tonight on May 16 [2004], reporter Brian Rooney put all the pressure on the Church, not Kerry....Rooney then used liberal Georgetown theologian Chester Gillis to claim President Bush was also an unsuitable voting choice for Catholics, who would have to vote for someone closer to perfection, like Mother Teresa.

Harris then went on to focus on how this issue could effect two Republican candidates for the White House:

Harris: "The Pope’s comments shine a brighter light on a thorny, difficult issue for Catholic Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, a supporter of abortion rights."

Rudy Giuliani: "I do not get into debates with the Pope. That is not a good idea. And not just because I'm a Catholic."

Harris: "Giuliani is not the only Republican candidate wrestling with the abortion issue. Thursday, Mitt Romney was greeted by demonstrators in flip-flops that he only decided to oppose abortion in 2004."

To recap, the ABC reporter mentioned two candidates, both Republicans, who could be affected by the Pope’s comments. First off, Mitt Romney isn’t Catholic. So, if the criteria is simply prominent ‘08 contenders, why are no Democrats are mentioned?

The aforementioned MRC study noted how Mr. Harris sympathetically covered Democrat John Kerry’s handing of the issue:

On Good Morning America April 9 [2004], ABC’s Diane Sawyer began the first network morning story by reporting, "There are some in the church, apparently, who believe that Kerry, although he is an observant Catholic, should not be allowed to take communion." Reporter Dan Harris said the Kerry campaign was not worried about "an implied threat from the city’s top church official" that Kerry might be denied communion....The ABC reporter then shifted the "implied threat" from Kerry back on to church officials: "Even as the Boston archdiocese is still reeling from the priest sex scandals, the archbishop might not want to invite any more controversy."

Harris closed the report, which aired at 7:11am, by quoting his good buddy Chet over how the Pope might be okay with driving people away from the church:

Harris: "Chet Gillis, the theologian you just heard from, said he thinks Pope Benedict might be willing to drive some people away from the church if he believes it will make the church more stronger and more orthodox and faithful."

In a related story, Time magazine also filed a report that portrayed the Pope as someone interfering in American politics, rather than advocating religous principles.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Harris: "So even though

Harris: "So even though he doesn't vote here, he doesn't live here, wasn't elected here, he can impact the race here?"

Please, how many times have we heard the media quote a politician or judicial ruling from another country about abolishing the death penalty; the media portrays the US as barberic and says we should join the civilized world.  They absolutely want those opinions to influence American politics & culture, but the moment the Pope mentions something about abortion, they get all sanctimonious and start wringing their hands.

Dutch

Dan Harris discovers that the

Dan Harris discovers that the pope doesn't live here, and yet can impact the race. Is this news to him? Does he think this is news to us? I can just imagine how breathlessly he ran to the microphone to alert us of this dangerous development. (OK, so the popes have been around for nearly two thousand years. This reporter is multiple millennia behind the news curve. )

This is what happens when you remove all references to religion from public school. It's like describing colors to a blind man. They just don't have the frame of reference ...

To borrow from the Scarecrow

To borrow from the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz:  "Oh, if Dan Harris only had a brain!"

Kennedy

Just to clarify, it would be okay if the Pope was pushing for a Kennedy to get elected, correct?

actually the latest from the

actually the latest from the Pope would be to ex-communidate Teddy

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

You mean that liberals who ho

You mean that liberals who hold themselves out as Catholics in order to get votes are actually expected to adhear to Church doctrine?  How shocking!  How unfair!  Darn that Pope for actually expecting people to stand for something they say they believe in.

Jesus never lived here (physi

Jesus never lived here (physically), was never elected here (politically), never voted here (except via believers), but He has an impact on the race. What do you think about that, Harris?  There are and have been other foreigners past and present that have, directly or indirectly, influence on American politics, get over it. (Al-Quida (sp?), Saddam, OBL, Carl Marx, Stalin etc.)  I think Harris’ comment/concern is motivated by an anti-Catholic, anti-Christian bigotry.

The Pope is being very Biblic

The Pope is being very Biblical.  The Bibile calls for the church to admonish those people who continue to sin and if they refuse to do refute their sinful ways then more drastic measure shall be taken.  First they must be confroted by church elders then if that doesnt work they are not welcome in the church.  This is meant for believers and those who will not repent, because we are all sinners.

I am not surprised at the media for this.  The American Catholic Church has strayed far from its Biblical roots. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

Let's see the libs are afraid

Let's see the libs are afraid of the Pope, they are afraid of Fox News, seems to me that they are afraid of just about everybody that does not see things their way.

"This means the church i

"This means the church is going to be dictating our political policies."

This is the same fear that was voiced when JFK was elected, the fear that he would take his "marching orders" from the Pope. It was a straw dog then, and it's a straw dog now.

AND, when "Reverend" Jesse Jackson and "Reverend" Al Sharpton stop "meddling" in politics, then maybe, just MAYBE, a case can be made for somehow keeping the Pope from speaking about our politics. Until then, fuggedabodit.

Keep speaking truth to power, Your Holiness! Can I get an "amen?"    ;^)

I find it amusing and angerin

I find it amusing and angering at the same time that the msm has been after the Catholic Church forever it seems...

Unless of course it had to do with Kennedy....or anybody else that is a Catholic with a 'D' behind their name...as long as the Pope agrees with their views.

The religious right are so terrifying to them, no matter the religion.

Now the radical Muslims that want to kill us all...well, hell, that's okay.

Can't we just all get along.

What a bunch of BS that is soooo obvious.

The main stream media are the ones who are trying to make sure and effect the voters...as they always do and have and are.

Where is DebraJSmith to tell

Where is DebraJSmith to tell us the catholics are going to hell and the Pope isn't a religous man? Waiting, waiting..............

fc,Lol....She'll be along lat

fc,

Lol....

She'll be along later, I am sure of that.

Me too. She will be drawn to

Me too. She will be drawn to this like white on rice. Oops, that might bring in the tumbler.............

How are you today BT?

fc...Pretty darned good, we a

fc...

Pretty darned good, we are getting some of that glorious global warming here today, it is a Friday, and thankfully I think tumbster is still in Paris or such. 

Hope all is well with you, and they get those fires out soon.

Fire season will be here pretty quick too.

There is pleanty of Florida s

There is pleanty of Florida snow (ash) falling from the sky today. Hazy and smokey everywhere. We need the tropical storm to give us some relief.

You take care - I am out in a few minutes.

Polishing her Halo? "

Polishing her Halo?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Oh Mighty One...That line did

Oh Mighty One...

That line did me in...I must celebrate Friday early!

Laughing so hard...

Funny part is, I bet she is, must be a 24/7 job for her. 

Emo Phillips on Religion

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge,
about to jump off. So I ran over and said 'Stop! don't do it!' 'Why shouldn't
I?' he said. I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for!' He said, 'Like what?'
I said, 'Well...are you religious or atheist?' He said, 'Religious.' I said, 'Me
too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?' He said, 'Christian.' I said, 'Me too! Are
you Catholic or Protestant?' He said, 'Protestant.' I said, 'Me too! Are you
Episcopalian or Baptist?' He said, 'Baptist!' I said, 'Wow! Me too! Are you
Baptist church of god or Baptist church of the lord?' He said, 'Baptist church
of god!' I said, 'Me too! Are you original Baptist church of god, or are you
reformed Baptist church of god?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist church of god!' I
said, 'Me too! Are you reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or
reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist
church of god, reformation of 1915!' I said, 'Die, heretic scum,' and pushed him
off. --Emo Phillips

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Oh my GAWD MM...I am dying he

Oh my GAWD MM...

I am dying here!

I am laughing so loud I scared the birds out of the feeder and the deer out of the woods...

That did it, I am opening a cold one.

That is a keeper...I am copying that and passing this on

Oh that is toooooo funneeee!

Thank you...thank you...thank you...

Nothing like laughter on a beautiful Friday afternoon.

LOL BT! Have a great weeken

LOL BT! Have a great weekend!!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

LOL, MM! Who here didn't immediately think of certain posters?

LOL, MM! 

(Who here didn't immediately think of certain posters?)

RJ,I saw this bit by Emo ye

RJ,

I saw this bit by Emo years ago, I think on an HBO special. This thread made me think of it, and low an behold, found it on the internet. I laughed till my side hurt first time I heard it!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Glad you did, MM

Glad you did, MM.  It's a perfect comedic allegory for what we've been seeing on this site. 

Hi RJ,...and it sure is side-

Hi RJ,

...and it sure is side-splitting funny!

I am truly still laughing and of course we know who the posters are...can't help it.

Ok gotta chime in here, I am

Ok gotta chime in here, I am a Southern Baptist bible thumper and I believe the Catholic Church has serious problems with its theology and doctrine, but they are by an by Christians.  I will give you some are not as in the SBC some are not.  I believe there is not enough Bible thumping in the Catholic church and too much leftist ideology.

If the CC is to be a Christian church in the later years then they need to be getting to the basics again, other wise they will go the way of the Espicopals.

Saw a CC reverend the other day on BOR and she was pretty leftist in her beliefs.  A sure sign of things to come.  President Carter left the SBC because we still believe in the truth.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

There are PLENTY of leftist Protestant churches

Oh, there are PLENTY of leftist Protestant churches.

RJ, my friend, churches shoul

RJ, my friend, churches should be in quotes. In other words they are churches in names only and not in reality. Leftist churches are little more than do-good feel-good clubs. God and Jesus are honorary members but they are not Lord and God there. Leftist churches don’t really know God or Jesus. (Not that all conservative churches do.) But leftist churches have left God out of everything they believe or do.

What you fail to understand a

What you fail to understand as a protestant Dan is that the Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Christ.  All other churches are man-made creations.  Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (the Catholic Church).  So you are incorrect in that the Catholic Church could possibly go the way of the Episcopalians, i.e. become extinct.

However you are correct that there are far too many in the Catholic Church who are Catholic in name only.  Christ referred to them in the parable of the weeds.  However the past several popes should have been more vigilant in the use of excommunications.

ncstevem, I agree. It's fu

ncstevem, I agree. It's funny, but some people complain that the Catholic Church is too focused on liberal things like "social justice" and others complain when the Church focuses on moral issues like gay marriage, divorce, and abortion.

Politicians usually welcome the Catholic Church's input when it's social issues being argued....charity, feeding the poor, etc. When it comes to abortion and gay marriage, they think the Church should butt out.

Liberals also like to point out that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, but He mentioned the poor dozens of times, and admonished us to take care of them That is true. But they neglect to point out that He never once told His followers to petition the Governor to increase taxes and create a government program to help the poor. He wanted them to help on a personal level. With the parable of the Good Samaritan, the lesson wasn't that there should be a government program to help those left by the wayside...He praised the man who stopped and took care of him at his own expense.

Hmmm, I disagree taht Jesus m

Hmmm, I disagree taht Jesus meant teh CC, He saisd unpon this rock I found my church, but did you know that Jesus also picked as his disciple Judas who betrayed Jesus?  Now does that mean anything, yes it mans you are acting like the Pharasees and saying that the CC is it, when we must understand the Jesus' Church is greater than an institution it is a representaion of a rlationship with God.

IMO the CC is going downhill fast as will all churches if they dont recognize the Diety ofChrist and the authority of the Bible.  The CC is not the authority and Luther proved it.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

Whether you agree with it or

Whether you agree with it or not, the Catholic Church's interpetation of "upon this rock...etc..." and the events following it are reasonable. (I'm not saying it's the best, but is is *reasonable*.) And the belief that Christ made the Catholic Church the venue through which God acts is based on an honest belief that that is what Christ says and intends in the Bible. Christ did not say "upon the Phrasiees I found my church" so that comparison is also unfair. 

I'm not sure what the "Judas was picked by Christ" tangent was supposed to mean, but it implies Jesus made an mistake in choosing Judas (rather than a calculated choice) which really throws the Bible upside down.

And Luthor didn't "prove" anything, like someone said in another thread, you cannot "prove" a matter of faith.

By the way, I'm not Catholic, but I know quite a few and and their views, like the Mormons views have been by others on NB, should be represented fairly.

"Luthor" LOL. He re

"Luthor" LOL. He really is branded the comic-book-bad-guy more often than not. >;)

Here's your proof. . .

"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."  -Matrin Luther

The argument is about what church doctrine is ultimately founded on, and where the final authority lies. You sir, have been brainwashed into the postmodern "faith in faith" movement, which twists the term into something mystified and mysterious.

There is no mystery to faith. 

Faith is total reliance upon -----> something.  Faith is an act.  The question you should be asking is, "Can you prove the object that you place your faith upon?" I believe it is not only possible to do so, but I have done it myself. 

-PJ

Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)

So your proof is quoting Lut

So your proof is quoting Luther claming he has proof? Restating the argument is not much of a rebuttal. You remind me of Marx, more interested in proclaiming the truth instead of actually finding it out.

And your use of "faith" is interesting. Faith is a belief that is not based on proof. If faith isn't "mystified" and "mysterious" and if faith can be "proved" that it really isn't faith, it's just a dull old fact. Anyone can "believe" in a hard fact, believing  without proof is what makes the connection between man and God spiritual, and not just a confirmation of what the dull old eyes can see. What is more meaningful, someone trusting you because they know you won't hurt them, or trusting you simply because they believe in your goodness without any further evidence. Read the book of Job and find out.  I don't follow "post-modernism" but if "post-modernism" means using a term correctly as it has been even before plain old "modern" than I guess it makes me that.

If anyone's been brainwashed it's you. Brainwashed by centuries of anti-Catholic bigotry and distortion of the Church's teachings. I don't agree with everything Catholics say, but *demonizing* their teachings and existence itself is dirty cricket.

So your proof is quoting Lut

So your proof is quoting Luther claming he has proof?

No, you were too terrified of the entire quote. I know it's icky and you'll get reformer cooties, but the point is that mere RCC talking points won't get you anywhere.

What are the foundations of your doctrine? 

Why, church  tradition and holy scripture equally.

Tradition has both a faulty doctrinal history and has proved itself historically as disobedient.

All you're left with is holy scripture.  That is what Luther requires for argument's sake, and so far you've failed to deliver.

Restating the argument is not much of a rebuttal. You remind me of Marx, more interested in proclaiming the truth instead of actually finding it out.

Truth must have a basis.  There is no mystery to it.  It can be proclaimed with the same boldness and certainty of the Apostles that received it.

And your use of "faith" is interesting. Faith is a belief that is not based on proof.

Let me ask this a different way.  Who or what do you place your faith upon?  If the object of faith is not real, then you are still dead in your trespasses and sins.

Anyone can "believe" in a hard fact, <snip>

Yes NB is committed to spotlighting individuals who fail to admit facts all the time.  You absolutely cannot claim to have beliefs. . .if they amount to nothing but mere assent.

believing  without proof is what makes the connection between man and God spiritual, and not just a confirmation of what the dull old eyes can see.

"Spiritual" = "Pertaining to the Spirit"

Which spirit? The (dead) spirit of man, or of a living God? Jesus said it is the spirit that gives life. It then comes from God (the latter).

No mystery. You follow a heresy of uncertainty and spiritual ambiguity.  Repent.

What is more meaningful, someone trusting you because they know you won't hurt them, or trusting you simply because they believe in your goodness without any further evidence.

Faith in people is a proven faith.  You answer your question with my own assertion.  Think before reacting. You also know people are fallen by nature. Thus, the red herring.  Nice try though. 

Read the book of Job and find out.  

Specifically what?  That Job had faith in something he didn't know existed, or wasn't sure of? How could he have such strong faith if there wasn't something to convince him in the first place?

Did Job save himself?

If anyone's been brainwashed it's you. Brainwashed by centuries of anti-Catholic bigotry and distortion of the Church's teachings. I don't agree with everything Catholics say, but *demonizing* their teachings and existence itself is dirty cricket.

Dirtier still to claim the entire history of bigotry and distortion of church teaching began with Luther and the protestants. Why not begin at Augustine (or further back if you dare) and then look in the mirror?

 -PJ

Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)

Christ said &quot;You are P

Christ said "You are Peter (rock), and upon this rock I will build my church...." thus Peter was designated as the first Head of the Church. He, or all the apostles chose his successor, and so on, and the line of Popes descends from him.

I think we should all drop the religion arguments because . . .

Although I disagree with Catholic Theology, I think we should all drop the religion arguments because . . .

  1. This site is about Liberal Media Bias
  2. Everyone who belives in a higher power should focus on areas of agreement such as ending abortion
  3. It's too easy to get caught in the argument and not display the love for others that God has command us to show.

Meanwhile, the MSM needs to shut up and stop trying to tell the Pope what to do & say.

Free1.  you are right on tha

Free

1.  you are right on that

2.   That assertion could lead to further argument so we should drop it

3.    True love can debate without being nasty

My conclusion would be to move to forum which at Matts option could be deleted as this is a political site.  However my faith informs my politics.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Free---thank you--

Free---thank you--  I may draw hard feelings for this--But I wholeheartedly agree about the religion issue. So much bandwidth on a subject that no one will change his/her mind about. I used to spend minimum two hours out here. Now I hit and run, I am only interested in Iraq, immigration and lies, omissions and misrepresentations by the MSM. We have a few bloggers who have turned this into a contest of wills about religion.

"Keep politics separate from certain other fields, such as religion. This is part of a saying of Jesus in the Gospels; the full version is “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Christ said 'You are Cephas a

Christ said 'You are Cephas and upon this Petros I will build my church...'

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Well Dan it's unimportant wha

Well Dan it's unimportant what you as an individual believes--that's one of the problems with protestantism.  Individual intepretation is irrelevant.  What is important is the Truth.

I have no idea what relevence Judas Iscariot has to the discussion.  Nothing I wrote in my original post is untrue.  The only christian church that has existed since the time of Christ is the Catholic Church.  In 1517, Martin Luther decided he wanted to start his own church.  What he never anticipated was that there would be other charlatans like himself who'd start their own church too.

So let me ask you this Dan.  If Martin Luther was correct about the novelties that he put forth, i.e. Sola Fide, Sola Scritura, and the priesthood of all believers to read & interpret scripture for themself, why aren't you a Lutheran? 

What is important is the Trut

What is important is the Truth.

That we can agree on

 The only christian church that has existed since the time of Christ is the Catholic Church. 

There was no church in Rome at the time of Christ

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

I once knew a priest who u

I once knew a priest who used to refer to the Catholic Church as the "First Church of Christ." ;-)

Ncstevem, what you fail to un

Ncstevem, what you fail to understand as a Catholic, is that your church as a whole threw off classic Augustinianism centuries ago for something else entirely.

I hate to beat a dead horse on that all the time, but it seems many Catholics here have chronic cognitive dissonance in regards to theology.  I've seen the RCC's anti-protestant vids on YouTube, and they're either totally unaware of, or deliberately omitting quite a large chunk of recorded church history.

So stop doing it.

-PJ

Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)

I understand perfectly well t

I understand perfectly well trach.  The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and all protestant churches were founded by men.

Define the word catholic for

Define the word catholic for the audience please, and don't duck it.

-PJ

Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)

Catholic means &quot;univer

Catholic means "universal", why?

Oh, and while you're flipping

Oh, and while you're flipping about trying to settle the etymology and whatnot. 

Answer me this:  Why is the RCC teaching Pelagianism (or semi-Pelagianism) as opposed to classic Augustinianism (the order Luther descended from)?

-PJ

Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)

Blah, blah, blah. I'm sure to

Blah, blah, blah. I'm sure to most Catholics Pelegianism or Augustinaiun or Plutoniam or Neo-Classical Psuedo-Protoism is irrelvant. It's about the basic religion and it's connection to God not all the historical deviations and slight differences that have acculmated over the years. Not all the branches of Protestantism agree on everything either.

If anyone is wallowing is Post-Modernism it's you. Wrangling your head over psuedo-intellectual miniscule details instead of dealing straight from the heart.

Well then, if catholic means

Well then, if catholic means "universal" and has at the same time dealt with heretical sects since the time of the writings of John. . .how can you sit there and claim your particular institution is still what it claims to be?

Jesus established both His universal catholic church and then removes their lampstands aplenty in Revelation because (in one case at least) of their tolerance of false teachers.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm sure to most Catholics Pelegianism or Augustinaiun or Plutoniam or Neo-Classical Psuedo-Protoism is irrelvant. 

This is the same attitude I am trying to illustrate, though you're doing it very well without my help.  What if I were to tell you that both the RCC and the Evangelicals have fallen into subtle variants of the same error?

I'm dealing straight from the heart thusly:  Who's responsible for your religion?  Who saved you? 

-PJ 

Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)

Actually.. no

As I said previously -- Christ founded no church. He was jewish until the day he died. The Catholic Church was founded by Peter.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

&quot;And I say to thee: That

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will buld my church, and the gates of hell shall not preveil against it." (Mt 16:18)

Gee Bishop, sounds to me like Christ fully intended to found a church.

&quot;Thou art Cephas and upo

"Thou art Cephas and upon this Petros I will....."

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Botg--by properly quoting the

Botg--by properly quoting the above Biblical text you've help defend (unknowingly perhaps) the apostolic authority of St. Peter and his successors, the popes.

"Thou art Petros and upon this petra I will..."

In this passage, Christ changes Simon's name to Peter or rock.  Many Protestants argue that Jesus is not building His Church on Peter by pointing out that, in the Greek text, the word for Peter is Petros, a masculine noun, while the word used for rock is petra, a feminine noun.  Petros means 'small stone', while petra means 'massive rock'.  They claim therefore, that the 'massive rock' (petra) upon which Christ was to build His Church must not refer to Peter the 'small stone' (Petros) but rather to Peter's profession of faith in Christ or to Jesus Himself.  However, Chrsit spoke Aramaic, which leaves no room for the Greek Petros/petra distinction.  In Aramaic, the word for rock is kepha (rock).  What Christ said was, "You are Kepha (Rock) and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my Church.  In Aramaic, the identification of Peter as the rock is clear.

Why does the Greek use two different words for Peter and the rock?  Because the Greek word for rock, petra, is feminine.  It would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine man.  So the translator gave petra a masculine ending and rendered it Petros.  Since petros was a preexisitng word meaning 'small stone', some of the original word-play is lost in the translation.  But no early Church Father, including those who spoke Greek as their mother-tongue, ever saw a distinctin between Peter and the rock.  They teach that Peter is the rock on which Christ built His Church.

NC,  We could argue the poin

NC,  We could argue the point ad nauseum, you are comfortable in the Catholic church, i would not be nor would they be comfortable with me.  Does that mean either of us is not saved?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Well that is another contenti

Well that is another contention that exists between the Catholic Church and Protestants.  The Church has always taught that no one can know whether they're 'saved' or not since it is Christ who will judge us--we don't have the luxury of judging ourselves. 

Protestants believe in the concept of Sola Fide which was first put forth by Martin Luther 1500 years after Christ.  Protestants are in error when they claim that the Catholic Church teaches that we have to 'earn' our salvation.  The Catholic Church has always taught we are saved by the grace of God. 

An instructor I had once gave the most succinct explanation what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation.  He said, "There's nothing we can do to earn salvation but there's plenty we can do to deserve hell.'

So my answer to you botg is that neither you nor I know whether we're 'saved' or not. 

Let me ask you this though.  Is a 'born-again' Christian who engages in fornication or adultery assured of their salvation?

Is a 'born-again' Christian w

Is a 'born-again' Christian who engages in fornication or adultery assured of their salvation?

Read through First John, as the Apostle writes that our joy should be full since we have passed from death to life.  Taken in context he explains that though we all sin, the true followers have not a lifestyle of sin.  "I write to you because your sins are forgiven you for His names sake"  " this is the promise He has promised eternal life"  John also exhorts us to love the brethern.

The Apostle teaches us that we know our salvation, your quarrel is with him.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

I'm in agreement with both nc

I'm in agreement with both ncstevem and some of what botg has to say.

The CC teaches that we are saved by the grace of God through Christ's death on the cross.

Someone who has accepted Christ as the Lord and Savior of their life is changed in such a way that they are fully aware of their sinful nature and try to live their life in Christ.

Both the CC and born-again Christians believe in personal repentance for sin. Born-again Christians do not claim to be sinless. The difference I see is that the Catholic believes it is necessary to confess ones sins in a formal way and the born-again Christian believes that forgiveness is available whenever one asks for it. I do worry about young Christians who seem to think that marching to the front of the church and proclaiming that you've been born again is a get of out of hell free card.

If one engages in fornication or adultery without repentance, then I would indeed question their salvation.

QMIndeed there is a tendancy

QM

Indeed there is a tendancy to skip the sanctification and growth in Christ issues.  To question their salvation is equal to questioning whether or not they are born again.  Which is definately justified

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Hold on a second botg--you ci

Hold on a second botg--you cite a verse out of the NT to attempt to prove your point.  How do you know said verse is the inspired Word of God?

To do so means you recognize the authority of the Roman Catholic bishops since it was they at the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397AD) who approved the canon of the Bible.

You can't have it both ways.  Either you accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Church by accepting the Bible or you reject both.   

NCIf you are truly interested

NC

If you are truly interested in inspiration there are many books on this, i would suggest something by FF Bruce.  The accepted Canon for Catholics and Protestants is different therefore your assertion that to accept the Bible as inspired is equal to accepting the authority of the Catholic church is wrong.

Further you set up a false dichotomy, as there are many areas where Catholics and Protestants agree (a lot more than the dis-agreements).  The very name Reformation implies return to thus you would be strained to find many reformed followers who would have substantial disputes with Augustine.

The verse i used is accepted by both. 

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Well botg the accepted Canon

Well botg the accepted Canon for the OT is different for Catholics and Protestants because Protestants use the Hebrew canon that was used by the Jews. 

However the accepted Canon for the NT is exactly the same for both Catholics and Protestants even though Luther wanted to drop Hebrews, James and the Apocalypse because he didn't like what they had to say about salvation.  

Of course the Jews don't believe in the NT.  So I'll be more specific botg, by what authority do you accept the Canon of the NT?

Did i mention that there is m

Did i mention that there is much in agreement between the Reformers and the Catholic church?  I believe the Catholic view is 'the church' declares canon(though i would think that 'the church' used the same type of criteria), the reformed view is that canon is discovered via criteria:  who wrote it(prophet, apostle), does it claim to be God's word, does it have acceptance among believers, etc. as i said if you are interested study. try also Berkhof, Eusebius, Geisler, Warfield as potential authors

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

The Catholic Church has alway

The Catholic Church has always taught we are saved by the grace of God. 

So then there is no need to join the Catholic Church or to be baptised?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

botg: Do you believe in the n

botg: Do you believe in the need for baptism? Seems to me that the NT teaches that baptism is an integral part of conversion.

(Note that I use the word "conversion" in the general sense of becoming a follower of Christ.)

I was questioning Steve's sta

I was questioning Steve's statement and asking what the Catholic position is on this.  Either grace is enough for salvation or not.

My viewpoint is that baptisim is a step in sanctification or growth in the Lord.  You are baptised because you are saved.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

botg: I believe that if you c

botg: I believe that if you carefully consider what Steve and I have said in light of your own beliefs and the statements you've made on the subject, you'll see that we are not very far apart in what we believe re: salvation and what it is that God expects from us if we wish to make it to Heaven.

I believe you're correct, whe

I believe you're correct, where did i say we were far apart?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

botg: You didn't. It was just

botg: You didn't. It was just a figure of speech.

If you're interested, this is a good source for information about the Catholic Church.

If I've made unwarranted assumptions about your personal religious beliefs or knowledge re: the CC, I apologize. I sometimes have a tendency to jump around on a thread instead of reading it completely and in order.

Salvation by the grace of God

Salvation by the grace of God is not an either or position but an either and.  If one is baptised and dies in a state of grace then one is likely to be saved.  If one dies with mortal sin on their soul then they jeopardize their salvation.

So one who claims to be 'born-again' yet continues in a sinful life is not guaranteed salvation.  That is why I asked you about a born-again adulterer or fornicator.

I'm not sure i understand you

I'm not sure i understand you here, do you mean to say that baptism is necessary for salvation?  (You say if baptised and dies in grace)

As to the second part 'claims to be' is a definate qualifier.  I would say that the truly born again do not continue to live in sin.  Yes they do sin but have not a sinful lifestyle.  It would be akin to me asking you if a married priest is saved.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

What should they stop doing?

What should they stop doing? Defending their religion? That makes them anti-protestant?

And stop pretending you're an all knowing master of history and theology. While the Chruch has strayed from it's teachings from time to time (like all religions) they have not "abandoned" their basic tenets which stem from the Bible, not Augustanism, Flutiism, Hypothernoism, or any other -ism you can spew off.

You're not answering my quest

You're not answering my questions.  You're running. 

If you gave the traditions of the Apostles and the early church fathers any serious consideration, you would argue which "ism" you are for or against. 

But you're too busy dodging.

-PJ

Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)

While the Chruch has strayed

While the Chruch has strayed from it's teachings from time to time (like all religions) they have not "abandoned" their basic tenets which stem from the Bible

Watch the fibbing thar, or I'll sick DebraJMSmith on you.  :)

What about how the church abandoned the original definition of "saint," (a biggie if you examine the implications) or the fact that Mary was not only rejoicing in her savior via the magnificat, but also acknowledging that she too needed a saviour?

Do you truly believe that grace merely "facilitates" righteousnes?

-PJ

Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)

And stop pretending you're an

And stop pretending you're an all knowing master of history and theology.

Oh, don't get me wrong. You're always welcome to help with the teaching.

For example, please tell us how "condign merit" and "congruent merit" are in agreement with scripture as you appear to claim ("stem from the Bible") in your earlier post?

-PJ

Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)

zf: Re: The CC and the Bible.

zf: Re: The CC and the Bible.

I always like to ask those who don't believe that the CC is legitimate what the early Christians did about getting their answers solely from the Bible before the NT existed and before the majority of people could read.

Those who believe that the only true Christians are those who rely solely on the Bible also seem to feel that no authoritative interpretation is necessary. Which means that each and every person can interpret the Bible however they want. As someone who has spent time in both the CC and an evangelical Christian congregation, this makes no sense to me. In fact, the evangelical Christian church I attend is very particular about making certain that those leading Bible study groups and teaching Sunday school classes are in agreement with what the church holds as doctrine, based on their understanding of Bible teaching.

Is the Nicene Creed accepted

Is the Nicene Creed accepted in your church and the Catholic church?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Yes.To which you will answer

Yes.

To which you will answer with a lengthy exposition of the various Councils of the Catholic Church. And perhaps throw in a few jabs about Vatican II. Right?

The defense rests.

Actually i would have said th

Actually i would have said then both have covered the majors.

It seems that you have some internal conflict in yourself to cover, not my business

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

botg: You are very insightful

botg: You are very insightful. Still trying to decide about returning to the Catholic Church. I've pretty much made up my mind. But the RC isn't on board with the idea. And I feel it's important that, if we're going to be part of a church family, we should be together.  I've also been in a great many discussions with Christians who say that the Catholic Church is not Christian. Some of your comments were familiar. ;) Again, forgive me if I've misunderstood your position.

QM

To be fair i have some knowle

To be fair i have some knowledge of these issues, which is why i would not be comfortable in the Catholic church.  I do not assume what doctrines those i speak to hold, so it is always best to ask.  Don't know if you caught the stuff on Beckwith but i do await his book.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Beckwith?

Beckwith?

Read the whole post on &quot;

Read the whole post on "Christianity and Conversion like Pro-Wrestling?"

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

botg: Thank you! I too look f

botg: Thank you!

Saw a CC reverend the other

Saw a CC reverend the other day on BOR and she was pretty leftist in her beliefs.

I guess I missed something...what is a CC reverend????

As for the Catholic Church, no danger of it going the way of the Episcopals. The Catholic Church is not about to change her teaching even on women in the priesthood, nevermind gay marriage and naming openly gay Bishops.

 Dunno it was a woman and sh

 Dunno it was a woman and she was identified as Catholic, and we know CC doesnt have women as priests.  But was playing a game at the time perhaps Im wrong. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

Well, Dan, you said you saw

Well, Dan, you said you saw "a CC reverend and SHE was pretty leftist...." but now you say you know that the Catholic Church doesn't have women priests..so why would you call her a "reverend"  when you know she can't be?  Would it have taken away from your argument to identify her as just a Catholic woman?

Dan not that it matters to God

Dan  not that it matters to God, but she was not a Catholic. She was a bleeding heart liberal. But she was also a woman of conviction who, in her love for man would give aid to those who violate the rules. By disregarding the rightful laws of man, she does disservice to God.

Render unto Caesar.........................

In Principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

O'Rielly said that she was a

O'Rielly said that she was a Lutheran both yesterday and again on todays show.

RR

RayRio: The O'Reilly website

RayRio: The O'Reilly website has a video of the interview. Bill states that she is a minister of a United Church of Christ congregation in NYC. See my comment to Dan.

Donna Schaper

Judson Memorial Church

From the church website: "Judson is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches and the United Church of Christ,"

From a brief overview of the website, looks like a pretty fringy-lefty kind of church.

Dan: I prefer not to go into

Dan: I prefer not to go into a lengthy challenge of your assertions re: the Catholic Church and the Bible. I've been in too many of such discussions and have found the effort mostly fruitless because when I suggest that the opposition consider reading the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", I get the response that it's blasphemous to even suggest such a thing. The point is that the whole of Catholic doctrine is firmly based on the Bible. The idea that the Catholic Church does not hold the Bible as the authoritative word of God is a great misunderstanding. So, I'll just ask you to consider reading the "Catechism" and note the extensive references to scripture.

As regards liberalism in the CC, you need to talk to Catholics who are more devout. The liberal ideas do not come from the Vatican.

As regards the topic at hand, those who are expressing concern about the Pope "influencing" elections are just throwing around the usual anti-Catholic rhetoric because they know that much of what Catholics believe about such things as abortion and sexual behavior in general is diametrically opposed to the liberal agenda. What ever happend to the reverence in the Democrat party for JFK? (That's the Kennedy, not the Kerry.) Besides, what about all that posturing during the last presidential election about religious faith? I believe most Americans would have more respect for a Catholic who practiced their faith than for one who just talks the talk when it's expedient.

Actually, the more I think about it, it's rather humorous that there's this fear about a man like the current pontiff. But then with the libs, it's all about not "hurting peoples' feelings". This attitude precludes any sort of definition of right or wrong.

Dan: You're mistaken re: the

Dan: You're mistaken re: the guest on BOR. She is Dr. Donna Schaper, a minister of a United Church of Christ congregation in NYC.

The Catholic Church does not ordain women into the priesthood. Many evangelical Christian churches also believe that women should not be pastors. Both base this prohibition on scripture. And both cite the same scriptural basis for this prohibition. Hm. Isn't that interesting?

I think this falls under th

I think this falls under that category of questions that a reporter asks for the benefit of the audience, not because she's surprised herself. No?

Wow, what about George Soros?

Wow, what about George Soros??? He wants the US to be a socialist state and throws his money here for that purpose and that marxist hack isn't American. Why the double-standard ABC?

 And while I'm at it, as a guest at the USC graduation today, why did I have to suffer Ted Koppel's radical left diatribe at the commencement speach? I thought that was a graduation ceremony not the evening news.

Too bad you didn't have some

Too bad you didn't have some fresh fruit to toss!

Narcisism Reigns Supreme

Isn't always interesting to hear non-believers complain about the conviction of believers and how their standing up for their principles is a problem when it goes against the thinking of the non-believer?

News flash for the MSM. Being a catholic means adhereing to all the tenets of their catachism. If you do not, then you are not a catholic.

The Pope calling a spade a spade is NOT an attempt to interfere with US politics. Implying that a world religious leader should keep quiet on matters of his faith because it might impact US politics is actually the MSM interfering in world religion.

Well said, c5then.

Well said, c5then.

YEAH, but the MSM will use th

YEAH, but the MSM will use the Pope's argument that America should let in more immigrants. Apparently when it comes to immigrants, that's NOT ‘Pushing his Pulpit’ and ‘Interfering’ in U.S. Politics.

mm, see my post above about

mm, see my post above about how Liberals don't mind the Pope "pushing his pulpit" on "social justice" (the poor, immigrants, etc.) but think he should butt out when it comes to personal morality (e.g. abortion, divorce, homosexuality.)

Ah! Thank You! I missed tha

Ah! Thank You! I missed that :0) So true, isn't it???

Right on, motherbelt. Selecti

Right on, motherbelt. Selective outrage. That's what the lefty Dems are all about.

The Pope's role

The Pope is not only a religious leader, he's the head of a sovereign nation, The Vatican.  It seems that every other head of state, not to mention zillions of lesser officials, feels free to comment on how the US does things.  So why not the Pope?  He obviously isn't getting pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians to change their ways, so  where's the problem?

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised if a circus breaks out.