Pope lectures Pelosi on “natural moral law”; Update: Even MS-NBC can’t spin this
posted at 10:19 am on February 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Vatican has released a statement after meeting with Nancy Pelosi, apparently mindful of the controversy created by giving an audience to a pro-choice American politician. Before Pelosi has a chance to characterize the discussion, Benedict apparently wants everyone to know that he saw this as a teaching moment (via The Corner):
Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.
His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.
The consistent teachings, Benedict apparently emphasized, in contradiction to Pelosi’s strange insistence that Catholic opposition to abortion only goes back 50 years:
REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…
MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…
REP. PELOSI: I understand that.
MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.
REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.
Message from Benedict: Study more. And he sent another message as well — that those with higher positions have higher responsibilities not to formally cooperate with the sin of abortion. That message undoubtedly was intended not just for Pelosi but for the entire class of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, among others.
As for excommunication, that question rightly belongs to Pelosi’s bishop, not the Pope. Also, it likely would not have arisen in this setting, as the Pope does not give Communion during private audiences; that would only be an issue if Pelosi had attended a Papal Mass. It seems clear, though, that Benedict XVI does not share Pelosi’s view of Catholic teachings on abortion — and used the visit to make that clear.
Update: Jim at Gateway Pundit wonders whether Pelosi will heed Benedict’s teaching. I’d say: doubtful. The teaching has always been plain; it’s the student that has the problem.
Update II: Even MS-NBC can’t spin this one:
Pope Benedict, underscoring the Vatican’s ruling on an issue that divides Americans, told U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday that Catholic politicians and legislators cannot back abortion rights.
Pelosi, a powerful U.S. politician who is Catholic and pro-choice, has been accused by U.S. bishops in the past of misrepresenting Church teachings on abortion.
The headline? “Pope to Pelosi: Catholics cannot back abortion”.
The Anchoress has a great round-up on this story.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
http://www.churchtimeline.com/
I just pulled that off of google. I’m not quite sure why you think christianity started with luther.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 2:50 PM
What irony? I don’t claim to be speaking for God, you guys do.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM
If that is not what you said yesterday, please enlighten us.
I don’t lie. You don’t know me. But I do know one thing. For someone who has been so adamant to share his “true way” to salvation, I have seen none of the love of Christ in your posts. His love and salvation are available to everyone who asks. His Grace is sufficient for my needs. He did not exclude anyone who repented from salvation. I’ve seen a lot of your rage in your posts, but none of His love.
kingsjester on February 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Finally about faith and works.
Here is a good one that illustrates what I am trying to say perfectly.
James 2:21-22
“Was not Abraham our father ( By the way that is also a good one if you have trouble calling people father ) justified by works, when he had offered I’saac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”
Borislav on February 18, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Why do I need to correct what you make up?
His love and salvation are available to everyone who asks, receives, repents, and follows him.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM
In Revelations 5:8 John describes the four beast and the 24 elders offering the prayers of the saints to God. The saints are described elsewhere in scripture as the believers. How do you interpret this passage? Why does anybody (four creatures and 24 elders)have to offer the prayers of the saints to God, in other words, intercede for the saints? doesn’t God himself hear the prayers of the saints?
neuquenguy on February 18, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Priests took the place of Abraham?
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Partially correct. Salvation is there for everyone who asks, receives, repents, and follows Him. His love for everyone is always there, whether you ask for it or not.
Trafalgar on February 18, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Saints ARE believers, not people who do some supposed miracles in their lives.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 2:55 PM
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM
What have I made up? All I said was that you were a Non-denominational Protestant.
kingsjester on February 18, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Love does not save us from hell. Salvation alone does. God loved us before Jesus died on the cross.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Ernesto, if money is THAT important to you, just get a credit card or two and run a pyramid scheme.
This is a big story. She’s the hypocrite Speaker of the House FCOL.
Sapwolf on February 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM
You said multidenominational a few minutes ago.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM
No, but that just illustrates that when the Lord said call no man your father he did not mean it in the way you understand it.
Borislav on February 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM
From George Weigel at NRO. By George, he has a way with words!
marybel on February 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I never said that God’s love will save us from hell. I simply said that it is always there, whether you ask for it or not.
Trafalgar on February 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Sure it does, Abraham was the physical father of Israel. The jews were his descendants. A priest did not have me as his child.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM
We’re talking about salvation here.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM
And in my opinion there is no such thing. Using the title non-denominational is a cop-out. I’m sorry if you disagree but it’s true.
Non-denominational believers are the same in evangelical churches as what we in the Catholic Church call “cafeteria Catholics”. It is a way of avoiding accountability for your beliefs because they are constantly in flux. It also allows one to only pick the beliefs that they find the most convenient for their circumstance.
Its basically just Christianity lurching towards moral relativity.
darclon on February 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM
The priesthood is not the priests. It is the Christ’s and the Christ’s alone.
Borislav on February 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Yep.
Amazing how people so easily mistake cause and effect. Liberals are notorious for making that mistake.
Sapwolf on February 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Oh come on! The demons don’t have the ability to have saving faith or to be in a state of Grace! Faith is not earned and can not be acquired by a totally sinful and corrupt human! Faith is a gift, given by God through Grace by hearing his Word and through the receiving of his Sacraments (Baptism and Communion)! Do the Demons believe Jesus was and is who he is? Of course they do, but this isn’t going to save them! They have already fallen and their fate is fixed! There is no design in Scripture for Angels/Demons vs. Humans!
sabbott on February 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Nothing new, just Nancy showing more of her stupidity. Move on…nothing to see here…….
GarandFan on February 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Here’s what I said:
I hit the M key instead of the N. My bad.
A bit testy, aren’t we?
kingsjester on February 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM
That’s the thing, you guys don’t have power anymore to force your opinion on others. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is.
Or the bible.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM
No, you were talking about love AND salvation. I was merely pointing out that they’re two different things.
Trafalgar on February 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM
You can’t say that Nancy. You can admit you are an ardent politician.
FireBlogger on February 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Great post Jvette. Another light in the darkness.
Sapwolf on February 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM
I’m sure your aware I was using these in combination.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM
I have never tried to ‘force’ my opinion on you. In fact I’ve repeatedly said that if you don’t believe in something, don’t do it. What confuses me though is why you think that you can force your opinions on us with impunity.
Trafalgar on February 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM
That wasn’t in reference to you, it was in reference to the other guy that acted as though his opinion of failing to recognize non-denominational Christianity was dispositive.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:04 PM
There were three sects of Judaism at the time of Jesus. The Bible does not refer to any group of them as non-denominational Jews.
FWIW, apparently not much.
darclon on February 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM
So the 4 beasts and the 24 elders in heaven hear our prayers, otherwise how can they be offering them to God in heaven? and why are they interceding for us in heaven?
neuquenguy on February 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM
? That was a response to “what denomination.”
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers.
clarifides on February 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM
You are as messed up in the head as Pelosi. You have to be kidding me, right?
Sapwolf on February 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM
darclon—-Non-denominational believers are the same in evangelical churches as what we in the Catholic Church call “cafeteria Catholics”. It is a way of avoiding accountability for your beliefs because they are constantly in flux. It also allows one to only pick the beliefs that they find the most convenient for their circumstance.
Its basically just Christianity lurching towards moral relativity.
Uuh, darclon, aren’t many of the Evangelical churches and most of the growth in Evangelical churches coming from the non-denominational churches? Willow Creek (Hybels) and Lakewood Church (Osteen) for instance, are nondenominational and they’re the two largest US churches.
jim m on February 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Well, I have to leave for now. Thank you for the opportunity to participate. TTheo, you continue to be in my prayers as do all here.
Trafalgar on February 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM
How is non-denominational Biblical?
You’re not non-denominational (there is no such thing), you’re a Calvinist. Nothing wrong with that, just own up.
It’s like claiming I’m apolitical when I vote.
darclon on February 18, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Yes she did.
You just won’t admit it publicly because of your pride and stubbornness.
Sapwolf on February 18, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Or, it’s a way of saying the bible and the bible alone is the authority, instead of some guy in italy whose religion took from islam, the religion of isis, etc.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I’m actually not a calvinist. Apparently you’re having a hard time following the thread. Someone asked me what denomination I belonged to, and I responded.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:10 PM
No silly. You claim to know about the Catholic Church. You claim to know what Pope Benedict said (says). You claim to know what other popes before him said. You’ve provided nothing in defense to your wild claims. They are your (strangely misguided) opinions.
And besides, I have not claimed that I speak for God. I have also not said you claim to speak for God. What is wrong with your deductive reasoning? This is not difficult. Slow down.
Think.
Please.
anuts on February 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM
No, I’m quite content letting the catholic church speak for itself, just as mankis did yesterday when he quoted popes repeatedly.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM
It also allows one to only pick the beliefs that they find the most convenient for their circumstance.
Yeah, I agree and I think my statement above is probably why.
This has occurred to an even greater extent in the Catholic Church as well so I’m not singling out Evangelicals either.
darclon on February 18, 2009 at 3:13 PM
The economy is bad precisely because moral social matters have been shoved into the backseat. Imagine if people were actually held accountable for their actions and decisions.
jimmy2shoes on February 18, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Darclon, why do you have such hostility toward scripture?
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Yes, Christ identified his church as those who believed in him.
No, the Holy Spirit worked through men to write what we now call scripture.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16
Tradition and the magisterium are not described in this way here.
Christ did establish his church to use scripture to feed the flock. The distinction must be made.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 3:16 PM
It is why many Obama supporters look up to him as a Messiah. They don’t know it, but they are trying to fill the void in themselves that is created when you cut yourself off from your Creator. They are compensating. They cannot even explain it when you ask for the why’s about it. It is the same mindless cult behavior of Apple Computer employees in the early years of 1980-1984.
It ALL will come crashing down.
That Void is evident within 10 minutes of talking to and listening to a liberal. You can even detect it with Pelosi.
You can get a taste of really how utterly LOST this woman is.
Sapwolf on February 18, 2009 at 3:17 PM
You do realize that Islam came about after Christianity, right?
And you have yet to answer any of my questions because you don’t know.
You are simply parroting talking points that you have learned from some guy in California and his opinion of the Bible. If you are not a Calvinist, then why would you source MacArthur? A Catholic would not source a Jehovah’s Witness for theological support.
darclon on February 18, 2009 at 3:17 PM
When did the catholic church start using the sign of the cross and prayer beads?
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM
What on earth motivates a fundy Evangelical non-denom MethoBaptiCostal-type to enter a thread dealing with an RC heretic and her spiritual leader’s admonition, and then proceeds to bash, misrepresent, and condemn RC doctrine? Is it arrogance, boorishness or just an opportunity to lob grenades? If proselytism is the desired intent, it sure is an odd approach.
FWIW, I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran who is praying for the Holy Spirit to un-harden the Speaker’s heart vis-à-vis promoting the modern slaughter of the innocents.
No need to answer me with questions because I won’t be participating, just curious about the motivation.
OmahaConservative on February 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM
100% agreed. Where we may disagree is in what Rome calls apostolic succession.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM
I know plenty of charismatics that support macarthur. Your argument here is as silly as you pointing someone to the national review and them saying, “well, you obviously don’t think this yourself, cuz you had to point to someone else.”
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM
I just asked a simple question, that you didn’t answer.
I guess I would go with the “non-denominational protestant”…whatever that is.
So you attack someone else’s beliefs, but you don’t claim your own?
I was trying to get a feel on your background, it is so very biblicaly weak, I suspected it was something like “non-denominational”.
I guess you and I have a differing opinion on attacking and debating. I you wanted to defend, or were comfortable, you would have stated your doctrine…but then most non’s don’t have a real doctrine, most are created to garner attendee’s.
So it becomes easy to attack a doctrine, when you don’t have to defend your own.
right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Whoops! Your ignorance is showing. It’s probably true that the majority of Baptists are dispensational and I don’t think you would call them lunatics.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 3:21 PM
What does that quote have to do with Scripture, other than criticizing groups who selectively use it?
You are a joke. You have parroted the same talking points ad infinitum and refused to engage in anything other than belligerent attacks against a Church that you apparently know nothing about.
Allahpundit even warned you in the last Pelosi thread to knock it off but apparently you know better.
/out
I’ll check back later for my answers.
darclon on February 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Sounds good.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM
When in doubt, choose life, ALWAYS. The Church has always been against abortion.
And, it will ALWAYS be against abortion for infinity.
Got that: INFINITY!
Sapwolf on February 18, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Who let the Lutheran’s in? Next thing you know, they will be serving beer…
right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Charismatics are “cafeteria Catholics”. My point stands.
darclon on February 18, 2009 at 3:23 PM
+1
Darbraun on February 18, 2009 at 3:24 PM
So basically, we’re back to all people who are not followers of rome are “cafeteria catholics” or not christians.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:24 PM
That would be a pretty good point if the religion was 150 years old.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Just a thought, Jesus didn’t quite use sugar with the Pharisees. (I’m not calling commenters here Pharisees) Just wanted to point out that heresy needs to be exposed for what it is and not sugar-coated.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Who are you?
Do you even know what I’m talking about?
Darbraun on February 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Against it, but the nature and severity of the sin has been debated.
dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM
FIFY
:)
Sapwolf on February 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM
You didn’t answer my question. What did they say when you talked with them?
shick on February 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Is that really any of your business?
There’s really no need to flex your righteous religious e-penis.
Darbraun on February 18, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Thanks for the response. Doesn’t the Holy Spirit open the door to a variety of Churches claiming that their teaching is rooted in Christ?
dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 3:31 PM
From the Anchoress link above:
For me, it suggests the Holy Father’s words went in one ear and right out the other.
I understand, if you dare put one’s ear next to Pelosi’s, one can hear the sounds of San Francisco Bay.
LAW on February 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Yah, really.
The Secular Libertarians and Religious Conservatives BETTER learn to get along, or we’ll be dominated by Secular Totalitarians.
Sapwolf on February 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Well, good for His Holiness, the Pope. Even though I am not a Catholic, I applaud his stand.
The more church and other religious leaders refuse to take the easy way out and “go along to get along”, the better the world will be.
You Catholics can be justifiably proud of him.
Marking Time on February 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM
TTheoLogan,
there have been countless posts taking you to task on your absurd statements about the Catholic Church. You have not read anything that we actually believe. You assume that we are Mary worshippers, etc. Several of the Catholics and one of our Orthodox brothers as well as other non-Catholics have explained what we truly believe but you blindly follow your talking points. They are old and tiresome. Also, I find this quote of yours disturbing:
“Right2bright, as Jesus himself said, “before the foundations of the world, I AM.” He was around before Mary, he’s been around after Mary. No one needs Mary more than anyone needs David, a man after God’s own heart. Mary is not the mother of God, and she has no influence over him or Jesus. She was a woman chosen by God, now dead, and in heaven. She can’t hear you.”
Specifically the part that Mary is not the Mother of God. Umm, didn’t Mary give birth to Jesus? Who is Jesus? Tell me. There were several councils dealing with the doctrines concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ because of various heresies denying one or more part of who He is. One in particular, the Council of Ephesus declared that Mary is the Mother of God to sharpen the doctrine concerning Our Lord’s divinity. Mary did not give birth to a nature just as any woman doesn’t give birth to a nature. No, she gives birth to a person, either a boy or girl. Mary is the Mother of God because she gave birth to the second person of the Blessed Trinity.
I don’t know why you are hung up on such things as the sign of the cross. Do you have a problem with the Cross? Do you have a problem with blessing oneself in the name of the Blessed Trinity? As for as the rosary, do you have a problem with meditating on the life of Christ?
There would still be the Church without the Bible. The Bible is very important and we as Catholics take the Bible seriously but the Catholic Faith has never been a religion of simply the Bible. For many centuries people couldn’t read, to include kings and emperors. Yet, during that time, the Faith flourished. If all the Bibles were destroyed tomorrow (God forbid but in this day and age….) we would still have the Catholic Faith, the faith of the Apostles and the Martyrs.
As for as praying to the Saints. The bible specifically states that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. They are alive in Christ and they pray daily for us at the altar (in fact there is a image of this in the book of Revelation). They are our family and since those who are in Christ are not separated, even in physical death. It is good and right to ask them for help and their intercession.
You will probably cross out some of my words like you did in my last post and twist them around. Its sad and very childish. I agree with another poster on here who said that for someone who thinks that they know so much about Christianity and claims to be a Christian that you don’t have much charity at all. I will pray for you.
rapunzel77 on February 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM
I disagree. I think there will ultimately be a lot more problems with biblical protestants teaming up with rome based catholics for moral issues.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM
“I disagree. I think there will ultimately be a lot more problems with biblical protestants teaming up with rome based catholics for moral issues.”
Why is this TTheoLogan? Are you afraid that the Catholics might have some positive influence on the “biblical” protestants?
rapunzel77 on February 18, 2009 at 3:43 PM
http://www.pewsitter.com/petition/
If you are Catholic you may want to sign this petition urging the Church to withhold Communion from political leaders who support abortion until they confess this sin etc.
Thank you for the post on Exodus 21. I will have to mention it to my Pastor.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 18, 2009 at 3:50 PM
No one here said that works are nothing. Faith and works are not one and the same. Show me that in scripture.
As a protestant I am partly saved by a works based salvation….. But it is not my works.
I am saved by the grace of God who gave me the gift of my faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Mainly because people end up getting confused and think that we agree on more than we do, and that being pro-life is more important than accepting a biblical Christ.
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Don’t bother, he is basically a troll…he won’t state his beliefs or doctrine, he just attacks others.
His biblical understanding is minimal, which is fine, most of ours is, but he Google’s a couple of words then he gets trapped.
Just remember, as correct as the Catholic faith is, there are other faiths just as “right”…in fact Luther corrected many of your “problems”, and helped you Catholic’s get back on track.
right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM
FIFY
bluelightbrigade on February 18, 2009 at 3:55 PM
although I disagree with your last comment right2bright, thank you for your comments. I know he is basically a troll.
rapunzel77 on February 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM
TTheLogan, bottomline, as long as believers believe that salvation comes only thru the blood of Jesus as a fullfillment of both the original promise to Abraham on down thru the Scriptures, what does it matter to your faith/salvation that Catholics believe one way, Plymouth Brethren another and Coptics yet another etc?
Instead of smartass one-liners, it would behoove you to be more like the Bereans (Acts 17:11-13) and sincerely evaluate whether these things were so. Seeing how you are provoked by ‘idols’, perhaps you might want to contrast your string of tirades with the Apostle Paul and his sermon on the unknown god while in Athens (Acts 17:16-34).
IOW, aside from being off-topic, try being more like Paul and less like Saul of Tarsus. Better yet, show some humility, unless Jesus appeared to you personally and told you to speak thusly.
AH_C on February 18, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Nice try but I was referring to leap in logic with no connection. Many people, including Muslims and Hindus, have such blind faith . It’s a vague hope in what religious leaders say is true. Christ had a different point of view on faith.
Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.
– John 4:21-22
True faith is actually based on knowledge and not a blind hope. Specifically we are to have faith in Christ
shick on February 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM
So you think selling indulgences was a good thing?
Or that Luther challenging the Pope on these indulgences helped the Catholic Church re-focus on Christ and less on “selling”.
I know that Catholics have a hard time understanding that they were once a corrupt church…but facts are facts, and Luther was one of many that challenged the status quo. He was a faithful Catholic, and always loved the Church, but he had issues with 95 serious items. Many centered around the Church collecting money or “influencing” others without the means to “work” to save their soul.
Of the 95, I believe about 90 have been embraced by the church…the two biggest being the selling of indulgences, and that mass should be in the local language.
The one big one they won’t give up is the Pope’s infallibility…Luther thought all men were fallible.
And really, you have to admit, that him translating (although not the first, but the second and most famous) the bible into the common language was a huge reason Christianity spread so rapidly in the 16 and beyond centuries.
When you sit in Church next week, and you hear the sermon in your own language…thank Luther, and when you hold the bible in your hands, and it is written in English…thank Luther.
And when you think of antisemitism, unfortunately you can think of Luther…no one is perfect or infallible.
right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM
The term Pope didn’t even exist until centuries later.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Where in this parable does he actually communicate or even hear what Lazarus says? That’s what Rome claims happens when the pray to the saints.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 4:13 PM
And they’re a lot closer to the truth than they would be with RCC dogma.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM
right2bright, what flavor Lutheran are you? I am a Confessional LC-MS’er.
OmahaConservative on February 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM
The key of my response was no admission of worship.
So Rome says, “We don’t worship, we venerate!”
Simply because Rome calls it something else doesn’t mean it’s not still worship. You are giving attributes to men that belong to God alone. When men are in heaven and can hear your prayers, are they not borrowing God’s omniscience? You assume that in their new state they have this ability to hear our prayers. Where is that in scripture?
shick on February 18, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Pelosi will label the Pope a bigot (if she hasn’t already) for being such an ancient relic from the patriarchal past, the equivalent to a Muslim cleric, no better than a Mormon prophet, for holding to traditional social doctrines rather than embracing Marx in all his Socialist glory as the 2nd Coming of the Messiah as she and globalist progressives have.
maverick muse on February 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM
‘Just caught the tail end of an interview of Archbishop Chaput on Cavuto. Nice job by the archbishop (and, as always, a good job by Neil). The argument the archbishop made is that abortion is a human rights issue, not a partisan one. I can’t recall how he phrased it, but he also did a nice job explaining how the Church’s position on the sanctity of human rights was a philosophical one that happened to be supported by the Church doctrine — in other words, something that transcended a particular religious sect’s views.
Y-not on February 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Just like you take scripture and insert something that’s not there. You take his words and do the same.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM
I am surprised she isn’t eligible for sainthood. She just screwed millions of Americans and didn’t catch anything but a buzz on vacation.
workingforpigs on February 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM
It doesn’t matter what it is called, which has varied through the ages. What matters is the office, which Jesus created and gave to Simon Peter and which Peter in turn gave to Linus. This is what Catholics mean when they talk about Tradition — the assurance of the legitimacy of the Bible and its correct interpretation through the ages.
In any case, Ms. Pelosi went before the human leader of her faith and got a lesson in what that faith requires of her. I suspected Benedict would use this moment the way he apparently has (to address with Ms. Pelosi the issue about which he and her are certainly in disagreement) — I just didn’t expect the strength of that use, with publicity and press releases.
For a non-Catholic, this is perhaps of little moment. For anti-Catholics, this is an anti-moment, with the anti-Christ lecturing on a position which must immediately be taken as opposite the Christian position. For those of us who are devoutly Catholic, this is of great moment — Benedict is defending the Faith.
unclesmrgol on February 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM
I was a Missouri synod for decades…but I just have a problem with their strict doctrine of not allowing women to lead in the church (and other strict “rules”), it just doesn’t make sense to me…but I loved the beer.
I am attending, and have been an ELCA, since coming out to NC. They are not as liberal as the other ELCA’s, which I have a real problem with a lot of the doctrine. But my pastors are, like all Lutheran’s, well schooled and both were raised by Missouri Synod parents.
I attended Fuller Seminary, after that I was part of a Dutch Reformed Church, so I have a varied background of Church attendance.
In my 60 years I realized that the bible is correct when it states that anything a man creates is not perfect and has sin…and that especially includes all churches, which are run by man, and the doctrine created by man.
right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 4:31 PM
This thread concerns Pelosi, claiming to be an ardent Catholic presuming to speak for the Pope using her own diatribe as Catholic doctrine; and the Pope reminding her of the truth of that matter, that she was and is out of line to do as she did and does, and what an ardent Catholic teaches even as a civic leader.
maverick muse on February 18, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »