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 … 5 6 7 8 Next »
You don’t have to be Catholic to understand and appreciate the moment…but I wonder whether Pelosi will, I doubt it…her power is more important then doing what is right.
right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Catholic-bashers are out in force again…
*sigh*
JetBoy on February 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I’m still waiting for Pelosi’s human life to begin.
jusgottabeme on February 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I’m an ELCA guy, myself, by way of the old ALC. Honestly, the leftward direction of the ELCA on the national level has been a source of frustration for me.
HuskerNate on February 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Benedict certainly knows thorough contextual content. He offered wisdom of peace first to Islam, and now Pelosi. Limiting attention to the Pelosi pig with lipstick, its not even a gamble to predict what she’ll do with his pearls of wisdom.
maverick muse on February 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM
As a Catholic there’s something sweet about the Pope taking on the Pelosi in Catholic dogma. I hope he takes her to the woodshed.
itsspideyman on February 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM
If the Roman Catholic Church can back this up by excommunicating all those politicians that have voted to keep infanticide legal, it would be a great start and a huge step in the right direction.
Funny how following the teachings of the Ancient Church rings so true, unlike…say, the Episcopal Church which has become a transparent, secular sham and supports abortion on demand.
Hening on February 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM
right2bright,
I never said that selling indulgences was right. Of course they are not and you won’t find many Catholics thinking that it is right to sell them. Also, during the 16th century there were others who also believed that selling indulgences was wrong. I know that there was a lot of corruption in the Church then and the calls for reform were sounded long before Luther. As for as the Bible being in different languages..it already was. In fact, the Venerable Bede who lived in I believe in the 8-9th century had translated the Bible into Old English. Gutenburg, who was a Catholic, decided to print the Bible in German with his new printing press.
We have other reasons for the Mass to be in Latin. I prefer it actually but when it comes to the priest preaching his sermons, they have always been in the local language so I don’t have to thank Luther.
As for as infallibility, it has nothing to do with the popes personal holiness. He sins like everyone else. The charism only refers to the belief that the Holy Spirit will protect the pope from declaring as dogma something that is heretical or that he will be protected from teaching something heretical. That is all that it refers to. It does not mean that everything that the pope states is infallible. Nope, he is a man and needs all the help that he can get to live the Holy Faith.
As for as anti-semitism. That is a problem in very few circles now. The case of Williamson is unique. The SSPX have already put out a couple of statements about their views on anti-semitism (they condemn it and always have). The silly remarks by the bishop only reflect his views and not the views of the society. Nor do the reflect the views of the Holy Father. It has been an unfortunate situation that I hope will be resolved soon.
rapunzel77 on February 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Revelation 5:8
clarifides on February 18, 2009 at 4:46 PM
The popes generally are graceful when meeting with leaders with whom they disagree. In the case of Nancy Pelosi, however, the Vatican statement tells me that the Church recognizes two things about her. 1) If the official statement is not quickly released, she will twist the content and context of the conversation. 2) Her ‘ardent’ Catholocism is a figment of her own imagination and not based in reality.
As one who observes and is sensitive to these types of Vatican exchanges, I can say that Pelosi’s ‘treatment’ was very unusual and deliberate.
The Pope left nuance at home today.
DrStock on February 18, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I would contend that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are given many names and/or designations, however, no where in the scriptures is Mary referred to as the mother of God. To whit, Jesus is referred to as the Son of God and Son of Man. The Son of God refers to His Diety, however, the Son of Man refers to the Word being made flesh. Mary serves only two purposes; 1) a surrogate mother (hence virgin) to carry Jesus to term and to raise him, 2) to pass on Abraham’s DNA, via David on down. Mary can’t be the mother of God because she did not “create” God and she is not a diety. She is merely human, born in sin, corrupted by the curse of sin and in spite of the ‘honor’ of being Jesus’ mother, still in need of personal salvation.
Granted, but this example had to do with an earthly favor, rather than salvation. Note how Jesus rebuked Mary and said that it wasn’t his time yet. On the flipside,
Joh 19:25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Joh 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
Joh 19:27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
It is reasonable that some may interpret that last verse to support the reverence for Mary. Personally, I just think that Jesus was merely delegating the care of his mother to his beloved disciple.
As for your last sentence, I totally concur.
In the end, I fully expect Heaven to be populated with Angelicans, Baptists, Catholics, Coptics, Greek/Russian Orthodox, Lutherans, Assembly of God, Methodists, non-denominationals etc. Did I miss any other denominations? Well, I expect to see them represented.
By the same token, I fully expect Hell to be populated with Angelicans, Baptists, Catholics, Coptics, Greek/Russian Orthodox, Lutherans, Assembly of God, Methodists, non-denominationals etc. Did I miss any other denominations? Well, I expect to see them represented in hell, as well as Atheist, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and any other religion that rejects Jesus as THE Son of God.
Bottomline, it is not the denomination, nor the accompanying traditions that saves. If otherwise, then what was the denomination of the very first Christian to enter heaven?
It is not doctrine that saves. Else what was the doctrine of the Ethiopian Eunuch that was saved by Philip? By the same token, we see where the early Church wrestled with false teachers. Why were some true and others false?
In spite of Christian ‘diversity’ (not to be confused with race evangelists, such as Jeremiah Wright, Justice Bros & other liberation hacks) the common bond shared by all Saints is that they believed in Jesus, his sacrifice and repented of their sins.
AH_C on February 18, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Hening—Funny how following the teachings of the Ancient Church rings so true, unlike…say, the Episcopal Church which has become a transparent, secular sham and supports abortion on demand.
Yeah, right. The Ancient Roman church was really into child molesting. Sorry, but if you’re an Orthodox Catholic that can see no fault in your church, I have a bridge to sell you in NYC.
jim m on February 18, 2009 at 4:54 PM
All this petty bickering about denominations, who’s right/who’s wrong/who’s more right than wrong…
Pretty sad, actually. :(
God knows no “denominations”. There are many people of many different “denominations” that are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. There is only ONE requirement:
Believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and you will have salvation!
No popes, rituals, labels, etc. necessary!!
Beautiful thing about Christ’s sacrifice on the cross: HE became our High Priest, and the ONLY thing we need to approach the Throne of Grace, and have a personal, one-on-one relationship with the Almighty GOD.
Religions and denominations will come and go, but GOD’s WORD (the Holy Scriptures) will remain. It is the ONLY guide to living a life pleasing to HIM!
So, please stop with all the infighting… just makes “Christians” look petty and divided.
Back to the subject at hand: Is abortion MURDER, or not? Many try to make the argument about “when does life begin”, but anyone who would call themselves a “child of GOD” already knows the answer to that question.
Just as Nancy Pelosi does…
Shepherd Lover on February 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM
The Pope, as well as the American bishops, really do not have another choice on this matter. Pelosi forced the issue by very publicly declaring herself a devout catholic and proceeding to mis-represent catholic teaching. This represented a major scandal with a big potential to confuse the less formed faithful. they needed to act decisively to contain the damage to their flock.
neuquenguy on February 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Why would MS-NBC want to spin this, the lunatics who work there hate Catholics and the Catholic Church.
The only “catholics” MS-NBC don’t want to offend are those who don’t take the Church teachings at all seriously, like morally and intellectually bankrupt, geriatric hippie Pelosi.
NoDonkey on February 18, 2009 at 4:58 PM
When I sin and confess to my priest and part of my penance is to contibute $10.00 to an orphanage down the street – is that so wrong? Heck no, I don’t have a problem with indulgences, if used properly. If an outlandish demand is made, I am not forced to abide – in fact I might report the offense to higher ups.
Fuquay Steve on February 18, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Actually, rapunzel, the Catholic church dug up the bones of person who translated the Bible into the common languages, pulverized them and threw them into a river and then turned around and used 90% of that translation for its first authorized translation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe.
jim m on February 18, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Anti-Catholicism is alive and well in this country. Too bad also on HA. For those who don’t understand the Church but blast away anyhow – get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church - for those who don’t understand the teaching of the Church regarding the connection between sanctity of life and artificial contraception – get the collected teachings of John Paul II called Theology of the Body.
St. Vincent De Paul said the Church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners. We have had plenty of both throughout the ages. That said, you who speak against Her should realize that it is the Catholic Church who has always had your back when it comes to property rights, individual dignity, every kind of human right, especially the right to life, from conception to natural death.
If you wish to engage in the battle with Obama and his communist juggarnaut, you better realize who your friends are: The unchanging teachings of the Church, and the men who speak these truths at every opportunity. Why should be be divided in this? We should stand with the Church who alone continues to speak out against, as John Paul II named it, the culture of death. By the way, Obama is
when it comes to that hot mess.
tigerlily on February 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM
It’s not a case of offending Catholics. MSNBC would print the story that Pelosi had straightened out the Holy Father about Catholic teachings.
Herb on February 18, 2009 at 5:14 PM
I’d really like to see a tougher stance taken by American bishops against Nancy and folks in her position. But what is the limit? A tough one.
AbaddonsReign on February 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Reality check: Christianity is not about a religion; rather, Christianity is about a Relationship with Christ! “On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” (John 14:20)
bmac727 on February 18, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Thank you for be willing to actually state what you believe. While Catholics would disagree with you about Mary being born in sin (Immaculate Conception and all), I appreciate your openness.
While I agree with some of what you wrote (Mary not being a deity, Mary not “creating” God, Jesus being the Son of Man, etc.), I think I ultimately find your logic somewhat confusing: you say Mary was the (surrogate) mother of Jesus, and that Jesus is the Son of God and Son of Man, the Word Made Flesh (the one true Christ)… yet Mary isn’t the mother of God. So do you separate the divinity of Jesus from his worldly body; that Mary could have been the mother of Jesus the man, but not Jesus the Christ?
Again, I humbly thank you for doing what others have seemingly refused to do.
Abby Adams on February 18, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Bottom line benefit, Pelosi can no longer make assanine statements such as those she has made about the Church’s teaching on abortion. She will do some giant rationalization and carry on as usual. Chris Matthew, who attended the same Catholic grade school I did, does this all the time. He is the largest rationalization walking, so business as usual for him too.
msmveritas on February 18, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Matthew 23:9 – “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”
bmac727 on February 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM
But I learned in public school that people with 2 daddys were normal too. ;-)
Abby Adams on February 18, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I was responding to you not thinking that Luther spearheaded those changes…his 95 thesis highlighted, he was the leader of the reformation which changed the indulgences, he was the one (so it is correct to thank him).
As far as Gutenberg, who do you think translated the bible into German?…it was Luther, he contracted to have Gutenberg print the bible. One of the “miracles” I always wonder about, Gutenberg at the same time as Luther. His 95 thesis was printed on the Gutenberg press, as was the first distributed common language bible. Imagine, the two most influential people, who could best compliment each other, being together, the same time, the same place…like our founding fathers, some things are just divinely created.
You need a serious history lesson, the Catholic church has done a number on your education.
No, it has not always been in the “local” languages, that was part of the 95 thesis. Luther wanted the “uneducated” to be able to understand the service…so you can thank him, but you are to obstinate to do so.
The change in definition in infallibility came from the 95 thesis…the Pope was considered infallible in the total sense of the word, if he decided to marry, he would marry (as some did), if he wanted children (as some did) he had children, if he wanted someone dead…they died (as some did).
And I was speaking of Luther’s antisemitism, not the Catholics. It is obvious you know nothing about Luther…spend some time, you will appreciate your Catholic faith much more.
You may not like it, but you can’t change history, the reformation saved the Catholic church, as much as it created other churches.
right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 5:26 PM
In the 1500′s, which is what we were discussing, indulgences were abused…severely abused, as in slave labor abuse.
right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 5:31 PM
I was curious – how does the Catholic Church feels about visectomy for men – is this a big no no as using birth control is?
AprilOrit on February 18, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Since sex is meant for procreation purposes, married Catholic couples should always be open to the possibility of a pregnancy. While family planning is allowed, the use of contraceptives, both hormonal and barrier, are not. Likewise, tubal ligations and vasectomies for purposes of contraception and sterilization are not acceptable, although they may be done out of medical necessity.
canditaylor68 on February 18, 2009 at 5:42 PM
It created a catalyst for change. Depending on whether one uses the term Counter-Reformation or Catholic Reformation indicates the degree to which the changes the Catholic Church went through were internally or externally driven.
dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Pelosi to Pope: We won.
Buy Danish on February 18, 2009 at 5:49 PM
“God is Dead!” – Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is Dead.” – God
coldwarrior on February 18, 2009 at 5:54 PM
I can see the scene now upon Pelosi’s return.
Bishop [enters Pelosi's office, slams sceptre on her desk]: “Don’t move!”
Pelosi: “It’s the Bishop!”
OneVision on February 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM
AH_C,
What you suggest is directly contrary to the Counsel of Ephesus (431). But hey, if you know better than St. Cyril of Alexandria, Doctor of the Church, more power to you.
You’ve managed to resurrect part of the 4-5th heresy known as “Nestorianism” (or at least what people mistakenly believed that Nestorians believed).
I’d suggest that you read up on the concept of “Theotokos” (mother of god/”god-bearer”) for a more full understanding of what Catholics and Orthodox believe on this issue.
NYCcon on February 18, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Yes, a better definition…
right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 6:21 PM
For those of us who are devoutly Pro-Life (& Methodist), this is a great moment – Pope Benedict is defending the unborn!
TN Mom on February 18, 2009 at 6:37 PM
A good teology lesson to Pelosi
Streecar on February 18, 2009 at 6:43 PM
For those of us who are devoutly Christian (Missouri Synod Lutheran) following God’s commands as best we can: to not kill/murder/destroy human life, Pope Benedict is correct.
May the Holy Spirit work in the Speaker’s blackened heart.
OmahaConservative on February 18, 2009 at 6:49 PM
So what do you do – get a letter from your doctor and send it to the vatican?
AprilOrit on February 18, 2009 at 6:49 PM
My only consolation is that God if just.
Nancy should take her own words to heart. I doubt that she would see her sin in this even when standing before the Lord.
IrishEyes on February 18, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Excommunicate her already.
Maquis on February 18, 2009 at 7:05 PM
It’s a start.
ex-Democrat on February 18, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Good laugh in the middle of a serious thread
CWforFreedom on February 18, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Anyone have a greasemonkey script that will skip this troll?
ex-Democrat on February 18, 2009 at 7:19 PM
God is faithful and just.
OmahaConservative on February 18, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I was curious – how does the Catholic Church feels about visectomy for men – is this a big no no as using birth control is?
AprilOrit on February 18, 2009 at 5:36 PM
AprilOrit,
Vasectomy, tubal ligation, and any other surgical method whose intent is to deliberately frustrate the procreative process are vigorously condemned by the Catholic Church. You can refer to paragraphs 2366-2372 in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for detailed explanations. Also, the book “Contraception, Why Not” by Janet Smith is a good source for explanations on the Church’s position.
Cheers!
Goldenavatar on February 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM
If the vasectomy pre-dated one’s joining the Church, due to inherent risks there is no obligation to undergo a reversal procedure, however.
coldwarrior on February 18, 2009 at 7:49 PM
right2bright on February 18, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Actually, most of the indulgences were to pay for the Sistene Chapel and the sacred artwork. You know, sorta like the NEA – and the rich paid it.
Fuquay Steve on February 18, 2009 at 8:35 PM
This woman has a lot of nerve. She wants the church to cave in to her values …or lack of.
pageram on February 18, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Gotta love the theology debates! Will take time later and browse thru them//
ProudPalinFan on February 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM
I love Pope Benedict. I truly do.
I don’t have time to look through the whole thread and see if this has been posted, but to all Catholics, this is a petition to the bishops of the country asking them to withhold the Eucharist/excommunicate all pro-abortion politicians/public figures.
Please sign it and send it to all your Catholic friends and relatives. You must be Catholic.
http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_15314.php
pannw on February 18, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Born and raised Catholic, think abortion should be outlawed except for rape or incest. But…the Church has no credibility after covering up abuses of priests. They threw their credibility away.
athensboy on February 18, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Not being Catholic, I really don’t understand why the bishop can’t excommunicate her. She is advocating murder and in public going against her faith and her spiritual authority.
megthered on February 18, 2009 at 10:18 PM
I interpret this as it is read without reading into it something that’s not there. The book of Revelation deals with eternity and the direct presence of the almighty God. It is quite different from what we experience now. Much of it is difficult to understand as it deals with much we cannot grasp. The prayers of the saints are referred to as golden bowls or vials with incense. Incense is described in the OT as something that is pleasing to the Lord. Beyond that it doesn’t say much else. In order to believe anything else one has to insert into it or “eisegete” like…
How can you equate this with intercession? Who are the prayers directed to? They are directed to God. This verse actually undercuts your position because there are no prayers directed to anyone else. The Catholic position is, “pray to the saints and they intercede in response with prayers to God.” There is no intercession here. You have to assume it.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM
athens,
You might need to update your catechesis before you spout your opinions. Errant, sinful individuals, even if they are priests, do not negate the credibility or the inerrancy of Catholic Dogma. You may have been born and raised in a somewhat Catholic manner, but you are sorely misinformed. Update yourself, buy a catechism and read it.
marybel on February 18, 2009 at 10:43 PM
God does not love everyone equally. This is simply evident within the gospel of John which refers to the disciple whom Jesus loved. He loves his chosen people with a uniqueness.
God does have a general love for mankind. This is simply demonstrated by his grace in letting them enjoy goodness in this life.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Sure both protestant and catholic “churches” have nominal attendees. But non-denominational is not a nominal christian. There are churches that actually call themselves non-denominational. And they usually are not avoiding accountability.
To be respectful of someone’s beliefs, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, is to find out actually what they believe before trying to attack what you think they believe.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 10:54 PM
and
This argument is silly. I don’t think either of you are trying to “force your beliefs on the other”. How can you force someone to believe your beliefs through this medium? Forcing would be more like using physical force.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 10:58 PM
First, Revelation does not say that the beasts and elders hear the prayers. It just says that they present them to God. Second, You ask “why are they interceding for us?”, I respond why should you think there’s any intercession there at all? Please elaborate.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Matthew 23:9 – “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”
bmac727 on February 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Yet St. Paul called himself our spiritual father and the other Apostles implied the same. St.Stephen and St. John call men “fathers” in the New Testament also.
1 Corinthians 4:14-16: “I am writing you this not to shame you but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.”
http://www.catholic.com/library/call_no_man_father.asp
Elisa on February 18, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Scripture says there offering the saints prayers but it doesn’t say they are aware of the content of the prayers. You are still inserting into the text what is not there.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I agree with you on defending non-denominational churches here but not with your argument with Willow Creek and Lakewood Church as examples. Willow Creek doesn’t have Bibles in their pews because they are afraid to scare away visitors and Lakewood NEVER talks about the gospel.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 11:07 PM
There is such a thing. Forgive me for being so blunt but you’re insistence displays arrogance and ignorance. It’s a label that identifies a belief or position of his. Just like being Baptist identifies mine. His belief or position?
Non-denominational: Not restricted to or associated with a religious denomination.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 11:13 PM
“however, no where in the scriptures is Mary referred to as the mother of God. . . . . Mary serves only two purposes; 1) a surrogate mother . . . . 2) to pass on Abraham’s DNA, via David on down. Mary can’t be the mother of God because she did not “create” God and she is not a diety. She is merely human, born in sin, corrupted by the curse of sin and in spite of the ‘honor’ of being Jesus’ mother, still in need of personal salvation.”
AH_C on February 18, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Elizabeth said, “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43) (Similar to what David said when the Ark of the Old Covenant was brought to him after traveling through the same exact hill country that Mary traveled to go to Elizabeth.)
As has already been pointed out, Mary was not His “surrogate mother.” She was a real mother, like I am to my children. (Actually Christ got 100% of His DNA from Mary, unlike the rest of us who only get 50% from each parent)
I did not “create” my children, God did. But I am still their mother. All of them. Not just the mother of their bodies, but not their souls. A person is made up of body and soul and a mother is the mother of the whole person.
Jesus is fully human and fully divine and His 2 natures can never be separate. So when Mary held Jesus the man in her womb, she also held Jesus the Divine in her womb. So she was the mother of God, God bearer, Theotokos.
Mary is not God. She is not divine. She is the beautiful creature and vessel He created with great care to hold the Word of God made flesh, the bread from Heaven, our High Priest forever. Just like God carefully crafted the Ark of the Old Covenant in several chapters of Exodus to hold the Ten Commandments (Word of God), the pot of manna (bread from Heaven) and the top of the High Priest, Aaron’s, staff, so too God carefully crafted the Ark of the New Covenant who held Christ within her.
Theotokos-Mother of God, Ark of the New Covenant and the New Eve were some of the first titles given to Mary already in the first 2 centuries of the Church.
Yes, Mary needed salvation from God. She said, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” She was saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. But she was saved at a different time than the rest of us. Because God is outside of time and space and He can do things retroactively any way He wants.
Remember that Gabriel said that Mary was “full of grace” even before she conceived Jesus in her womb. (Luke 1:28) So this was certainly before His saving work on the cross. (Not simply the poor translation “favored one,” because the original Greek word used was “chaire kecharitomene” – completed present state as a result of past action. Charis – grace. This exact tense and usage of grace is not found anywhere else in the Bible.)
Like the old story where a man walks down a road and falls in the mud puddle and Jesus cleans him up. Then a woman is about to fall in the mud, but Jesus stretches out His arm and catches her before she falls into the mud. He is still the Savior of both, saving them both from the mud, sin. Not before she was conceived and not after she was conceived. At the moment of her conception.
Mary is “the woman” of the Bible. Called by St. John in his Gospel “woman” at the start of Jesus’ Earthly ministry at Cana and “woman” at the end at the cross. The “woman” from Genesis and Revelation Chapter 12, beginning and end.
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”(Genesis 3:15)
Elisa on February 18, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Parroting talking points? Why would a non-calvinist source MacArthur? You really don’t understand the protestant position. Calvinists and non-calvinists agree with the central message of the gospel and thus can benefit much from sourcing one another. Where one stands on predestination is not a matter of salvation.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 11:26 PM
I have agreed with you on some things while not with others. You’re understanding of non-denominational is as misguided as darclons. From what I’ve read of your comments in the past you have no right to complain about attacks.
TTheoLogan was attacking doctrine and not any person. You’re comments in the past have been the opposite.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 11:34 PM
I was right the first time. It claims that all three as moral standards but actually “infallibly” interprets scripture based on it’s tradition and magesterium.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Nice. Really nice.
He claimed he talks with the saints. I’m talking with him and he understands mostly what I’m saying. We are conversing. Where is the same level of communication when praying to the saints?
Simply because I attempt to expose false doctrine with argumentation I’m flexing my righteousness? I have no inherent righteousness. I only wear the righteousness of Christ.
shick on February 18, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Was going to jump in, but if the thread is down to this….
*Sigh*
darii on February 18, 2009 at 11:59 PM
I had to think about this one a bit. I didn’t understand it right away.
In short, no. The Holy Spirit always does good work in men’s hearts. The sinful nature of man pulls him towards false doctrine. The Holy Spirit opens hearts and guides men through the word unto righteousness rooted on Christ’s righteousness. If a church claims their teaching is in Christ when it in fact is not, it was not the doing of the Holy Spirit.
shick on February 19, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Ever hear of “Bloody Mary?”
I know it seems odd to us in these modern times, but there was a considerable period of time when the Catholic Church was quite willing to overthrow a Protestant ruler in order to make a nation Catholic, and England was a prime target. There was a plot specifically to remove Elizabeth and replace her with the good Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots. Jesuits being executed was not a religious persecution, but political, because many of them were considered to be part of the plot.
Note that it really doesn’t matter whether you believe the plot was real or a figment of an overheated imagination. What matters to this discussion is that the plot was believed to be true, and that it was political. Again, this seems odd to people in modern times, but the Vatican has always been a political institution. That’s why even to this day the U.S. has an Ambassador to the Vatican, and Pelosi was received as a visiting political figure.
A war was fought across half of Europe to try to force the Protestants back into the Catholic Church. Once it ended essentially in a draw, many Jesuits were still involved in political intrigue to try to accomplish the same goal without warfare.
Protestants hands are not entirely clean. Baptists were often persecuted at the hands of various Protestant groups. Even in the beginning of this country, Roger Williams underwent some persecution from the Puritans.
But why should anyone be surprised? The Protestants broke off from the Catholic Church, and carried many of their practices with them.
But if you want to argue that Foxe’s Book of Martyrs was “hypocritical” and just “propaganda,” you’re going to have to do better than the example of Jesuit priests who were suspected of plotting against the throne.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 19, 2009 at 12:14 AM
The Saints are not dead people. The Saints are alive in Christ.
Moses and Elijah were at the transfiguration talking to Jesus.
Those who have fallen asleep in Christ are not dead and then come alive at the resurrection. They are alive now. Like Moses and Elijah.
Luke 20:35-38:
“but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise. That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush, when he called ‘Lord’ the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
John 11:25: “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
The ancient catacombs and the tombs, including the tomb of St. Peter, show that the first Christians in the first centuries of the Church prayed/talked to the Christian believers who had “fallen asleep in Christ.” There are countless markings carved in those tombs asking those Saints to pray for them, the living.
We all ask people to pray for us and we all pray for others. Like prayer chains that all Christians believe in, except the ancient Christians knew that the communion of Saints included those who were with Jesus and they could join in those prayers.
God bless you all.
Elisa on February 19, 2009 at 12:20 AM
When I was in the NT of Australia a few years back, the Catholic Churches there were full. They were full in Sydney too. There’s a reason Australia is entirely peopled by criminals, and it has little to do with Jesuits — the favorite targets of anti-Papists — and quite a bit to do with Henry VIII’s libido.
And Bloody Mary was the result of the European rage at the time of Kings, queens, princes, and dukes dabbling in the mixture of politics and religion. If you examine the Reformation, it succeeded where the leaders embraced Luther, and failed everywhere else. And their reasons for embracing Luther often had little to do with Luther, and much to do with how much money was to be had by looting the Churches and Monestaries, and how much fealty one could have by making the Church be subjunctive to the State.
I’m quite happy that the Vatican lost the war in Italy, for many of the same reasons. There should be no compulsion in religion; the State and the Church must be separate, or compulsion is the natural outcome.
It’s why Sharia makes us cringe.
unclesmrgol on February 19, 2009 at 1:02 AM
When did the catholic church start using the sign of the cross and prayer beads?
TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Actually the earliest Christians made the sign of the cross all the time. The full body one wasn’t until about the 4th century. But by the second century Christians marked the sign of the cross on their foreheads. Like we do today before we hear the Gospel reading.
The sign of the cross is a beautiful prayer and witness to both the Cross and to the Holy Trinity. (“In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”)
Around 200 AD Tertullian wrote:
“We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross” and
“In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.”
Too tired to get into the rosary history. Good night everyone. And thank you to all the many faithful who have defended the Church, East and West, so well on this thread. God bless everyone reading here.
Elisa on February 19, 2009 at 1:02 AM
Of course, there are other ways to interpret Scripture — but none which are valid.
unclesmrgol on February 19, 2009 at 1:04 AM
As for praying to the saints, the Bible does not specifically call the practice wrong. But the practice arose after the Bible was written, so that’s hardly surprising.
However, scripture does say very clearly that there is no mediator between God and man, but the man Christ Jesus. Making Mary a “mediatrix” or treating dead saints as mediators flies in the face of that. Furthermore, scripture warns in at least one place against the worshipping of angels, saying that those who do it are “intruding into those things which [they have] not seen, vainly puffed up by [their] fleshly mind[s].” That would seem to apply equally well to praying to saints which have long since gone to Heaven.
“Saints” simply means those who are saved. Far better to find a living saint you can talk to, who can pray with you, and then pray for you when you are not together.
I’m a little surprised also that anyone would quote the rich man and Lazarus to support praying to saints. It’s actually a counter-argument against praying to saints. Remember that the rich man in Luke 16 pleaded to Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to testify to his brothers. Abraham didn’t exactly approve of the idea.
It’s not hard to see that if you encourage people to pray to saints and to Mary, it comes at the expense of praying directly to God. And, again, we are told that there is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. And we are encouraged to come directly to Him.
After all, if you can only approach God through the mediation of Mary or Saint Peter, isn’t your faith at least partly in Mary or Saint Peter as well as God?
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 19, 2009 at 1:06 AM
Pardon? Child molesting? Is there a Saint of Child Molesters somewhere in the lists?
unclesmrgol on February 19, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Well, in the case of the Catholic Church, the political and the religious are not separate things. The Catholic Church still claims for itself “temporal” power, the Vatican is still a state,, etc.
At one time, though, struggles over Protestantism/Catholicism were huge political issues. While Protestants were also guilty of some persecution, fairness requires admitting they did much less than the Catholic Church had been doing.
Fortunately, this is of mostly historical interest now. The outright war between Catholics and Protestants ended pretty much in a draw, and that was the best possible result overall. Unfortunately, in much of Europe it meant that whether you were Protestant or Catholic depended on where exactly you were born, but it was at least possible to make up your own mind.
The absence of a state church in America has pretty much allowed everyone to follow their conscience. No wonder religion is extremely weak in Europe, but very influential in the U.S.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 19, 2009 at 1:31 AM
The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1455, and is a Vulgate (Latin) edition. Gutenberg never printed a bible in the German vernacular — all Gutenberg bibles are Vulgate. Gutenberg died in 1468. Each Gutenberg Bible required a purchase price of about three year’s pay for a common laborer, so they were, in essence, toys of the wealthy.
Finally, Luther was born in 1483 (years after Gutenberg was dead and buried), so Luther and Gutenberg were not in any way contemporaries. Your “miracle” is not.
unclesmrgol on February 19, 2009 at 2:23 AM
As they say with various and sundry things, it’s the size that matters. Nobody views the Vatican as a military threat like they did in the 1800′s, nor as a political competitor. Its lands consist of Churches.
However, there is an advantage in having your own country. I doubt any other church can say, for example, that it has an Isreali Embassy, with all the possibilities for communication which such a status implies.
The Catholic Church prevents clergy from holding both temporal (worldly) and clerical positions. That is why the Barrigans and Aristide had to resign from the priesthood in order to hold political office. This is the case now, although it wasn’t always so — but a recognition that one cannot serve both Caesar and God properly.
Now, Catholics in general are a different matter entirely. We (from the Pope on downward) do indeed view faith and politics as intertwined, since politics involves, among other things, devising the rules (laws) used to govern.
I certainly look askance at laypeople like Pelosi, who claim to be Catholic but then use none of that faith in the laws they devise… And it’s quite obvious now that the Pope does too. I feel oddly cheerful at that thought…
unclesmrgol on February 19, 2009 at 2:41 AM
)… yet Mary isn’t the mother of God. So do you separate the divinity of Jesus from his worldly body; that Mary could have been the mother of Jesus the man, but not Jesus the Christ?
Again, I humbly thank you for doing what others have seemingly refused to do.
Abby Adams
Madre de Dios! What do I do with my favorite Spanish phrase now?
SKYFOX on February 19, 2009 at 6:09 AM
Abby, first of all, upon rereading the Scriptures, I have a correction to make, the lineage that I referred to was passed down thru Joseph, not Mary. I should have remembered that, but that distinction escaped me over time (Matthews & Luke Chapter 1).
Now wrt Mary.
Let’s back up a bit, God choose a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And his wife, Elizabeth, from the daughters of Aaron to conceive John the Messenger. Until that time, they were barren and in old age. As we see, God planned it that way, so that in the time of the restoration of their honor (fertility) it would be extra special. In turn, Elizabeth’s cousin was Mary who was engaged to Joseph. In essence, the mother of Jesus would be whomever marries Joseph, the 42nd generation of Abraham.
Bottomline, my comments were a smackdown, if you will, of TTheoLogan and the like for bashing fellow brethen and sister in Christ over doctrine.
I’m all for debating the pros and cons of doctrine. Nonetheless, I think that debate needs to rest on the portions of the Scriptures mutually agreed to as divinely inspired — for example the Catholic Bible is not the same as the King James Version. Hence talking about St. Cyril of Alexandria and others that came after the Apostles can be useful, however, I reserve the right to judge their opinioned teachings, because their works were not written under the direct authority of God.
IOW, Christian Thinkers serve a purpose to expound on the Who, What, Where… of God and how Christians should live. That’s the key word — think. Therefore, anything they espouse has to be corrobroated with the inspired Scriptures (Acts 17:11). But when it comes to the status of Salvation, the default position falls back to what the Word of God say, not what the others think.
FWIW, my thinking is more in line with ThereGoesTheNeighborhood and unclesmrgol
AH_C on February 19, 2009 at 6:35 AM
Of course Mary was a real mother. What I meant by ‘surrogate’ is that God chose her to be the vessel for fulfilling His promises. Mary was a surrogate as much as Hagar was a surrogate for Sarah. The difference being that God chose Mary and Sarah substituted Hagar due to a lack of faith. Mary provided 100% of the earthly DNA while the Holy Spirit provided the holy ‘spark’. Therefore, while Jesus’ DNA is not from the lineage of David, Jesus still belongs to the house of David by virtue of the husband of his mother.
Jesus was fully human during his time on earth, but his divinity preceded his birth. Like the Trinity, each has specific characteristics & personalities, yet are inextricably one — Jesus was I AM, before he became flesh. To me, to attribute “Mother of God” to Mary is to also attribute Brother/Sister of God to his siblings. By all this, I don’t intend to stip the blessedness of Mary’s role in the birth of Christ, I just don’t think she should be exalted on a higher spiritual level as somehow closer to God than the rest of us Saints. Furthermore, from the perspective of God being consistent, we often see cases where God/Jews pass pass down an attribute or inheritance downstream, never upstream. So while Jesus inherits the house of David thru Joseph who shares no DNA is consistent with the OT, Mary inheriting the “Mother of God” is somehow illogically upstream. Bear with me, as I’m not sure how to best explain this point. I guess my best analogy is to take my oldest daughter. She has none of my DNA, but I gave her full rights to my name & heritage as if she was 50% my DNA. From the adoption forward, she shall forever be of my house, by the same token, I have no claim to the heritage of her biological father. Note also that in Luke 1:38, Mary is the servant of the Lord.
wrt salvation humans have lived under one of two eras, the Law or by Grace. The crossover period was when God rent the curtain in the Temple during the crucifiction. Until then, Jews still had to live by the law and the customs therein, even Jesus (Luke 2:14). All Jews that lived during the transistion became subject to salvation by beliving Jesus was the Messiah.
I don’t know Greek, so I won’t quibble with your definition, other than to say that this one-time usage doen’t necessarily mean that she was a different “saved” from anyone else. But that’s for Greek geeks to duke it out as it has no bearing on your or my salvation.
That said, with your old story, I would think God would be more explicit about venerating Mary. Again, about Mary’s spiritual state, she was first subject to the law, then the grace of God thru the blood of Jesus, and nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. IOQ, by freewill, if Mary had decide to curse God for taking her son and reject His grace, she would be in hell, conceiving Jesus notwithstanding.
Finally, Gensis 3:15 is consistent with many other passages where God speaks on two levels, 1st to the immediate situation, ie the curse of Adam, Eve & Sperpent and secondly, speaking to the future in which the Son of Man would crush Satan.
Look, I don’t want to fight over stuff like this, especially as we’re OT. Let’s just agree to disagree on things that don’t pertain to salvation. And that we both agree that people like Pelosi, Gene Robinson, Justice Bros and the like are heretics to the word of God.
AH_C on February 19, 2009 at 6:36 AM
Feel free to enlighten me on these references, however as noted above, final authority rests on the infallible Scriptures and not the fallible counsel of Man. Mary had everything to do with Jesus’ humanity and nothing to do with his divinity. I have no problem with “god-bearer” since that’s what Mary was, a vessel for bring Jesus to viability and raising him. However, “mother of god” connotes some authority over him and imputes undeserved diviness upon her (Luk 2:39-52).
As I alluded to in yesterday’s post, there are going to be all kinds/denominations of Christians that get into heaven as well as all kinds/denominations of CINOs that won’t get into heaven because they never knew Christ. So there is no need to for protestants to bash catholics and no need for catholics to bash non-denominations. It is not the customs, doctrine or traditions that binds us to Christ, rather the substance of our faith (Colosians Chp 2).
AH_C on February 19, 2009 at 6:37 AM
Sigh. I see no catholic-bashing. Only Catholic doctrine disagreements. But I’m not surprised by this comment. It’s similar to those that say that anything said against Obama’s policies are racist.
shick on February 19, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Ditto. Or put another way, I certainly look askance at laypeople like Reid, who claim to be Mormon but then use none of that faith in the laws they devise… But it’s not quite obvious now that the Elders (or whatever they’re called) in Salt Lake City do too. I’d feel oddly cheerful at the thought of them smacking Reid down.
AH_C on February 19, 2009 at 6:42 AM
tigerlily,
You go girl.
right2bright,
The reformation didn’t save the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit did, as it has done for some 2000 years.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2009 at 7:48 AM
Is the Pope going to lecture Catholic Priests to stop raping and molesting boys? Catholics are not even Christians to begin with. Martin Luther agrees with this statement
money2 on February 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
neuquenguy on February 19, 2009 at 8:35 AM
Le’s see, we can start with:
And move on to all the other posts talking about how catholics torture and kill those who do not believe, worship idols, act violently towards Christians in other countries who try to evangelize, etc, etc. You call all this “doctrinal disagreements”?
neuquenguy on February 19, 2009 at 8:40 AM
A belated Amen. On to more pressing needs now.
Abby Adams on February 19, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Ah, Obama could take a lesson from the Pope. He clearly has her figured out. Move quickly to document exactly what was said and be very direct and clear.
AnninCA on February 19, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Here is the Mormon viewpoint on abortion from the LDS website:
The LDS position of the emphatic condemnation of abortion in the first paragraph is aborted itself in the second paragraph. A far greater amount of freedom is given the Mormon to seek an abortion, since the wording of the second paragraph allows fairly easy maneuvering by the believer to place themselves in the “some exceptional circumstances” category (I suspect the “such as” clause doesn’t enumerate all of the possibilities for a Mormon-approved abortion).
Hence Reid, in making abortion possible for the “such as” portions of his church’s statement (e.g., “safe and rare”), is indeed following LDS teaching on the matter. The LDS position is, in fact, quite close to centrist thinking on abortion.
As a Catholic, I’m well aware of [and support] my Church’s absolutist viewpoint with respect to abortion: the Catholic Church does not have the enumerated exemptions by the LDS for rape, incest, the mental or physical health of the mother, or defects in the child.
unclesmrgol on February 19, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Well I can’t argue with a person who believes this:
Funny, Christ attacked people personally…guess He was wrong to do so?
At least be honest and consistent in your arguments…how do I attack doctrine, when you personally post such a foolish statement?
right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 10:59 AM
The strong part of the Catholics, is their consistency on this issue, is never wavers.
right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I’m certain that my doctrinal questioning is considered to be Catholic bashing on a regular basis. But the whole ‘idol worshiping’ is a problem for all of mankind since Adam. The Church is not immune from idol worship.
Idolization comes in many forms. I think the emphasis put on the Catholic church rather than Christ shows an idolatry of the Catholic Church. The concept of the pope (a human speaking for God) is also VERY close to idolatry. All the STATUES of Mary are also close to idolatry.
Put it this way. If it weren’t so common in the Catholic Church, and another religion were treating inanimate objects the way that Catholics do, Catholics would consider them to be idolaters.
I’ve seen what idolatry can do to good God-loving people. . . even within the Church. The scary thing concerning the Catholic Church is the willingness of Catholics to deny that the church has ever done anything wrong. They defend the church to the detriment of Christianity.
I find most Catholics spending time arguing more about doctrine than expressing love, admiration, and desire to be with/like/near God.
Here for example. . . everyone is talking about Pelosi and abortion and the Catholic church. The important thing to the Catholics is whether or not she’ll be ‘excommunicated’ (as though that act will make any difference whatsoever – to God, Jesus, or the babies that will continue to be aborted after the Catholics here smuggly get their way and have her ‘excommunicated’). Again, this is not the love of the Christian Church. This whole witch hunt is not becoming of the Christian faith.
Christians really need to spend more time talking to non-Christians about who Jesus is instead of telling current Christian believers why they should be ‘kicked out’. When the pope had an audience with the king of Saudi Arabia, did he proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Or did he just say that everyone needed ‘understanding’.
If there is a need for a pope, and that pope met with a leader of Islam, I would HOPE that the pope would try to convert the leader of Islam rather than ask for ‘understanding’ from him.
Again, call me a ‘Catholic basher’, but really, Catholics need to be allowed to be critical of their organized church. It’s something that I don’t see. Most Catholics seemed to be complicit in covering up the priest abuse scandal. Jesus would have wept again.
ThackerAgency on February 19, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Thacker, you could not have said anything more offensive, insulting and absolutely false than your comment about most Catholics seeming to be complicit in covering up priest abuse. Not one, not one Catholic that I know has ever shied away, nor have they ever ignored the scandal. They have been outraged and angry about the smear it had placed on the Faith. We, though, do see that it was the blatant disregard of the liberal laity in this country that strayed away from the true intent of Vatican 2 and the lapse of authority of Bishops. But, to say most of us were complicit…. is an ignorant statement.
MNDavenotPC on February 19, 2009 at 11:49 AM
The problem with abortion is that each situation is different. Some are needed for health reasons, and others are to erase a mistake. My belief is that it is wrong to deny a child life, but its also wrong to deny a woman, or family the right to choose. Ultimately in a free nation, you are free to do whateva you want even if its killing a child. The govt shouldn’t endorse it. Just provide the necessary support/regulation and get out the way.
hiphopconservative on February 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I should have worded it better. I was rushing out though. The Catholic Church has a Magisterium that troubles some Protestants who question whether all of it is rooted in the Bible. One source for the RCC’s ability to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals is the Holy Spirit.
Based on your formulation above, many churches or interpreters of the Bible can point to the Holy Spirit for their claims, but it remains up to individuals to evaluate whether the Holy Spirit is really at work. Am I reading your point correctly?
dedalus on February 19, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »