Posted on 12/01/2011 11:01:32 AM PST by The Barrister
frogjerk wrote: “Are you talking about Puritans or Pilgrims?”
On this point of wanting purity rather than tolerance for religious freedom, there's no difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans.
The difference is that the Pilgrims were Separatists who believed the established Church of England was corrupt and secession was (depending on the Separatist writer) either permissible or mandatory, while the Puritans regarded themselves as being members of the Church of England who were still trying to work within it to purify it.
There is no way to argue that any of the early settlers of the colonies other than Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, or (in a very limited fashion) Maryland wanted religious freedom. William Penn wanted freedom for his Quaker views and was willing, based on his pacifist principles, to refrain from persecuting most other groups that today would be considered Protestant evangelicals. The founders of Maryland wanted toleration for English Roman Catholics and as a practical matter were forced to accept Protestant worship in their colony as a condition for obtaining toleration for their own views which were unacceptable in the home country. Only Rhode Island's founders affirmed religious toleration in a form resembling anything we'd understand today, and they did so in reaction to opposition and in some cases outright persecution by both Massachussetts and Plymouth colonial officials.
Not when “angry blowback” is promised.
But he said the church is at a "moment of history" in which it must take a stand for "religious liberty and individual moral conscience."
I'm really stunned. I can't begin to say how much it shocks me to know his history and to hear him utter these gems, as if earlier moments in history weren't clear enough which side he should have taken a stand on. Is he just another hypocrite, or has his heart of stone truly been changed? It will take more than a few words from him for me to be convinced.
Prayers for us all!
Could it be because this bishop in question is getting closer to retirement and he sees the writing on the wall that the next bishop after him will be a much more traditional Catholic?
Neither sect believed in any sort of religious liberty. Roger Williams was driven to Rhode Island because of his beliefs. Mistress Anne Hutchinson had to find refuge in Dutch New Netherland.(remembered by the eponymous Hutchinson River and Hutchinson River Parkway) before moving on to what became New Hampshire. In fact one colony started for purely commercial reasons was the most tolerant and that was New Netherland,until Stuyvesant’s assault on the Quakers, which led to the New World’s first populist demand for religious toleration, the Flushing Remonstrance.
Thank God we still have Catholic Bishops who believe what Jesus Christ taught about faith. If we don’t believe God, what hope do we have for mankind?
Thank God St. John Paul III stepped in and took a hand in the matter.
The King loved him.
“If draft regulations aren’t changed, Lynch said, the Diocese of St. Petersburg will no longer provide health insurance for its 2,300 employees.”
Won’t this push the employees into the federal government exchanges? If so, won’t that defeat the purpose of what he’s trying to do?
>> But he said the church is at a “moment of history” in which it must take a stand for “religious liberty and individual moral conscience.”
Indeed.
Please see post number 24, your response, I thank-you ahead. :)
Prayer does work...although on God’s schedule, which can be a little frustrating for the rest of us!
Also, a lot of things have changed since the death of Terri Schiavo. For one thing, we have had a Pope for these last several years who has devoted himself to restoring orthodox moral teaching to the Church and is willing to enforce it, and in addition, the episcopal generation to which Bp Lynch belonged (not a great one) is dying off and losing its power in the Church. Perhaps he’s finding himself in a different situation now, and this may be helping him view things differently.
...for some reason the sodomy aspect of this just doesn’t surprise me. I’m sad to read that a veteran’s request couldn’t be executed because of the intransigence of two militant degenerates. That’s a really disgusting story.
Well, I suspect his real motive is to stop paying for health insurance for Diocesan employees.
The corpulent, homosexual Lynch is an opportunist of the first magnitude.
It's the US Naval Academy song.
Navy, you know. Big, haze gray ships. Guns. Missiles. Bombs. Blow stuff up for a living.
The two faggots were probably also passive-aggressive pacifists.
Just a friendly reminder: Bishop Lynch was for the starving and dehydration death of Terri Schiavo. He went against the Pope and all Christian leaders. Lynch is a flip flopper extraordinaire.
Thank you. Bishop Lynch went against Pope John Paul re: Terri. Bishop Lynch had a close call with his own health and somehow, he recovered. Why is it the bad ones always get better? He’s super bad.
Ave Maria University in Naples, Fl is probably giving Lynch a run for his money. Ave Maria U. even has a statue of Terri. They must be draining Lynch dry because Domino's Pizza guy started Ave Maria U. and they don't fake their faith like Lynch has.
Today would have been Terri’s 48th birthday, had she been allowed to live the rest of her natural life.
Happy Birthday, Terri!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.