Posted on 10/12/2008 1:45:06 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
This column requires a caveat: I am not an American citizen and therefore neither a Republican nor a Democrat. But as a German residing permanently in the United States I believe I have a duty to opine on at least one aspect of the upcoming elections - the question whether years from now Americans will have to wrestle with collective shame, just as I have had to deal with collective shame over what has happened in Germany in my childhood for my entire life.
It was West Germany's first postwar president, Theodor Heuss, who coined the phrase, "collective shame" contrasting it with the notion of collective guilt, which he rejected. No, I cannot be expected to feel guilty for crimes the Nazis committed while I was still in elementary school. But as a bearer of a German passport I have never ceased feeling ashamed because three years before I was born German voters elected leaders planning the annihilation of millions of innocent people.
I am certain that in 1933 most Germans did not find the Nazis' anti-Semitic rhetoric particularly attractive. What made them choose Hitler, then? It was the economy, stupid, and presumably injured national pride, and similar issues. This came to mind as I read the latest Faith in Life poll of issues Americans in general and white evangelicals in particular consider "very important" in this year's elections.
Guess what? For both groups, the economy ranked first, while abortion was way down the list. Among Americans in general abortion took ninth and among white evangelicals seventh place, well below gas prices and healthcare. Now, it's true that most evangelicals still believe that abortion should be illegal, which is where they differ from the general public and, astonishingly, from Roman Catholics even though their own church continues to fight valiantly against the ongoing mass destruction of unborn life. Still, 54 percent of Catholics and 60 percent of young Catholics have declared themselves "pro choice," according to the Faith in Life researchers.
What I am going to say next is going to make me many enemies, of this I am sure: Yes, there is a parallel here between what has happened in Germany in 1933 and what is happening in America now. The legalized murder of 40 million fetuses since Roe v. Wade in 1973 will one day cause collective shame of huge proportions. So what this wasn't a "holocaust?" This term should remain reserved for another horror in history. But a genocide has been happening in the last 35 years, even if no liberators have shocked the world with photographs they snapped of the victims as the Allies did in Germany in 1945. And it has the open support of politicians running for office next month.
If most Americans, and shockingly even a majority of Catholics think physicians should have the "right" to suck babies' brains out so that their skulls will collapse making it easy for these abortionists to drag their tiny bodies through the birth canal; if even most white evangelicals think that economic woes are a more important concerns (78 percent) than legalized mass murder (57 percent), then surely a moral lobotomy has been performed on this society.
I agree it would be unscholarly to claim that what is happening in America and much of the Western world every day is "another holocaust." No two historical events are exactly identical. So let's leave the word "holocaust" where it belongs - next to Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and Mauthausen. Still there are compelling parallels between today's genocide and the Nazi crimes, for example:
1. Man presumes do decide which lives are worthy of living and which are not. "Lebensunwertes Leben" (life unworthy of living) was a Nazi "excuse" for killing mentally handicapped children and adults, a crime that preceded the holocaust committed against the Jews. Notice that today fetuses diagnosed with Downs Syndrome are often aborted as a matter of course in America and Europe.
2. In German-occupied territories, Jews and Gypsies were gassed for no other reason than that some people considered it inconvenient to have them around. Today, unborn children are often slaughtered because it is inconvenient for their mothers to bring their pregnancies to term.
3. Murder I is legally defined as killing another human being with malice and aforethought. The Nazis killed Jewish and Gypsies with deliberation - and maliciously. But what are we to think of babies being killed deliberately simply because they would be a nuisance if they were allowed to live? No malice here? 4. Ordinary Germans of the Nazi era were rightly chastised for not having come to their Jewish neighbors' rescue when they were rounded up and sent to extermination camps. Ordinary Americans and Western Europeans might find the fad to kill babies disagreeable, but as we see from the Faith in Life poll, most have more pressing concerns.
Some future day Americans and Western Europeans will be asked why they allowed their children to be slaughtered. They would even have less of an excuse than Germans of my grandparents' and parents' generation. In Germany, you risked your life if you dared to come to the Jews' rescue. In today's democracies the worst that can happen to you is being ridiculed for being "a Christian."
As a foreigner I have no right to tell Americans whom to elect on Nov. 4. Recently, though, a friend asked me: "If you worked in an office and a colleague asked you at the voter cooler, whom he should vote for what would you tell him?" Well, I would say: "I am not here to make up your mind for you. But personally I could never give my vote to so-called pro-choice candidates."
This would doubtless lead to a heated postmodern dialogue. Perhaps the colleague is not a Christian; he might chastise me for mixing politics and religion. "If you as a Christian oppose abortion," he could say, "then by all means don't get involved in an abortion, just don't impose your religious views on the rest of us." How would I answer that? An evangelical might yank out his Bible and quote passages pertaining to this issue. But to a non-Christian the Bible is meaningless; I am not sure a political debate around the water cooler is a great venue to start individual evangelization.
My Lutheran approach would be different. I would argue natural law, the law God has written upon the hearts of all human beings, including non-believers. Unless they really have undergone a moral lobotomy they should be open to this story: Down in Wichita, Kansas, there is a physician by the name of George Tiller. On his website he boasts that he has already performed 60,000 abortions, mostly late-term, and week after week he is killing 100 more unborn babies.
Dr. Tiller does not think of these fetuses as clusters of cancerous cells. He knows they are human because he baptizes some of them before he incinerates them in his own crematorium. You don't baptize non-humans. Dr. Tiller knows that. He is a practicing Lutheran. His former congregation, Holy Cross of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, excommunicated him as an unrepentant sinner. But the Lutheran Church of the Reformation, which belongs to the ELCA, communes him.
Did I mention that he kills 100 human beings every week and has already done away with 60.000? Sixty thousand. In Nuremberg they hanged some fiends for murdering less than 60 -- zero point one percent of Tiller's toll. Perhaps this little tale will give even non-believers pause if they have not discarded their conscience, known to Christians as the law God has written upon every man's heart. One day, of this I am certain, this will indeed result in collective shame - and God knows what other horrible consequences.
If most Americans, and shockingly even a majority of Catholics think physicians should have the "right" to suck babies' brains out so that their skulls will collapse making it easy for these abortionists to drag their tiny bodies through the birth canal; if even most white evangelicals think that economic woes are a more important concerns (78 percent) than legalized mass murder (57 percent), then surely a moral lobotomy has been performed on this society....
...Some future day Americans and Western Europeans will be asked why they allowed their children to be slaughtered. They would even have less of an excuse than Germans of my grandparents' and parents' generation. In Germany, you risked your life if you dared to come to the Jews' rescue. In today's democracies the worst that can happen to you is being ridiculed for being "a Christian."
I read on a post here about someplace in Europe grinding up aborted fetuses, and a letter in Spain about smashing fetuses.
You know, a civilization that does that or looks the other way when that is done needs to fail.
“But the Lutheran Church of the Reformation, which belongs to the ELCA, communes him.”
Is that a surprise? Are there really ANY truly pro-life Protestant sects? Nope. Some are anti-abortion (sort of), but none are truly pro-life. Sadly this Protestant approval of baby killing has infected Catholics now too.
I can’t beleive this article has been viewed so few times.
My heart was breaking as I read it — the truth was so profound.
If you haven’t already, you must send this to ProlifeBlogs.com, and the National Right to Life Committee, for starters.
Bless you. Keep repeating this — everyone needs to hear it.
His former congregation, Holy Cross of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, excommunicated him as an unrepentant sinner.LCMS is not ELCA and ELCA is not LCMS, nor are they in any kind of communion.
Ping!
You wrote:
“LCMS is not ELCA and ELCA is not LCMS, nor are they in any kind of communion.”
I never implied they were in communion. Lutheran sects can be testy with each other. Look at how the CLC won’t even hold communion with WELS. The alphabet soup that is Lutheran synods in this country is a mess.
“By the way, there are a number of prominent Roman Catholic politicians who not only have no problem with murdering unborn children, but use their public positions to advance this atrocity,”
Yes - that is very Protestant of them.
” all while claiming to be good Catholics and that their views on life are perfectly compatible with the teaching of their Church. How many of them have been excommunicated?”
All of them. Every last one of them is excommunicated by their own actions.
“Now, whatever the “official” position of the Church might be, I imagine that a lack of discipline might lead to confusion among the laity, which seems to be the case given the multitude of “pro-choice” Catholics.”
True. But then again, we act like Protestants now too. That’s the problem.
“Perhaps those living in glass houses (which I suppose would be all of us) should refrain from throwing stones at each other, especially since sectarian bickering and triumphalism will do nothing to help our cause in this battle in which we are (or should be) on the same side.”
My house is made of Rock. Thanks.
You wrote:
“LCMS is not ELCA and ELCA is not LCMS, nor are they in any kind of communion.”
I never said they were in communion. It is amazing how the alphabet soup that is modern Lutheran synods in America do not get along. Ever see a CLC describe a WELS member as a liberal? Amusing and sad at the same time.
“By the way, there are a number of prominent Roman Catholic politicians who not only have no problem with murdering unborn children, but use their public positions to advance this atrocity, all while claiming to be good Catholics and that their views on life are perfectly compatible with the teaching of their Church. How many of them have been excommunicated?”
All of them. They excommunicated themselves.
“Now, whatever the “official” position of the Church might be, I imagine that a lack of discipline might lead to confusion among the laity, which seems to be the case given the multitude of “pro-choice” Catholics.”
True enough. Catholics act too much like Protestants today.
“Perhaps those living in glass houses (which I suppose would be all of us) should refrain from throwing stones at each other, especially since sectarian bickering and triumphalism will do nothing to help our cause in this battle in which we are (or should be) on the same side.”
The foundation of my house is made of Rock. The walls are not glass.
My posts are being blocked it would seem.
This would doubtless lead to a heated postmodern dialogue. Perhaps the colleague is not a Christian; he might chastise me for mixing politics and religion. "If you as a Christian oppose abortion," he could say, "then by all means don't get involved in an abortion, just don't impose your religious views on the rest of us." How would I answer that?" How to answer?...
Reply that one of the candidates has shown he would remove Constitutional rights from alive newborn children. He even claimed it was above his pay grade to know if newborns had Constitutional human rights! And that candidate proved his treachery toward alive newborns by working in the Illinois legislature to protect killing by neglect of these newly born children when they were forced to be born prematurely by abortionists.
Amen!
I had dinner with my Evangelical cousin who is going to vote for bambi. I asked how any Christian could vote for someone who will not protect the most innocent. He said it was their turn now (I don't think he really wanted to answer).
I'm sure RC's are running into the same situation.
I just don't see how you can say you are a Christian and support killing innocent life.
“By the way, there are a number of prominent Roman Catholic politicians who not only have no problem with murdering unborn children, but use their public positions to advance this atrocity,”Wrong. It is very pagan of them. Protestants are Christians, and given our faith in the Incarnation of the Son of God, Christians can in no way pretend (as I'm sure you would agree) that an unborn child is somehow not human.
Yes - that is very Protestant of them.
” all while claiming to be good Catholics and that their views on life are perfectly compatible with the teaching of their Church. How many of them have been excommunicated?”Oh please, not that latae sententiae nonsense! As long as they receive communion with the permission of their bishop, they are not excommunicated. Words are supposed to mean something, but the fictitious theoretical construct of latae sententiae excommunication is nothing but empty verbiage: It means exactly nothing if the sentence is not enforced. This is amply demonstrated by just how seriously the laity takes it, which is evidently not at all (otherwise, there wouldn't be so many "pro-choice" Catholics.)
All of them. Every last one of them is excommunicated by their own actions.
“Now, whatever the “official” position of the Church might be, I imagine that a lack of discipline might lead to confusion among the laity, which seems to be the case given the multitude of “pro-choice” Catholics.”Not at all! It would just be better if they acted more like LCMS Protestants (for whom, apparently, words like "excommunication" actually mean something) instead of ELCA Protestants (for whom, apparently, words like "excommunication" are anathema.) :)
True. But then again, we act like Protestants now too. That’s the problem.
I had dinner with my Evangelical cousin who is going to vote for bambi. I asked how any Christian could vote for someone who will not protect the most innocent. He said it was their turn now (I don't think he really wanted to answer).???
I was shocked. I think he meant it just like it sounded. He has always been very liberal and now I can't help but wonder about his faith. He attends a mega church in the San Fran area, is involved in their men's programs and has gone on several short term mission trips to Mexico to help build houses there. He says he is a Christian, yet he enthusiastically supports someone who wants babies that survive late term abortions put to death.
I just mentioned this because the thread is about Christians who will vote for a candidate that supports infanticide. I've seen it first hand and still can't figure out how they think they are walking with Jesus and support this.
It's a problem within every Christian church.
You wrote:
“...Christians can in no way pretend (as I’m sure you would agree) that an unborn child is somehow not human.”
Protestants can pretend anything apparently: historicity for instance.
“Oh please, not that latae sententiae nonsense!”
See what I mean? As soon as you say “that latae sententiae nonsense” I know you’re only pretending to have any sense of historicity.
“As long as they receive communion with the permission of their bishop, they are not excommunicated.”
Nope. Excommunication is not dependent upon the bishop in a case when a person excommunicates himself. Now we can add that Protestants pretend to good logic too.
“Words are supposed to mean something, but the fictitious theoretical construct of latae sententiae excommunication is nothing but empty verbiage: It means exactly nothing if the sentence is not enforced.”
Since the sentence is dependent upon the person excommunicating himself by his actions no “enforcement” is possible because that would imply action by another person. Again, you’re pretending at logic.
“This is amply demonstrated by just how seriously the laity takes it, which is evidently not at all (otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many “pro-choice” Catholics.)”
Incorrect. How seriously the laity take it has nothing to do with the reality of the sentence. If Tiller went to an LCMS parish and received communion without the pastor knowing who he is would that mean he was never excommunicated in the first place? No, he would still be excommunicated. Please think.
“Now, I do recall a few bishops (Archbishop Burke comes to mind) who have said that they would refuse to offer communion to pro-abortion politicians. Even though I am not a Roman Catholic, I would gladly join you in prayer for more faithful shepherds such as these.”
Start from the correct principle then: If you believe these men are good shepherds then they must be teaching good doctrine for no shepherd could be teaching error to his flock and still be a good shepherd. Yet you reject the authority and doctrine of someone like Archbishop Burke simply because he is Catholic. Does that make sense?
“Not at all! It would just be better if they acted more like LCMS Protestants (for whom, apparently, words like “excommunication” actually mean something) instead of ELCA Protestants (for whom, apparently, words like “excommunication” are anathema.)”
There is no effective difference between the two on many other issues however and neither can pretend to have any real authority. They are both simply sects. One may be more right than they other one on one issue or another, but in the end both are just sects created by men.
Protestants can pretend anything apparentlyOh, not anything. For instance, we cannot pretend that truth can be defined by Papal fiat. In fact, this silly concept of "truth by fiat" seems to be at the heart of your misunderstanding of a simple thing like excommunication.
As soon as you say “that latae sententiae nonsense” I know you’re only pretending to have any sense of historicity.What an odd thing to say, since I did not make an appeal to history. But do tell: I would be very interested to learn just where and when this ridiculous sophism of excommunication latae sententiae was invented.
Excommunication is not dependent upon the bishop in a case when a person excommunicates himself.Perhaps that's how it works in philosophical fantasy land, but in the real world excommunication of a defiant, unrepentant sinner is most definitely dependent upon the clergy (who derives his authority to offer the sacraments from his bishop.) It is meaningless, and there is no basis in reality, to call someone excommunicated who continues to receive communion. The only way a person could excommunicate HIMSELF is by willfully abstaining from communion.
Since the sentence is dependent upon the person excommunicating himself by his actions no “enforcement” is possible because that would imply action by another person.Nonsense. See above.
Again, you’re pretending at logic.My logic is fine. You're the one arguing for the absurdity of an excommunicated communicant.
How seriously the laity take it has nothing to do with the reality of the sentence.OK, but that wasn't my point. My point was that excommunication doesn't mean anything if it isn't enforced. The laity do not take it seriously when it's not enforced because it is ridiculous to call someone "excommunicated" when he still receives communion. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't match the reality, and they know it. They know that they can hold whatever positions on abortion they please, and loudly proclaim those positions (as consistent with the teachings of the Church, no less!) and that nothing will be done about it. Hence, all the "pro-choice" Catholics.
If Tiller went to an LCMS parish and received communion without the pastor knowing who he is would that mean he was never excommunicated in the first place?First of all, I do not know the LCMS canons regarding communion, but if they are so lax as to offer it to every Tom, Dick, or Harry who might wander up to the altar rail, that would be a whole different problem. Is this common practice in Catholic churches? Don't Roman Catholics believe that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ? If so, how could they be so flippant about it?
Please think.Good advice. A little (clear) thinking is all it takes to demolish fantastic philosophical constructs with no basis in reality.
Start from the correct principle then: If you believe [Archbishop Burke, etc.] are good shepherds then they must be teaching good doctrine for no shepherd could be teaching error to his flock and still be a good shepherd. Yet you reject the authority and doctrine of someone like Archbishop Burke simply because he is Catholic. Does that make sense?You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about what I accept/reject. But without diverting the discussion, we can apply a little bit of that thinking that you recommended: What about the Eastern Orthodox? They repudiate (among other things) Roman Catholic dogmas like Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. Does that make their bishops bad shepherds in your view? Do their views on these matters mean that they are bound to view Roman Catholic bishops as bad shepherds? Since you only brought up doctrine and authority, two areas in which the RC/EO are in disagreement, how is it that I, as a Protestant, am bound to consider a Catholic bishop a bad shepherd simply on these grounds? Or perhpas there are certain doctrinal/ecclesiological differences that might not automatically disqualify one from being considered a good shepherd by someone who disagrees on these points? Please think.
Feminism has killed far more human life just in America than the Nazis ever did ...and they were pretty bad enough.
I just mentioned this because the thread is about Christians who will vote for a candidate that supports infanticide. I've seen it first hand and still can't figure out how they think they are walking with Jesus and support this.Many Christians are lied to and deceived into thinking that abortion isn't as wicked as it really is. For those who are uninformed, abortion is merely an abstraction to be weighed against other abstractions. The article says, "But a genocide has been happening in the last 35 years, even if no liberators have shocked the world with photographs they snapped of the victims as the Allies did in Germany in 1945. And it has the open support of politicians running for office next month."
You know...as a rule I like Catholics and wish most voted as their dogma dictates but they don't...on occasion a majority of Catholics vote pro-life nationally...2004, 1984 too I think
Yet....Southern Baptists, Southern Methodists, PCA, Lutheran Mo Synod, Texas-Tennessee Church of Christ, and Pentecostal "protestant sects" as you call them vote overwhelmingly pro-life and hence GOP more than do Catholics.
Since usually a majority or near majority of folks who identify as Catholics....born and christened to the faith vote Democrat you have a lot of gall slamming Protestants some of which "sects"...arguably a majority vote more pro-life and in higher proportions.
maybe you confuse all Protestants with Church of England or Unitarians.
in flyoverland, it's quite different with we heretics..lol..that you incoreectly and self servingly figure
Nixon got plurality of catholic vote in 1972.
Carter in 1976.
Reagan got 50% in 1980 and more in 1984
Dukakis got majority Catholic vote in 1988.
Clinton carried Catholic vote in 1992 and 1996.
Gore in 2000.
Bush in 2004.
That’s 5/4 since 1976 with Catholics voting majority for party of infanticide in direct rebellion to Rome and God’s word.
Only in 1976 did Carter get a majority of the Protestant votes of those I listed which is the majority (and then some) of church going Prods nationally. In the case of Southern Baptist Convention, Mo Synod Lutheran and Church of Christ Southern and Pentecostals the vote for conservative pro-life candidates is arguably over 80%.
Protestants voted for Carter...the first time out for the same reason Catholics did...they thought he was a genuine Christian and did not yet know he was the good works is the road to salvation sort.
You wrote:
“Oh, not anything. For instance, we cannot pretend that truth can be defined by Papal fiat.”
Some do. I have come across Protestants who actually believe that the pope does speak infallibly at times. They must be pretending. You lose again.
‘In fact, this silly concept of “truth by fiat” seems to be at the heart of your misunderstanding of a simple thing like excommunication.”
The misunderstanding is clearly yours.
“What an odd thing to say, since I did not make an appeal to history.”
No, you made an appeal to unhistoricity.
“But do tell: I would be very interested to learn just where and when this ridiculous sophism of excommunication latae sententiae was invented.”
It was never invented. It just is.
“It is meaningless, and there is no basis in reality, to call someone excommunicated who continues to receive communion.”
So again, if Tiller sneaks into an LCMS and receives communion he is not then excommunicated right? Who’s really the sophist here? Clearly you are.
“The only way a person could excommunicate HIMSELF is by willfully abstaining from communion.”
So communion with the Church is ONLY recieving the communion bread in a Lutheran sect?
“Nonsense. See above.”
Nonsense. Look in the mirror.
“My logic is fine. You’re the one arguing for the absurdity of an excommunicated communicant.”
Tiller, again. If he receives communion in a LCMS when the minister doesn’t know who he is, is he in communion with the LCMS? Yes or no?
“Also, that’s the second time you’ve accused me of “pretending” something. Is there a reason for the personal attacks other than the obvious untenability of your argument?”
There is no way to separate the subjectivity of the Protestant from the subjectivity of Protestantism. If you think I am attacking you personally and that is a problem for you, then - for your own sake - stop posting to me immediately.
“OK, but that wasn’t my point.”
You don’t have much of a point.
“My point was that excommunication doesn’t mean anything if it isn’t enforced.”
And that doesn’t change the fact that excommunication is real when it is excommunication. A thing is still a thing even if it is not noticed or regarded by others. Your side of the argument is the one that supports abortion, for instance. It isn’t a human baby just because someone says so, so it deserves no protections as a person. The Church, however, teaches it’s always a human baby, and so it deseves protection always. It is what it is even if no one regards it as what it is. One minute you’re insisting words have meaning and then you’re insisting that meaning is merely dependent upon the feelings or “enforcement” of others.
“The laity do not take it seriously when it’s not enforced because it is ridiculous to call someone “excommunicated” when he still receives communion.”
Again, Tiller. You keep avoiding the unavoidable. If Tiller sneaks into an LCMS and receives communion is he in communion with the LCMS or not?
“I’m just glad this latae sententiae nonsense never spilled over to the civil sphere.”
Too bad for you that it spilled over from the Godsphere. Remember when Jesus said you could commit the sin of adultery in your heart? No one need actually sleep with another woman. Nope. All it takes to commit adultery is to cheat on your wife in your heart. So, ACCORDING TO GOD, you can separate yourself from God’s grace merely through an action - a defiance - of your heart. And no one but God would be the wiser. are you now going to call that sophism?
“First of all, I do not know the LCMS canons regarding communion, but if they are so lax as to offer it to every Tom, Dick, or Harry who might wander up to the altar rail, that would be a whole different problem. Is this common practice in Catholic churches? Don’t Roman Catholics believe that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ? If so, how could they be so flippant about it?”
We believe that It is the Body of Christ. Lutherans pretend to believe it. You can tell by the fact that they say it is the Body but do not reserve the communion, for instance. Lutherans are currently fighting about this among themselves: http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/2008/07/on-reserving-the-elements-of-holy-communion.html
Pretend, pretend, pretend they do.
“On the other hand, if they were to knowingly offer the sacraments to an alleged excommunicate, and to continue to do so, then the so-called “excommunication” would mean just as little as it would in the latae sententiae fantasy world.”
Again, Tiller.
“Good advice. A little (clear) thinking is all it takes to demolish fantastic philosophical constructs with no basis in reality.”
Again, Tiller.
“You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about what I accept/reject.”
Do you accept or reject the authority of Archbishop Burke? I do not mean in regard to Catholics alone, but in regard to the idea that you should accept it yourself.
“But without diverting the discussion, we can apply a little bit of that thinking that you recommended: What about the Eastern Orthodox? They repudiate (among other things) Roman Catholic dogmas like Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. Does that make their bishops bad shepherds in your view?”
Yes. I do not believe for a second they are evil men, but I do not see them as good shepherds since they teach error and reject truth.
“Do their views on these matters mean that they are bound to view Roman Catholic bishops as bad shepherds?”
Ask them. I asked you and can’t get an answer.
“Since you only brought up doctrine and authority, two areas in which the RC/EO are in disagreement, how is it that I, as a Protestant, am bound to consider a Catholic bishop a bad shepherd simply on these grounds?”
You tell me. Since you can’t even tell me if he is a bas shepherd or not I don’t see that reply coming anytime soon, however.
“Or perhpas there are certain doctrinal/ecclesiological differences that might not automatically disqualify one from being considered a good shepherd by someone who disagrees on these points? Please think.”
Wow, sounds like sophistry. Why don’t you stop all of this “doctrinal/ecclesiological differences that might not automatically disqualify one from being considered a good shepherd” nonsense and actually think? See how you render your own arguments useless?
Again, Tiller. Deal with that question. Can you?
You wrote:
“Yet....Southern Baptists, Southern Methodists, PCA, Lutheran Mo Synod, Texas-Tennessee Church of Christ, and Pentecostal “protestant sects” as you call them vote overwhelmingly pro-life and hence GOP more than do Catholics.”
None of those sects are pro-life. They all support contraception - a pro-death culture of resisting God’s will - and thus cannot be pro-life. Some even openly champion the use of the Pill which is an abortafacient.
“Since usually a majority or near majority of folks who identify as Catholics....born and christened to the faith vote Democrat you have a lot of gall slamming Protestants some of which “sects”...arguably a majority vote more pro-life and in higher proportions.”
I have no gall whatsoever. The majority of Catholics are simply CINOS - Catholics in name only. There is no way to call or categorize someone as a PINO (Protestant in name only) because there is no core cultural values impinging on the political sphere to which Protestants can be said to all cherish even historically. With Protestantism it has always been shifting sand.
“maybe you confuse all Protestants with Church of England or Unitarians.”
Nope.
“in flyoverland, it’s quite different with we heretics..lol..that you incoreectly and self servingly figure”
Don’t assume you’re the only one in flyoverland.
Your stats are useless.
CINOS are not Catholic execpt in name. I have no reason to believe they are even in full communion with their Church - and that includes the clergy too.
And that doesn’t change the fact that excommunication is real when it is excommunication.Correct. That's merely the obvious tautology whose contrapositive I've been claiming all along, and what you've been arguing against.
A thing is still a thing even if it is not noticed or regarded by others.Two for two. You're doing well!
Your side of the argument is the one that supports abortion, for instance. It isn’t a human baby just because someone says so, so it deserves no protections as a person.Nor is someone excommunicated just because someone says so. If he continues to receive communion then he is not excommunicated regardless of what anyone says, not even if it's the pope who says it! You've got it completely backwards which one of us is arguing truth by fiat.
The Church, however, teaches it’s always a human baby, and so it deseves protection always.Good! But that is true not just because the Church says so, but because it is grounded in reality. It is an empirical fact that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception.
It is what it is even if no one regards it as what it is.Precisely the point.
One minute you’re insisting words have meaning and then you’re insisting that meaning is merely dependent upon the feelings or “enforcement” of others.First of all, I never said that it was dependent on feelings. You're making things up.
Again, Tiller. You keep avoiding the unavoidable. If Tiller sneaks into an LCMS and receives communion is he in communion with the LCMS or not?Are you even paying attention? I answered this in my post 16. Nonetheless, your entire post keeps referring back to your thought experiment as if you've proved some kind of point. You even replied "Again, Tiller" after the second part of my response to it, without attempting to offer any sort of rebuttal! Why should I take the trouble to answer your other attempts at an argument if you're not even going to bother addressing the points in my response to this one?
You wrote:
“Correct. That’s merely the obvious tautology whose contrapositive I’ve been claiming all along, and what you’ve been arguing against.”
And thus an excommunication is an excommunication - even if you deny it.
“Two for two. You’re doing well!”
And thus an excommunication is an excommunication - even if you deny it.
“Nor is someone excommunicated just because someone says so. If he continues to receive communion then he is not excommunicated regardless of what anyone says, not even if it’s the pope who says it! You’ve got it completely backwards which one of us is arguing truth by fiat.”
No, an excommunication is an excommunication. You keep denying that it is what it is.
“Good! But that is true not just because the Church says so, but because it is grounded in reality. It is an empirical fact that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception.”
And an excommunication is an excommunication. When someone breaks communion he has broken communion. Period.
“First of all, I never said that it was dependent on feelings. You’re making things up.”
No. Either someone is excommunicated or he isn’t. You do realize that right? Then why won’t you answer this question: If Tiller sneaks into an LCMS Church and receives communion is he in communion with the LCMS? Yes or no?
“Secondly: Yes, words do have meanings. Whether or not a word can be used legitimately to describe something depends on whether or not the reality of the thing matches the meaning of the word. Hence, whether or not someone is really excommunicated certainly does depend on whether or not he is permitted to receive communion, because “excommunicated” means out of communion; and that is what it has always meant until, apparently, some rationalist philosophers came along and invented a fantasy world that exists only in their own imaginations.”
Wrong. Again, deal with the point: Is Tiller out of communion or not when he sneaks in and receives communion in an LCMS church? Is he or is he not in communion? This is a simple question. Why won’t you answer it?
“Are you even paying attention? I answered this in my post 16.”
No, you did not answer the question in #16. Here is what you wrote in toto regarding Tiller and my question:
First of all, I do not know the LCMS canons regarding communion, but if they are so lax as to offer it to every Tom, Dick, or Harry who might wander up to the altar rail, that would be a whole different problem. Is this common practice in Catholic churches? Don’t Roman Catholics believe that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ? If so, how could they be so flippant about it?
On the other hand, if they were to knowingly offer the sacraments to an alleged excommunicate, and to continue to do so, then the so-called “excommunication” would mean just as little as it would in the latae sententiae fantasy world.
End paste.
Thus you make a point about the LCMS possibly being lax in who they offer communion to - but that wasn’t my question.
You make a point about the LCMS knowingly offering communion to a known excommunicate - but that wasn’t my question.
If Tiller sneaks into an LCMS church and receives communion is Tiller in communion with the LCMS or not? Tell me about Tiller and whether or not he is in communion with the LCMS at that point. Is he or isn’t he?
“Nonetheless, your entire post keeps referring back to your thought experiment as if you’ve proved some kind of point.”
Nope. But something will be proven soon enough one way or another. Either you’ll answer and something will be proven that way or you’ll continue to not answer and something else will be proven by your refusal to answer this incredibly simple question. The choice is yours. Make it.
“You even replied “Again, Tiller” after the second part of my response to it, without attempting to offer any sort of rebuttal!”
Again, Tiller. Stop complaining about the question and answer it instead.
“Why should I take the trouble to answer your other attempts at an argument if you’re not even going to bother addressing the points in my response to this one?”
Your points have nothing to do with Tiller and communion as I asked. You brought up Tiller. I did not. I asked a simple question about Tiller and communion. Why not answer it?
“Face it. You have no argument, and your ridiculous claim of an excommunicated communicant is logically absurd and has no basis in reality.”
So, back that up using Tiller. If it is so absurd then you should be able to answer this simple question. If Tiller sneaks into an LCMS Church and receives communion is he in communion with the LCMS? Yes or no?
“If you still cannot see that obvious fact by this point, then I suppose that we’ll just have to leave it as a sort of pons asinorum.”
Or you could simply be brave enough to answer the simple question: If Tiller sneaks into an LCMS Church and receives communion is he in communion with the LCMS? Yes or no?
Thus you make a point about the LCMS possibly being lax in who they offer communion to - but that wasn’t my question.And I also, in wondering why they would offer communion to just anyone without even knowing who he was, asked if this is a common practice in Roman Catholic Churches. I also asked that IF this is indeed the case (which would of course depend on your answer to the first question) then how could they be so flippant about it, especially since (the one question you DID answer) they believe that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ? You did not answer either of these. Instead, you went off on some tangent about debates between Lutherans regarding the Real Presence. I hope that I have played along with your hypothetical to satisfaction now. Will you now answer these questions about facts?
You make a point about the LCMS knowingly offering communion to a known excommunicate - but that wasn’t my question.No I did not, and your misconstruing my point just highlights your basic misunderstanding of the issue. I made a point about what would be the reality IF the LCMS were to knowingly offer communion to someone whom they CLAIMED was excommunicate. This is what is ACTUALLY going on with the Roman Catholics, and I pointed out that it would be just as absurd for the LCMS to claim such nonsense as it is for the Roman Catholics. However, unlike unrepentent Roman Catholic politicians who shill for abortion but still receive communion, Tiller is excommunicated in reality, not just in the minds of those who claim that he is.
You wrote:
“Good, it seems like you’ve finally decided to address it.”
I’ve been addressing it since you raised it while you have been running from it.
“I divided it into two parts for a reason, to show how your thought experiment about the LCMS and Tiller is not analogous to what’s going on with Roman Catholics.”
No, you evaded the issue.
“The FACT is that Tiller is denied communion with the LCMS (and thus, excommunicated) so he went to ELCA instead.”
That isn’t what I asked. You’re still evading.
“Your hypothetical asks about Tiller possibly sneaking in and communing due to the ignorance of the clergy. Now IF that were the case, then YES he would be in communion with them whether they said that he was excommunicated or not.”
No. Your answer is illogical. You are assuming communion is dependent upon soley the reception of the communion species. It isn’t. That is the sign and sacrament of communion (Lutherans have no true sacramental communion anyway of course).
“If they were so lax as to offer to communion to just anyone, then anyone could be in communion with them, as long as they were to allow this practice.”
Again, no. You are assuming communion is dependent upon soley the reception of the communion species. It isn’t.
“This would be open communion, and that would be the reality regardless of what anyone might say to the contrary.”
Incorrect. Mere reception of bread (even consecrated) is not all there is to it.
“And I also, in wondering why they would offer communion to just anyone without even knowing who he was, asked if this is a common practice in Roman Catholic Churches.”
Your question is completely irrelevant since neither one of us is talking about open communion or even lax communion.
“I also asked that IF this is indeed the case (which would of course depend on your answer to the first question) then how could they be so flippant about it, especially since (the one question you DID answer) they believe that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ?”
And the second question is as irrelevant as the first. All that matters here is your response about Tiller and - as expected - you have shown yourself to be unable to answer it correctly.
“You did not answer either of these. Instead, you went off on some tangent about debates between Lutherans regarding the Real Presence.”
No, I never actually did that. I never went off about anything and I never more than described the difficulties among Lutheran synods.
“I hope that I have played along with your hypothetical to satisfaction now. Will you now answer these questions about facts?”
No, I see no reason to respond to irrelevant questions at all. All that matters is your response about Tiller - and as expected - you failed to answer correctly.
“No I did not, and your misconstruing my point just highlights your basic misunderstanding of the issue.”
No, you did EXACTLY what I said you did and I had no misunderstanding whatsoever.
“I made a point about what would be the reality IF the LCMS were to knowingly offer communion to someone whom they CLAIMED was excommunicate.”
And the point is irrelevant because I in no way raised a question about that.
“This is what is ACTUALLY going on with the Roman Catholics, and I pointed out that it would be just as absurd for the LCMS to claim such nonsense as it is for the Roman Catholics.”
No matter what you claimed in that regard it is essentially irrelevant.
“However, unlike unrepentent Roman Catholic politicians who shill for abortion but still receive communion, Tiller is excommunicated in reality, not just in the minds of those who claim that he is.”
And there again we see that you can’t even state matters correctly.
Your response about Tiller is simply wrong. Tiller cannot be in communion with the LCMS until his excommunication is lifted even if he secretly receives their communion bread every day from now until doomsday. I am not surprised that you are confused about this. Lutherans are apparently confused about excommunication in their own sect: http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/05/27/local/doc42966329d942a410430738.txt
When you admit the truth about Tiller let me know. Until then your posts will simply be filled with more of your irrelvant points and evasions.
Bumping this back up so more will read it and pass it on to everyone on their email list.
“And I also, in wondering why they would offer communion to just anyone without even knowing who he was, asked if this is a common practice in Roman Catholic Churches.”False. You were the one who brought lax communion into the discussion with your thought experiment. Here it is from your post 15:
Your question is completely irrelevant since neither one of us is talking about open communion or even lax communion.
If Tiller went to an LCMS parish and received communion without the pastor knowing who he is would that mean he was never excommunicated in the first place?I asked if your imagined situation was ACTUALLY occuring in Roman Catholic churches. Is there any basis in reality for the hypothesis in your thought experiment? And you still refuse to answer the question. Why not? Perhaps you realize that regardless of the answer, that this is a no-win situation for you? If on the one hand, this is NOT Roman Catholic practice, then why did you propose your thought experiment in the first place? What is it supposed to prove if the hypothesis (much like excommunication latae sententiae!) has no basis in reality? I already said that IF the LCMS were doing what you proposed then they would have a completely different problem on their hands, namely open communion and that such a practice would falsify any pretented claims of excommunication anyway. If on the other hand, this IS Roman Catholic practice, then that would demonstrate that Roman Catholics only pretend to believe in the Real Presense just like you accuse the Lutherans of doing. You lose either way.
Your points have nothing to do with Tiller and communion as I asked. You brought up Tiller. I did not. I asked a simple question about Tiller and communion. Why not answer it?That is also false. You were the first to bring up Tiller (in regards to the ACTUAL situation) in your first post on this thread. I responded to that, referring to the ACTUAL situation, and also to the ACTUAL situation regarding Roman Catholic politicians who shill for the abortionists. Tiller was not mentioned again until YOU concocted your bogus thought experiment in post 15. As I already demonstrated, it had nothing to do with the actual situation we were discussing, nor does it prove your silly claim for the absurd possibility of an excommunicated communicant.
You: "You make a point about the LCMS knowingly offering communion to a known excommunicate - but that wasn’t my question."Yet another false claim about this discussion. Here is what I wrote:
Me: "No I did not, and your misconstruing my point just highlights your basic misunderstanding of the issue. I made a point about what would be the reality IF the LCMS were to knowingly offer communion to someone whom they CLAIMED was excommunicate."
You: "No, you did EXACTLY what I said you did and I had no misunderstanding whatsoever."
On the other hand, if they were to knowingly offer the sacraments to an alleged excommunicate, and to continue to do so, then the so-called "excommunication" would mean just as little as it would in the latae sententiae fantasy world.You cannot simply ignore those bolded words and claim that I said something else. I would not make "a point about the LCMS knowingly offering communion to a known excommunicate," because (for the umpteenth time) the idea of "offering communion to a known excommunicate" is absurd. I made a point about the silliness of calling someone excommunicated while continuing to offer him communion. It would be just as silly if the Lutherans did it as it is when the Roman Catholics do it.
When you admit the truth about Tiller let me know. Until then your posts will simply be filled with more of your irrelvant points and evasions.The truth about Tiller (which has nothing to do with your thought experiment) is that he no longer receives communion from the LCMS and is thus excommunicated. When you admit the truth about Roman Catholic politicians who shill for the abortionists yet still receive communion, let me know. Until then your posts will simply be filled with more of your irrelevant points and evasions.
Our church owns the soccer fields and allow soccer fields to use them free of charge.
A week ago Sat. our Lutherans for Life group decided to sell hot dogs, water, etc. to raise a little money during soccer games.
Seems one soccer parent was offended by our presence and later called the president of our congregation and told him.
The decision was made between the president and our pastor to erect a beautiful 4 ft x 8 ft sign that proudly proclaims that God Loves Life. It is positioned at the entrance to the church and soccer fields.
Our pastor also changed the marquee in front of the church to read Abortion Offends the Lord God.The other side of the marquee reads If it's same sex, it's not marriage.
We don't know of the fall out (if any) but the line has been drawn.
Incidentally, our pastor and his wife miscarried their unborn child Monday.
You wrote:
“False. You were the one who brought lax communion into the discussion with your thought experiment. Here it is from your post 15:”
False. I did not mention lax communion until you did nor did I describe lax communion in other words. Tiller sneaking communion in the LCMS is not lax communion on the part of the LCMS.
“I asked if your imagined situation was ACTUALLY occuring in Roman Catholic churches.”
Irrelevent question.
“Is there any basis in reality for the hypothesis in your thought experiment?”
I asked you a question. You failed to answer it correctly. End of story.
“And you still refuse to answer the question. Why not? Perhaps you realize that regardless of the answer, that this is a no-win situation for you? If on the one hand, this is NOT Roman Catholic practice, then why did you propose your thought experiment in the first place?”
I never proposed one. I asked a question. You failed to answer it correctly. The no-win situation is yours and was created by your poor answer.
“What is it supposed to prove if the hypothesis (much like excommunication latae sententiae!) has no basis in reality?”
Excommunication has a basis in reality. To deny otherwise is simply to deny reality.
“I already said that IF the LCMS were doing what you proposed then they would have a completely different problem on their hands, namely open communion and that such a practice would falsify any pretented claims of excommunication anyway.”
Irrelevant because I never brought up open communion or lax communion. Keep creating those straw men though. It suits you.
“If on the other hand, this IS Roman Catholic practice, then that would demonstrate that Roman Catholics only pretend to believe in the Real Presense just like you accuse the Lutherans of doing. You lose either way.”
Nope. Not by a long shot. Excommunication is real. The Real Presence is as well. It is Lutherans who act otherwise.
“Tiller was not mentioned again until YOU concocted your bogus thought experiment in post 15.”
You brought up Tiller. Not me. You failed to correctly answer a question put to you.
“I think we’re done here.”
You were done before you atarted.
Excommunication is real. The Real Presence is real. You couldn’t answer a question correctly.
You wrote:
“Incidentally, our pastor and his wife miscarried their unborn child Monday.”
I’m very sorry for your pastor and his wife. To lose a child is always devastating.
In regard to whether or not your LCMS is pro-life I suggest you read Charles Provan’s book on The Bible and Birth Control. Those in favor of artificial birth control are not truly pro-life.
You have a great Pastor. So sad for him and his wife. =(
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.