Posted on 03/17/2010 12:58:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
**Not sure if anyone can claim him solely for his own denomination. **
Definitely can. A Catholic Bishop!!!!
“Catholics make a big noise about anti-Catholicism being “the only respectable prejudice,” but whenever push comes to shove, it seems they know who the low man on the totem pole really is.”
Really? So, what Catholic clergyman is on the television saying equivalent things about Protestantism? God had to establish His own TV network to get any Catholic programming at all, and yet you would have it that we are higher on the totem pole than protestants?
There is one point to be made there, though: protestants also suffer the abuse of non-believers for our Lord’s sake. It makes me wish our separated brethren were less violent in their attacks on us.
“It’s always those Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestants—the very people who are an embarrassment to Christianity because of their Biblical literalism.”
So, do you disagree with Saint Thomas Aquinas when he says, “The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”?
“This country would be better off if all those liberal urban Catholics were “bigoted” Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants.”
No, the truth is always better.
“The “one true church” sure toots its own horn, but it’s useless at actually changing anything.”
Here on FR, Catholics discuss the Church pretty much exclusively in response to attack, and do it for the most part moderately and modestly (excepting myself, I guess).
“While not a Protestant myself, I at least know something you don’t: that to a Protestant Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) simply make no sense whatsoever.”
Why do you think we don’t know that? As Archbishop Sheen said, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church—but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.”
You see, it looks like there is something of which you are unaware: the reason it makes no sense is because they misunderstand it, and many are conditioned to reject all reasoned discussion and explanation.
(Here’s a “what-do-you-call” joke.)
What do you call a protestant who understands Catholicism?
A catechumen.
“Why shouldn’t Protestants consider eighteenth century Methodists the people who brought Christianity to Ireland if they don’t even recognize your religion as Christianity at all?”
Facts are stubborn things. A story is told of Abraham Lincoln examining a witness in a trial, a man who was known to play word games and who had only a nodding acquaintance with the truth.
“How many legs does a horse have?” Lincoln asked in exasperation.
“Four,” the witness replied.
“And if one were to call the horse’s tail a leg, then how many legs does a horse have?” Lincoln pressed.
“Why, I suppose the horse would have five legs,” the witness said.
“No,” Lincoln said, turning to the jury. “Calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. A horse has only four legs, no matter what you call the tail.”
Protestants can “consider” and “recognize” as they will; the horse has four legs, and only four legs.
“It takes some gall for a religion that spent fifteen hundred years attacking Torah observance and claiming that G-d changed His mind about everything He had commanded to turn around and denounce anti-nomianism when it is opposed to a fake Judaism of your own invention.”
That’s some pretty confused argumentation there, but you should be aware that antinomianism is no part of Catholic theology.
Another thing: a person is entitled to accuse an institution only of actual transgressions, and only to the degree they actually occurred. The fact that bad things happened is not a license to exaggerate without limit.
“All the nasty little accusations of “bigotry” (a liberal word, btw)”
Taken over by the libs now, but a perfectly cromulent English word. For example, “The KKK members who committed acts of violence against Catholics because they hated their religion without understanding it could with justification be called bigots.”
“can’t change the fact that the “one true church” is way, way, way on the Left and into modernism on almost every issue”
Rather, you can’t change that into a fact through any amount of repetition. There is a contingent of Catholics, those whom Saint Pope Pius X called “enemies of the Church,” that fits your description, and would like to drag the Church to the left. However, the Church is not subject to that sort of dragging at the hands of mortal men.
They will soon be gone, and the men who take their places will right the Church once again.
“I’m sorry this frustrates you”
Is it in some way odd or disreputable that a person should be frustrated by continual false witness in a place that should be the home and refuge of clear thinkers?
YOU WROTE :
Catholics.
As in what ? Roman Catholics or the catholic ( universal church established by Christ ) ? I would say it is the later. I don’t equate ROMAN catholics as the sole heir of the catholic ( universal ) church.
YOU WROTE :
I am not in a denomination. I never have been. I never will be. And only those who are in sacramental communion with the Body of Christ can know Christ in the fullest sense.
Well, welcome to the club then. I who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church but am a believer in Jesus Christ consider myself to be in sacramental communion with the body of Christ IN THE FULLEST SENSE as well. Which means I am in sacramental union with St. Patrick, Peter and Paul.
YOU WROTE:
I don’t think any amount of explaining will work. You deny the communion of saints. Perhaps you should read up on that.
I Don’t deny the communion of saints. I AFFIRM IT. Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and follows His word IS WITHIN THAT COMMUNION regardless of whether others verbally deny them that communion. Oh, and in regards to reading about it — why do you ask as if I am ignorant ? I DO READ ABOUT IT. It’s all there in HIS WORD — SCRIPTURE ( which St. Patrick treasures as well ).
YOU WROTE :
I don’t see that as odd at all when you consider that RR was a GOP member and leader. Now, it would be odd for a Democrat to claim RR as his own - especially if he were pro-abortion, a taxer and spender and wanted us to be weak compared to our foreign enemies. Protestantism teaches things that are not in keeping with traditional, historic Christianity.
RR Was a GOP member and leader but MORE IMPORTANTLY, his beliefs TRANSCENDS party lines. He was a conservative first, GOP second. How do I know that his personal beliefs trancends party lines ? Simple — HE USED TO BE DEMOCRAT until the Dem party abandoned Conservative principles. He said : “I did not leave the Democratic Party, the democratic Party left me.”.
It is BELIEF THAT COUNTS, not membership in an organization. You can be a member of group, church, org or institution X, but if ( God forbid ), that institution abandons its core beliefs, and you stand firm in yours, you don’t have to be a member of that group anymore.
YOU WROTE :
We are the only ones who share his faith.
SAYS WHO ? Millions of us share Patrick’s faith in Jesus Christ as well. What makes you think you are the one who exclusively shares Patrick’s faith ?
YOU WROTE:
He was not a Protestant. He was not a Baptist Protestant.
I never said he was ( read my original response ). Patrick was Patrick -— a Christian in the Roman world who believed in Jesus Christ and was faithful to His words.
YOU WROTE :
He was Catholic.
Again, Catholic as in what ? ROMAN ? or Catholic in the Universal sense of the word ?
I would say there is a difference between the two. You can be baptized into the ROMAN Catholic church and grow up to be an atheist/agnostic/denier of the faith ( and I know many who are ). Conversely, you may NOT be a member of the ROMAN catholic church and be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Which one of the two above examples belongs to the CATHOLIC ( note the non-use of the word — ROMAN ) church ?
I would say the later and scripture ( the same one St. Patrick treasures ) backs me up.
I would say that Patrick is CATHOLIC in the real sense of the word — he, like millions of us, are members of Christ’s UNIVERSAL ( AKA CATHOLIC, not ROMAN ) church.
YOU WROTE:
He and I could share the same the Eucharist, live under the same pope, under the same bishop, etc.
You are assuming that living under a pope equates to being a member of Christ’s church and this is where we differ.
Popes ( in the past ) and Bishops ( even today ) can be unfaithful to Christ as well and when they are, those who are FAITHFUL TO CHRIST are closer to His teachings than popes or bishops who are not.
IT IS OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST AND HIS WORDS THAT COUNTS.
“IF you Love Me, Obey My Commandments” — those are His words.
YOU WROTE:
He shares none of that with you.
And why not ? He believes in Christ, I do. He believes in Scripture, I do. He believes in the baptism of all who believe, I do. He believes in the Trinity, I do. NONE OF THAT ? Do you even know the meaning of the word — NONE ?
YOU WROTE:
St. Patrick and I would even share the same liturgical language - Latin.
And where is it written in Scripture ( God’s word)that one must use Latin in Liturgy ? I hasten to remind you that Vatican II ALLOWS worship to be held in NON-LATIN languages and thousands of masses worldwide are being held today in NATIVE NON-LATIN languages.
YOU WROTE:
We could even communicate with one another while you would - most likely - be unable to do so.
Who is “we” and what kind of communication are you talking about ? I am writing to you in ENGLISH ( a language God allowed to be almost universal in the world and which is prevalent everywhere), aren’t we communicating now in this tongue ?
YOU WROTE:
Christ is ONE. He has only ONE bride. It is not your sect. The bride is the Church.
THANK YOU. We agree at least on this one area. The only question remains — WHO IS A TRUE MEMBER OF HIS CHURCH ?
Scripture would tell us that ALL WHO TRULY BELIEVE HIM AND OBEY His teachings are members of His church.
St. Patrick is by virtue of meeting that requirement. You and I and anyone else qualify too if we all meet that requirement.
St. Paul ( who preceded Patrick ) said this clearly after he wrote about faith and obedience in his own epistle :
“There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female — for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And simply by being Christ’s, you are that progeny of Abraham, the heirs named in the promise. “ ( Galatians 3:28-29 : ROMAN CATHOLC NEW JERUSALEM TRANSLATION )
Dear Mr/Miss Moderator :
I posted this thread on St. Patrick’s Day to EDIFY Christians of all denominations everywhere.
I never intended this to degenerate into an argument as to whether St. Patrick was a Protestant or Roman Catholic or who can lay claim to his work.
Unfortunately, some people are spoiling for an argument.
If you wish to close this thread that I started, feel free to do so. If you wish to continue this thread, I will be happy to oblige as well.
I will as always, try to be civil and logical and coherent in my response.
Thanks for listening.
That being the case, I will simply state that were I to tell you what you could do with your literal interpretation of John 6, the virgin birth, and the resurrection narratives I would probably be banned from this forum.
An accusation can’t be nasty if it’s accurate. Mine was. Robertson is a bigot. Period. Whether or not you consider it a liberal word quite frankly doesn’t matter. Whether or not you consider the Church to be on the “Left and into modernism on almost every issue” also doesn’t matter. None of that changes the fact that Robertson is a bigot.
Yes, he's a bigot. He's also a homophobe, a neanderthal, an ignoramus, a nativist, and a nose-picking redneck. But then again, so am I, and so are all real conservatives. If you're against those things, I recommend you check out the American Civil Liberties Union. They might be more to your liking.
All real conservatives are like you? To use a term from Ireland, malarkey!
You wrote:
“As in what ? Roman Catholics or the catholic ( universal church established by Christ ) ? I would say it is the later. I don’t equate ROMAN catholics as the sole heir of the catholic ( universal ) church.”
It doesn’t matter what you equate with what. St. Patrick was catholic. Period. I’m not “Roman Catholic” and neither was he.
“Well, welcome to the club then. I who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church but am a believer in Jesus Christ consider myself to be in sacramental communion with the body of Christ IN THE FULLEST SENSE as well. Which means I am in sacramental union with St. Patrick, Peter and Paul.”
So you claim. At this point I have no reason to believe your claim. What Church or sect do you attend?
“I Don’t deny the communion of saints. I AFFIRM IT. Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and follows His word IS WITHIN THAT COMMUNION regardless of whether others verbally deny them that communion. Oh, and in regards to reading about it — why do you ask as if I am ignorant ? I DO READ ABOUT IT. It’s all there in HIS WORD — SCRIPTURE ( which St. Patrick treasures as well ).”
No. The communion of saints is a specifically Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. Protestants, for instance, do not believe in the communion of saints. They believe in a specifically protestanized version of it. They do not believe, for instance, that there is actual communion between the saints in heaven and those on earth. If someone does not believe in communion between saints, then he doesn’t believe in the communion of saints. It’s just that simple.
“RR Was a GOP member and leader but MORE IMPORTANTLY, his beliefs TRANSCENDS party lines.”
He was a GOP member. To now say his beliefs transcend the party is to strech the lines of the analogy you yourself chose. When you are defeated with your own analogy you change the analogy.
“He was a conservative first, GOP second. How do I know that his personal beliefs trancends party lines ? Simple — HE USED TO BE DEMOCRAT until the Dem party abandoned Conservative principles. He said : “I did not leave the Democratic Party, the democratic Party left me.”.”
And thus my point still holds no matter what. The GOP is still not the Democrat party. Period. They are different organizations and have differing philosophies and history. Also, conservatism is still a different thing from liberalism. You are proving my point either way.
“It is BELIEF THAT COUNTS, not membership in an organization. You can be a member of group, church, org or institution X, but if ( God forbid ), that institution abandons its core beliefs, and you stand firm in yours, you don’t have to be a member of that group anymore.”
The organization counts because it is from God. Belief does indeed count, but no one can claim fully correct belief in Christ and Christianity and yet reject what Christ sent into the world - the Church. That’s one of the reasons why the Church is called Christ’s body.
“SAYS WHO ? Millions of us share Patrick’s faith in Jesus Christ as well. What makes you think you are the one who exclusively shares Patrick’s faith ?”
Because he was Catholic and so are we. The faith is not merely a belief in Jesus. The millions who share the faith with St. Patrick are all Catholic.
“I never said he was ( read my original response ). Patrick was Patrick -— a Christian in the Roman world who believed in Jesus Christ and was faithful to His words.”
He was a Catholic - that’s what the Christians in the Roman world were.
“Again, Catholic as in what ? ROMAN ? or Catholic in the Universal sense of the word ?”
Catholic. He wasn’t from Rome and neither am I. But we are from the same Church and are both Catholic.
“I would say there is a difference between the two. You can be baptized into the ROMAN Catholic church and grow up to be an atheist/agnostic/denier of the faith ( and I know many who are ). Conversely, you may NOT be a member of the ROMAN catholic church and be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ.”
No. First of all, I’m not and have never been a “Roman Catholic”. Neither was he. He was Catholic and so am I. Period. Also, to truly be a fully faithful follower of Christ, one must belong to His Church which He sent into the world. Membership in a later sect was not what He intended.
“Which one of the two above examples belongs to the CATHOLIC ( note the non-use of the word — ROMAN ) church ?
I would say the later and scripture ( the same one St. Patrick treasures ) backs me up.”
Actually scripture backs the Catholic Church. St. Patrick was Catholic and so am I.
“I would say that Patrick is CATHOLIC in the real sense of the word — he, like millions of us, are members of Christ’s UNIVERSAL ( AKA CATHOLIC, not ROMAN ) church.”
Nope. St. Patrick was Catholic and so am I.
“You are assuming that living under a pope equates to being a member of Christ’s church and this is where we differ.”
I am assuming that being a Catholic is being a Catholic. And I am correct in my assumption.
“Popes ( in the past ) and Bishops ( even today ) can be unfaithful to Christ as well and when they are, those who are FAITHFUL TO CHRIST are closer to His teachings than popes or bishops who are not.”
And yet all of them are still Catholics.
“IT IS OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST AND HIS WORDS THAT COUNTS.”
A Catholic is still a Catholic.
“And why not ? He believes in Christ, I do. He believes in Scripture, I do. He believes in the baptism of all who believe, I do. He believes in the Trinity, I do. NONE OF THAT ? Do you even know the meaning of the word — NONE ?”
He believed in the priesthood. Do you? He believed in the episcopacy. Do you? He believed in consecrations? Do you? He believed in celibacy. Do you?
“And where is it written in Scripture ( God’s word)that one must use Latin in Liturgy ? I hasten to remind you that Vatican II ALLOWS worship to be held in NON-LATIN languages and thousands of masses worldwide are being held today in NATIVE NON-LATIN languages.”
Actually Vatican II reaffirmed the primacy of place of Latin. Apparently you didn’t know that. And as to your other comments there is no point in responding since I suggested NOTHING like what you assert.
“Who is “we” and what kind of communication are you talking about ? I am writing to you in ENGLISH ( a language God allowed to be almost universal in the world and which is prevalent everywhere), aren’t we communicating now in this tongue ?”
St. Patrick didn’t know English. I can’t believe I have to tell you that.
“THANK YOU. We agree at least on this one area. The only question remains — WHO IS A TRUE MEMBER OF HIS CHURCH ?”
St. Patrick was. I am. You aren’t.
“Scripture would tell us that ALL WHO TRULY BELIEVE HIM AND OBEY His teachings are members of His church.”
That was about Catholics, not Protestants. None existed and scriptural references to the Church did not include them.
S”t. Patrick is by virtue of meeting that requirement. You and I and anyone else qualify too if we all meet that requirement.”
I have no reason to believe you qualify.
“St. Paul ( who preceded Patrick ) said this clearly after he wrote about faith and obedience in his own epistle :
“There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female — for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And simply by being Christ’s, you are that progeny of Abraham, the heirs named in the promise. “ ( Galatians 3:28-29 : ROMAN CATHOLC NEW JERUSALEM TRANSLATION )”
It’s not a “Roman Catholic” translation. Also, St. Paul said nothing about Protestants in Galatians 3. Period.
You wrote:
“That being the case, I will simply state that were I to tell you what you could do with your literal interpretation of John 6, the virgin birth, and the resurrection narratives I would probably be banned from this forum.”
Then say it in a way that won’t get you banned. I suggest you just save it for a thread about that rather than popping in at every thread that you do to post about your own drum beat.
“Yes, he’s a bigot. He’s also a homophobe, a neanderthal, an ignoramus, a nativist, and a nose-picking redneck. But then again, so am I, and so are all real conservatives.”
Actually I don’t think “real conservatives” are any of those things.
“If you’re against those things, I recommend you check out the American Civil Liberties Union. They might be more to your liking.”
No, maybe yours. They are just as irrational as you are these days.
I am sorry that you cannot understand my objection. The Fundamentalist Protestant criticisms you so object to come from the right. The criticisms of Fundamentalist Protestantism which you and your co-religionists continuously make on this forum (simple-minded, ignorant, bigoted, etc.) come from the left. I don't object to being told I'm "going to hell." I don't object being told that I am "of my father the devil." I very much object to being told I am a simple-minded fool by some over-intellectualized higher critical snob with the same attitude as an Ivy League elitist. Maybe you Catholics should try criticizing Protestantism from the right some day?
I wonder if the Spanish Inquisition employed your liberal vocabulary when criticizing "heretics?"
There is one point to be made there, though: protestants also suffer the abuse of non-believers for our Lord’s sake. It makes me wish our separated brethren were less violent in their attacks on us.
They're not your separated brethren. They are a completely different religion with a completely different worldview. By their standards, you are not a chr*stian at all. And by your standards they aren't chr*stians at all. The fact that Catholics trumpet their liberalism by considering Protestants their "brethren" is one of the things that shows how far to the Left Catholicism has slipped.
The idea that there is some amorphous concept called "historic orthodox chr*stianity" to which all self-identifying chr*stians other than mormons belong is garbage.
So, do you disagree with Saint Thomas Aquinas when he says, “The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”?
Perhaps you aren't up to speed on the latest scientific discoveries, so let me clue you in: A "virgin birth" is a scientific impossibility. So is resurrection from the dead. So is "transubstantiation." So is bilocation. None of these things is scientifically possible. Yet you believe in them while in utter hypocrisy subjecting the creation of the world from nothing to the scientific laws that we know today. There is, and can be, only one reason for this inconsistency: the former scientific impossibilities are "Catholic miracles" and are therefore all right. Young Earth Creationism is "Protestant" and therefore to be treated like a disease (after all, who wants to be associated with those people in the trailer parks?).
Cosmogony is beyond the realm of science altogether. It is strictly theological. Science has nothing to say about cosmogony.
I wonder why it is that good Catholic intellectuals are never embarrassed by peasant folk Catholicism? Even that notorious Biblical critic Hans Kung refuses to criticize it (since it's so "quaint"). It's really great to know that the "inclusive" Catholic Church has room for every kind of simple-minded piety except for that of those awful rednecks. And you know what? This attitude is no different from the attitude of liberals who laugh at redneck creationists while swooning in ecstasy at the thought of the superstitions of "indigenous pipples."
Your attitudes are straight from the Left. And so is that of your church.
If American Catholics voted their theology this country wouldn't be in the mess it's in. The only thing keeping this country--and you along with it--from the abyss is those "ignorant rednecks" you so look down on. Shame on you.
“This country would be better off if all those liberal urban Catholics were “bigoted” Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants.”
No, the truth is always better.
You take Nancy Pelosi and the truth. I'll take Pat Robertson and good intentions.
Here on FR, Catholics discuss the Church pretty much exclusively in response to attack, and do it for the most part moderately and modestly (excepting myself, I guess).
Here on FR, Catholics respond to Protestant attacks by engaging in liberal rhetoric about "bigotry" and "intolerance" and other similar leftist buzzwords because apparently it's the only way they know how to react. Say what you will about Fundamentalist Protestants, at least they aren't liberals.
“Why shouldn’t Protestants consider eighteenth century Methodists the people who brought Christianity to Ireland if they don’t even recognize your religion as Christianity at all?”
Facts are stubborn things.
Yes they are. And it is a fact that by Fundamentalist Protestant standards, Catholicism isn't chr*stianity. And the only reason that you can accommodate Fundamentalist Protestants (while despising them) into your definition of chr*stianity is that your a multicultural leftist. And btw, people who have been trying to convert Jews for two thousand years have no business condemning Protestants for wanting to convert the Irish.
Why do you think we don’t know that? As Archbishop Sheen said, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church—but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.”
I spent six years in the Catholic Church and nearly went nuts trying to have it make sense. It doesn't.
You see, it looks like there is something of which you are unaware: the reason it makes no sense is because they misunderstand it, and many are conditioned to reject all reasoned discussion and explanation.
There is no reasonable defense of the position that Biblical law and ceremonial was abolished and replaced with "better" ones. Either the Biblical law and ceremonial are still in place or (G-d forbid!) they were abolished and replaced with an antinomian loophole. Every argument against the Torah works against Catholic ceremonial, and every defense of Catholic ceremonial is equally valid when applied to the Torah.
I apologize for having been born into the wrong ethno-culture and inheriting a belief in the wrong miracles. Had I been born into a family of illiterate Mayan peasants in Guatemala, doubtless you would look on my simplicity as a beautiful thing. But alas, I am a redneck, and mighty science must be marshalled in a vain attempt to turn the Book of Genesis (that awful anti-Catholic tract!) into a metaphor. I guess it's a good thing no illiterate Mayan peasant in Guatemala has ever heard of Young Earth Creationism. So their charming folk beliefs remain unadulterated.
I'm sorry I don't use your beloved liberal buzzwords. I'm sort of allergic to them. You know, the way Catholics are allergic to rednecks?
“Yes, he’s a bigot. He’s also a homophobe, a neanderthal, an ignoramus, a nativist, and a nose-picking redneck. But then again, so am I, and so are all real conservatives.”
Actually I don’t think “real conservatives” are any of those things.
Good to know that "gay marriage" is no problem for "true conservatives."
“Malarkey” is a “liberal buzzword”? LOL! I was trying to be polite and abide by the RM’s rules to not use “potty language.”
Oh, btw, the ancestors of all those “rednecks” that are near and dear to your heart were all Catholic until Knox and his ilk sang their siren song. It’s not about ethnicity, as you wildly claim.
I don't think that's what vlad meant.
Oh, btw, the ancestors of all those “rednecks” that are near and dear to your heart were all Catholic until Knox and his ilk sang their siren song. It’s not about ethnicity, as you wildly claim.
Then why are Catholics so allergic to "redneck" beliefs in Biblical inerrancy? Why is Biblical inerrancy stupid while the superstitions of illiterate peasants from Catholic ethnic groups is so beautiful?
If the higher critics turned their scorn on the beliefs of the Catholic peasantry Catholics would complain in no uncertain terms. But so long as they restrict their attacks to that awful Judaeo/Protestant (and perhaps Masonic?) book the Bible all is well.
Good to know that "gay marriage" is no problem for "true conservatives."
I don't think that's what vlad meant.
He said that "true conservatives" aren't (among other things) homophobes.
Good to know he and the bishops are in agreement on this issue. Would that Catholic outreach had the same sensitivity to "literalist persons" that they do for "homosexual persons." But of course, homosexuality pales into nothingness in comparison to that ultimate insult to all things Catholic, Biblical literalism!
Again, I wonder if Catholic bishops have always opposed "homophobia."
No, I was following standard protocol of pinging the person being mentioned.
But so long as they restrict their attacks to that awful Judaeo/Protestant (and perhaps Masonic?) book the Bible all is well.
The Bible IS a Catholic book. I'm not following you here.
Homosexual acts (sodomy) are one of the four sins that cry out the heaven for vengeance, a list which the Church teaches!
Vlad is right. You do exhibit an "almost constant beating of a single drum beat about biblical literalism in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread." And, given your pattern of behavior, you know what's going to end up happening? You're going to end up regretting all of this.
You desperately need to break yourself free of this pattern you've caught yourself in.
But so long as they restrict their attacks to that awful Judaeo/Protestant (and perhaps Masonic?) book the Bible all is well.
The Bible IS a Catholic book.
You ignorant bigot! [/humor] It's a Jewish book.
I'm not following you here.
::Sigh:: Perhaps I had best just give up.
I pointed out that Catholic higher critics never criticize the simple folk beliefs of illiterate Catholic peasants. Instead they rip the Bible to shreds. And "orthodox Catholics," who would scream bloody murder if someone questioned some saint's cult, silently condone attacks on the integrity of the Bible.
If it's your book why don't you defend it? If it's your book, why do your theologians attack it?
They attack it because it's not theirs, because they feel threatened by it, and because it is tainted by association with "those awful people" whose ancestors were Catholic but who are now considered the lowest form of life.
That's funny. I hear/read a lot more attacks on "Biblical literalism" from Catholic circles than I do on homosexuality. In fact, the Catholic Church has a certain compassion for homosexuals--an attitude never shown to Biblical Fundamentalists.
Vlad is right. You do exhibit an "almost constant beating of a single drum beat about biblical literalism in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread."
Well, this is a conservative forum, is it not? Is defense of the Bible from its critics not a legitimate position to take on a conservative forum? After all, you just called it a "Catholic book," and now you dismiss it as unworthy of attention.
And, given your pattern of behavior, you know what's going to end up happening? You're going to end up regretting all of this.
I have never regretted defending the Word of G-d--especially from hypocrites who believe in every medieval miracle tale known to man but who suddenly become Ivy League skeptics when the Bible is an object of discussion.
You desperately need to break yourself free of this pattern you've caught yourself in.
I think you're awfully hung up on this J*sus fellow. Why don't you give up your fixation?
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.