Posted on 12/14/2011 10:41:59 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Amid the hubbub surrounding the Gingrich surge, this is one question that has perplexed commentators of all religious and political persuasions. There’s no consensus about where to find the Catholic in Newt.
At this point, the question is not where it is exactly, but where to begin looking.
So, let’s review speculation about the Catholicity of Newt Gingrich. I’ll also advance my own hypothesis and give it a professorial flourish by using a suitably big word.
Hypothesis number one: The new Catholic Newt is simply being American.
Playfully characterizing Gingrich as a “religious flip-flopper” draws attention to how Gingrich, like many other Americans, has seemingly changed his religion to suit prevailing fashion. Perhaps there’s also an ironic part to this interpretation in that Gingrich has supposedly made use of the religious market place to embrace a religion that would take umbrage if treated as a “commodity.”
It might be reasonable enough to see Gingrich’s Catholicity as a kind of epiphenomenon reflecting American cultural propensities--after all, Newt is indeed American. But conversion as “flip-flop” seems to preclude understanding conversion as a turn toward something; it’s not just a lurching back and forth from one view to another. It also makes the Catholic in Newt hard to locate.
Hypothesis number two: Professor Newton Leroy Gingrich has recognized Catholicism’s intellectual appeal.
Reading oneself into Catholicism has a long and venerable history. For some generations, it was Karl Adam’s The Spirit of Catholicism or Ronald Knox’s The Belief of Catholics that opened up a new intellectual vista. For later generations, it was Thomas Merton’s The Seven Storey Mountain or Malcolm Muggeridge’s Something Beautiful for God that made Catholic spirituality accessible and real.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Then, your last post says "So Catholics have decided we’re NOT going to hell; ...You Catholics are religous bigots." -- huh?
a bigot is someone who wrongly says "you believe this" and even when shown that is wrong they still persist. Why do this, R2?
As per orthodoxy, there are two kinds of marriage: natural marriage and sacramental marriage. Sacramental marriages exist only between baptized people, so marriages between two non-Catholics/Orthodox is not a sacramental marriage (I'm not sure if you believe in Sacraments or not, but to us a marriage is a sacrament, a divine union between GOD, woman and man -- God is in this, hence we do not believe in divorce.
now, if two non-Catholics get married as per their own or the country's laws, they are natural marriages
Now in the case of Newt's earlier marriages I understand that these were annulled after he petitioned that the prior marriages were not sacraments in the couple's eyes. Without this, he would be considered divorced and hence ineligible for a Church wedding (he could have gotten a civil marriage) -- as I understand the annulment was based on the fact that Marianne was reportedly previously married.
To sum up -- since they were judged annulled, the prior marriages do not count, but the children still "do" in the eyes of the Church.
If a Catholic gets a divorce but no annulment it is a civil ceremony (divorce is civl, annulment is religious), they cannot get married in Church -- can they receive communion? If they have not remarried of course they can receive communion as they would not be in a state of mortal sin (note that all are ABLE to receive communion -- but we believe that if one receives communion when in a state of mortal sin, it is a grave sin against God.) -- the "divorce" does not put one into mortal sin per se. Remarriage after divorce does.
so, if divorced and living celibately, then he may recieve. If he wants to marry again, then an annulment is necessary.
The few disgruntled biddies who want to curse everyone, well, they are few, sad people with no joy in their lives as it is sans God's love but they are consumed with their hate -- it gives them meaning
RNMomof7 “you just called me a bigot..” —> Rm, this is an example of trying to make something personal and about a poster when it is so definitely not.
That cult also is moving towards rejecting the Trinity.
The Catholic Church recognizes any Christian marriage, conducted in a Christian church, to be a sacramental marriage. Thus, an annulment would be required.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Exactly — and a poster trying to make a post out to be about her is trying to do just that.
Do you normally post in the middle of the night?
Whatever. You are the THIRD Catholic on this thread to spout all your papal dogma, catechisms, Nicene Creeds and that sort of stuff to me in your lame attempt to show that the Catholic Church is the “ONE True Church” and if one is not a Catholic then we are “imperfectly linked” to that “true” church.
Are you getting a clue yet? You are a RELIGOUS BIGOT. (And yes - you can tattle on me to the RM if you want. I see you’ve already been there this morning.)
You can take your smug sanctimonious brand of religion and .... (You finish the thought)
interesting -- did you have a sad childhood and probably a sad life now without God's love of grace? that's the only thing that can explain such a sad personality.
do you retract that? It has been shown to you that that is NOT our belief, yet you persist in repeating such a lie
So, why do you believe that Lutherans are not saved?
do you retract that? you have been proven wrong time and time again, yet use Dem tactics of accusing us of what YOU say we believe in, right? Why do you do this?
Why does the Church of Christ have teh belief that baptism is a necessary part of salvation when some Baptists hold that the Churches of Christ endorse the doctrine of baptismal regeneration?
It shows how weak their positions are - with out being propped up by lies, it all falls apart. Good luck with that...
On what basis does the Church of Christ believe one is saved? By faith alone? Doesn’t it believe in conversion as “obedience to the proclaimed facts of the gospel rather than as the result of an emotional, Spirit-initiated conversion”?
But be careful. I will trip you up. Because if you take the time to see what I've said - it will only be repeats of what Catholics have said ("One True Church... imperfectly linked...")
In fact, doesn’t the Church of Christ claim to be the only “True Body of Christ.”? Why is your denomination so bigotted?
Thank you. Totally understand. He skips.
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.