Posted on 05/17/2012 4:18:46 PM PDT by Salvation
If one were to look into the life of anyone in scripture, they will see a flawed character. And that's the beauty of how God uses people, in spite of our flaws.
People who assert the flaws of Paul do so at their own folly. It reminds me of Aaron and Mirian touting the flaws of Moses.
Typical response from a Non-Catholic. It is never a waste of time to be in the presence of the Lord. We receive graces by attending Mass, whether we are free of sin or not. If they weren’t at Mass, what else would they be doing with that hour of time? Watching TV? Going to a movie? Sleeping?
BTW they also dress up in their Sunday best when attending Mass.
Short question bu this is an intriguing subject, and i hope you will allow me to elaborate somewhat on it though i am pressed for time today.
First, it seems you are equating the very inspired words of God with human documents which are (purported to be) protected from error,
As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains,
Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.
Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.
Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Secondly, even apart from direct inspiration, a person can affirm "there is a creator," but the issue is not whether one can speak infallible Truth, but that of assured formulaic (scope and subject-based criteria) infallibility as i often describe it, versus the standard for establishing truth.
Moses spoke and wrote inspired, infallible words of God, confirmatory of the faith of Abraham and expanding upon it, and which was established as such due the supernatural attestation given it (there could be no rational atheists in the Exodus, though that did not prevent them from talking and acting as such) and Heavenly qualities, and the Law manifestly became the standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, thus more complimentary Divine revelation was added in conflation with it.
The instruments and stewards of this Holy Writ and its promises of God's presence, guidance and perpetuation (Dt. 4:31; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34, etc.) was Israel, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:5)
And thus they challenged the authority of this itinerant preacher of Galilee, seeing as they sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) and had the historical decent. However, while they could have claimed that their tradition of the elders, such as the law of Corban, was Scriptural (as i have actually seen a Catholic argue), the Lord reproved them by Scripture, and established His own authority upon Scripture and the attestation it provides for, as did the apostles. Thus the church began in dissent from those who were instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, but presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation by them that Scripture did not afford them.
Yet writings were established as Divine and truth was preserved, often by God raising up men from without their office, as God can raise up from stones children to continue to build His kingdom, (Mt. 3:9) and an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) was not and is not necessary to do so, nor it is promised, despite attempts to extrapolate this from texts under the premise that it is necessary, and on the basis of historical decent and structure according to infallible interpretation.
Now if the canon of Scripture was not closed this being manifest in time on the same basis by which it was established, that essentially being by recognition (immediately or in time) of its Heavenly qualities and effects then a body of teachings could be held as equal in authority.
However, your church does not claim inspiration whereby a man is so moved by the Holy Spirit that what he utters or writes are the very words of God but infallibly claims she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria, whereby she makes nebulous oral Tradition equal to Scripture;
while she herself is effectively the supreme authority, as it is she who claims to alone assuredly infallibly define both what God said and through what means He said it, and thus infallibly defines herself as infallible, disallowing that she can be reproved by others from Scripture, Tradition or history, and thus this magisterium is actually the supreme authority for Catholics by which they can have assurance, even though her infallible teachings are not the very words of God as supernaturally established Scripture is.
In summation, it is from Scripture itself that we know that the apostles of the early church did speak infallibly by inspired words, though not simply in an ecumenical decision, but even in personal letters, these belonging to that class of revelation that is the assured word of God, but besides the need to meet the qualifications to be an apostles (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,17), and the lack of any successors after Judas (Acts 12:2, Matthias being in order to keep the number of the 12: Acts 1:15-33; Rv. 2:14); Scripture itself testifies than an AIM is not necessary to preserve Truth, and that Scripture, as written, was the judge of truth claims and upon which they were established. And that God has always provided and preserved His Truth and flock, not by an AIM after the manner of Rome, but often by raising up men from without the formal magisterium to correct those who presumed too much.
And thus the church began in dissent from such and according to that principle it continues as the body of Christ and salt of the earth, its authenticity being spiritual, and not by praying to the departed, or presuming (hopefully) almost all its clergy have the gift of celibacy, and waging war after the flesh, etc., and looking to Divinely uninspired men as assuredly infallible and largely preaching itself, but by holding Scripture as supreme, and effecting manifest regeneration by the preaching of the gospel of grace, testifying that it is the church of the living God, in contrast to its institutionalized counterpart, Catholic or Protestant. To the glory of God. Though it is far from perfect, may its remnant tribe increase and grow in grace, myself included.
Thank God for your consideration.
My comment was meant to be a welcoming one; he might enjoy the structure of the Mass and the Scriptures contained therein. I made no comments about the poster’s marriage situation, nor did I infer anything.
Your Pastor sounds like a wise man.
50% of Evangelicals considered themselves Republican or leaned toward that party, 34% Democratic or leaned thereto; 9% Independents. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
48% of Catholics considered themselves Democrats or leaned toward that party, 33% Republican or leaned thereto; 10% Independent. ^5
65% of Jews and 63% of Muslims considered themselves Democrats or leaned toward that party, 23% 11%, respectively, Republican or leaned thereto ^
88% of Evangelicals voted for Sen. McCain in 2008, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama. 40% of Evangelicals said it was because of the candidates position on moral issues. Only 9% of other voters listed that as their driving reason. Other significant reasons for Evangelical voters included their candidates political experience (23%) and his character (15%). http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=321
Based upon exit polling, 74 percent of Evangelicals voted for McCain in 2008, with 25 percent for Obama. (Another measure put the percentage of evangelicals at 23 percent, with 73 percent voting for McCain, 26 percent for Obama.) http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367
Catholics overall supported Obama over McCain by a nine-point margin (54% vs. 45%) http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367
52% of white Catholics who were regular Mass-attenders voted for McCain, 47% for Obama, while non-practicing Catholics went 61% to 37% for the latter. Just 17% of Evangelicals who attended church once a week supported Obama, while 37% of white evangelicals who attended services less frequently supported him. http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-Church-Attendance-Affects-Religious-Voting-Patterns.aspx
Only 20% of observant white evangelicals voted for Obama, based upon 2008 Pew research exit polls, with 40% of observant white Catholics joining them, along with 94% of black Protestants overall. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1697/exit-poll-election-support-among-religious-groups
Overall, 43% of people who attended religious services once a week or more supported Obama. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367
39% U.S. Catholics are Hispanic, with 67% of Latinos voting for Obama over McCain. USCCB Committee on Hispanic Affairs. Hispanic Ministry at the Turn of the New Millennium, 1999 ^
After 100 days in office, 66% of Catholics, including a majority of white, non-Hispanic Catholics (55%), said they approved of Obama's job performance as president. Catholics are much more supportive of the president than are white evangelical Protestants, 33% of whom approved http://people-press.org/report/509/obama-at-100-days
As of April 9, 2011, 80 percent of Muslim Americans approved of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, with 65 percent of Jewish Americans; 60 percent of atheists, agnostics and those of no religion; 50 percent of Catholics; 37 percent of Protestants and 25 percent of Mormons concurring. Obamas approval overall at that time was at 45 percent. In 2008, only 7 percent of Muslim Americans said they approved of the job President Bush was doing, versus 37% of Protestant and 26% of Catholics. http://www.abudhabigallupcenter.com/File/148778/MAR_Report_ADGC_Bilingual_072011_sa_LR_web.pdf, p. 19
37% of Catholics were registered as Democrats in 2007, 27% Republican, and 31% as Independents. Aggregated Pew Research Surveys, 2007. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=295#ideology
77 percent of Black Protestants said they vote Democratic, whether they attended weekly services or not. 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://www.newsweek.com/id/142538 Also of interest:
50% of Evangelicals considered themselves Republican or leaned toward that party, 34% Democratic or leaned thereto; 9% Independents. 5http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
48% of Catholics considered themselves Democrats or leaned toward that party, 33% Republican or leaned thereto; 10% Independent. ^
65% of Jews and 63% of Muslims considered themselves Democrats or leaned toward that party, 23% 11%, respectively, Republican or leaned thereto ^
88% of Evangelicals voted for Sen. McCain in 2008, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama. 40% of Evangelicals said it was because of the candidates position on moral issues. Only 9% of other voters listed that as their driving reason. Other significant reasons for Evangelical voters included their candidates political experience (23%) and his character (15%). http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=321
Based upon exit polling, 74 percent of Evangelicals voted for McCain in 2008, with 25 percent for Obama. (Another measure put the percentage of evangelicals at 23 percent, with 73 percent voting for McCain, 26 percent for Obama.) http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367
Catholics overall supported Obama over McCain by a nine-point margin (54% vs. 45%) http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367
52% of white Catholics who were regular Mass-attenders voted for McCain, 47% for Obama, while non-practicing Catholics went 61% to 37% for the latter. Just 17% of Evangelicals who attended church once a week supported Obama, while 37% of white evangelicals who attended services less frequently supported him. http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-Church-Attendance-Affects-Religious-Voting-Patterns.aspx
Only 20% of observant white evangelicals voted for Obama, based upon 2008 Pew research exit polls, with 40% of observant white Catholics joining them, along with 94% of black Protestants overall. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1697/exit-poll-election-support-among-religious-groups
Overall, 43% of people who attended religious services once a week or more supported Obama. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367
39% U.S. Catholics are Hispanic, with 67% of Latinos voting for Obama over McCain. USCCB Committee on Hispanic Affairs. Hispanic Ministry at the Turn of the New Millennium, 1999 ^
After 100 days in office, 66% of Catholics, including a majority of white, non-Hispanic Catholics (55%), said they approved of Obama's job performance as president. Catholics are much more supportive of the president than are white evangelical Protestants, 33% of whom approved http://people-press.org/report/509/obama-at-100-days
As of April 9, 2011, 80 percent of Muslim Americans approved of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, with 65 percent of Jewish Americans; 60 percent of atheists, agnostics and those of no religion; 50 percent of Catholics; 37 percent of Protestants and 25 percent of Mormons concurring. Obamas approval overall at that time was at 45 percent. In 2008, only 7 percent of Muslim Americans said they approved of the job President Bush was doing, versus 37% of Protestant and 26% of Catholics. http://www.abudhabigallupcenter.com/File/148778/MAR_Report_ADGC_Bilingual_072011_sa_LR_web.pdf, p. 19
37% of Catholics were registered as Democrats in 2007, 27% Republican, and 31% as Independents. Aggregated Pew Research Surveys, 2007. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=295#ideology
77 percent of Black Protestants said they vote Democratic, whether they attended weekly services or not. 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://www.newsweek.com/id/142538
Your blog again?
Please state your source.
(I know you have some hidden ones — your blog source, please.)
Ooops.....
A person who is in Christ and in whom Christ is, is ALWAYS in the presence of the Lord. God isn't found only in church.
We receive graces by attending Mass, whether we are free of sin or not. If they werent at Mass, what else would they be doing with that hour of time? Watching TV? Going to a movie? Sleeping?
Reading the Bible. Praying. Sharing Christ with someone. Going to Bible study. Going to church services, which in non-Catholic circles often exceeds an hour at a time. Caring for the needy. Feeding the hungry. Visiting those in the hospital or prison.
BTW they also dress up in their Sunday best when attending Mass.
Not based on what I see going in and out of the local Catholic church on Sunday morning or Saturday evening. And if you think only Catholics dress up for church, you're living in a bubble.
Even Paul asserted his own flaws.
"Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me." - 2 Corinthians 12:7
Truth about Catholic voting patterns hurts, eh?
If you read the small print at the end of the stats, each source is cited.
Too bad.....
OK. What was it then?
Maybe you can tell us.
As President Truman said; "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." That applies doubly to this subject matter. Obama received 69.5 million votes, only 12 million from Catholics. That amounts to only 17% of his vote total and 34% of the Catholics registered to vote. I would advise you to take a couple of aspirin before you begin to asses what that says about consequences of Protestant voters in this country is.
Peace be with you.
I’ve never met people in such denial of reality as Catholics when it comes to admitting Catholic voting patterns.
Once again, there is nothing hidden(!) and you do not even have to searching for a bibliography as with most compilations. The source is always right after the stats or if it has just an ^ character then it belongs to the last referenced source, as explained before.
Next thing you know it will be conspiracy theories.
In theological discussions there is room for opinion, not so in math. You made the inference. I merely posted an analysis of the facts that drew an obvious conclusion contrary to the position you were advancing. Just like 9/600 does not mean "almost always" 12 million out of nearly 70 million is not most and does not place blame. Look to the 58 million non-Catholic vote Obama received that "put him over the top". LOL
Peace be with you.
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.