Skip to comments.Michele Bachmann Should Not 'Get a Pass' on Past Membership in Anti-Catholic Church
Posted on 07/17/2011 1:06:48 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
The news and blogosphere is filled with responses to the July 14, 2011 story by Joshua Green, the Senior Editor of the Atlantic, entitled "Michele Bachmann's Church Says the Pope Is the Antichrist." That is because it raises a serious matter which should not be taken lightly, and one which the candidate must address. First, let me share some personal context. I am what is often called a "revert" to the Catholic Church, someone who returned to the Church of my childhood after a long search for the truth. I love being a Catholic Christian. I hold an undergraduate degree and a master's degree in Catholic theology. I am a dissertation away from obtaining a PhD in Catholic Moral Theology. I am also a member of the Clergy, a Deacon. However, I write this article as a private and very concerned citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
And rabble rousers like you felt it imperative to shout this quiet move all over the place in a way that makes Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wrong look like a whisper.
WELS is not logistically possible for a politician who plans to be constantly on the road, unless she plans to carry her own personal minister around wherever she goes, which would be a biiiiiiiit much.
No, they won't. But I and others will stop, because is is a cheap shot lie about Bachmann and it is stupid, therefore not worthy of further time spent. Good bye.
Whenever the Left raises this, the Right raises Reverend Wright. Issue neutralized.
A Palin KAD smearing Michele Bachmann on Free Republic. How original. YAWN.
“I think her quitting the Church was a bad move - it draws attention to it.”
That was my point as well. Bachmann resigned from the Church six days before she announced for President . If she is so quick to throw her Church of many years under the bus when it is politically expedient, why should anyone trust that she won’t throw Conservatives under the bus when it is expedient?
After all, when most of us were supporting Ronald Reagan, she was organizing and working for Jimmy Carter and even attending his Inauguration.
For by works are you saved, you earn it on you own, lest anyone not get bragging rights. Yep sounds about right.
Theologians are like politicians, they need a compliant workforce that don’t mind giving up their money.
I am saved by Grace, it is a free gift of God, lest any man should boast. The rest of the people have to work really, really hard and get their preist to tell them when they have been sorry enough to be clean.
Catholics are certainly Christian if they have accepted the free gift of Salvation, but I don’t accept that the Pope is the final Arbiter of Grace.
Wow, you have to know this unknown from California who had just begun to show an interest in national office (Jimmy Carter has just been elected for the first and only time) had a church that somehow just didn’t MATTER.
>>> Marxismdivide and conquer technique. “ <<<
Actually I read it was a Palin fan technique against Bachman. I have no idea what is the truth on that. The author of the column did not post his opinion here, but is rather a devout Catholic deacon with his own blog. What you say is true and elegantly written. Although I prefer to separate the Church from the sinning Catholics who abused Her and brought on the wrath of the people. The Reformation was one thing. Schism was something entirely beyond. Luther himself said he had failed and created now many popes. His followers continued the dissent. But, of course I agree with your general point. I get it.
I was being sarcastic.
Blasphemy against a denomination?
One cannot commit blasphemy against a denomination. No denomination is God.
You might want to read up on the history of the Campbell Restoration movement because your comment indicates a shallow understanding of modern-day Protestantism. That's O.K. This happens a lot.
As a Protestant, I've read and heard many arguments against many Catholic Church doctrines over the years but I have never read or heard the Catholic Pope referred to as the anti-Christ. True, Protestants do not accept the authority of the Catholic Pope but in my church, while the Pope is considered extraneous to one's salvation, he is not hated or referred to as 'the anti-Christ', regardless of what Martin Luther, John Calvin or Ulrich Zwigili may have decreed, hundreds of years ago. Modern Protestantism has evolved and, in my church, is based strictly on scripture, not what some religious leaders (mere men) decided in the sixteenth century. We believe that salvation is found only in Jesus Christ, not rituals, not 'The Church' but in the grace of God offered to those who obey the Gospel.
I have absolutely no interest in debating 'religion', whether on offense or defense. I don't believe one can persuade anyone on spiritual issues via internet message board exchanges - and I have no interest in trying. I simply state that while Lutherans may view the Catholic Pope as 'the anti-Christ, I do not - and neither do any Protestants I know. How about we let it go at that?
Ah, but you forget. In the United States Catholics are an "oppressed minority." That means they can only be victims of "prejudice" and never practitioners of it.
That is OK as long as you are the Rev Wright, Rev Al or Rev Jesse. Dims do it all the time.
I bet the Rev. Charles Henrickson can attest to your statement above. The only time I ever heard one of our former LCMS pastors mention anything about politics, was after a golf event and he was not wearing his clerical collar;
His statement was:
I don't know how any Christian can go to church on Sunday and vote for a democrat on Tuesday.
I had that as my tagline for many months.
I went to a funeral at a nice Catholic church recently. During eucharist, they explained that non-catholics were not welcome. I have run into this before. It has something to do with an inscrutable, medieval argument over the real presence, a concept which no Catholic priest has ever been able to explain to me; which perhaps one in one-hundred practicing Roman Catholics care about; and which ignores the plain meaning of the Words of Institution in the eucharist.
To me, it is all a technicality, a mechanism of trying to assert control. It is damaging to the very worthy interests of the Roman Catholic Church, most of which I support. It short, it is foolish and non-Christian.
It is funny that Catholics should be worried about some minor Protestant doctrines unfriendly to them, when Catholics do the same sort of thing. In my own ancestry, I have direct ancestors who (for a fact!) were dragged from their homes into the street by a Roman Catholic mob, and had their throats slit, almost in the style used by Moslem terrorists. If their 14-year-old son had not escaped, I would not be here!
Should I hold this against modern Catholics? Well, I don’t. I accept most Catholics as good Christians, even though certain of their teachings are un-Biblical, and are survivals from Roman pagan times. It is time we tolerated the Truth, even in different denominations, and it is time that we were free to criticize falsehood, wherever it crops up.
I really believe that the Devil can be working anywhere, and looks for any opening, just like a mouse trying to infest your house (only with worse results). Our only guide is what Jesus gave us: judge them by their fruits.
I wish we would ex communicate these people. The Governor has been denied communion FWIW.
Because Robertson had as much of a chance as being the nominee as my cat. Fringe, just like Jesse Jackson or Ron Paul.