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 ...
We’ll see how this plays out.
None of the items you mention are particularly demeaning to Protestants.
Lighten up, Francis.
Funny though. There are lot of Catholics who have said that non Catholics are probably going to hell. Which is part of their theology. No one seems to bring that up when a Kennedy is running.
But then they are not a good example of Catholics.
As per 1Cor. 11, We are examine whether we are really recognizing other believers as member of the body by how we treat them, but which does presuppose there is a doctrinal standard for becoming part of the body. As for a particular church supposing they alone are the body of Christ, see See 313 above (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2749911/posts?page=313#313)
For some who call the pope the anti-Christ, see posts 212 and 376 here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2749911/posts?page=212#212 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2749911/posts?page=376#376)
When your faith is in a particular church then that which impugns its credibility must be denied, and when it is one which presumes an autocratic power to defines what is right and wrong, then it cannot be allowed to be wrong when it says it is right.
>>There are lot of Catholics who have said that non Catholics are probably going to hell. Which is part of their theology<<
No it isn’t part of the Catholic theology.
“In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [i.e. Protestant churches] as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”
What you are stating is a myth. Have you ever been told by a Catholic that you are going to hell?
Granted, the FReepers that have said this on the Religion forum have often been attacked by other Catholics, or been SSPX members who are in schism. But it has happened, and is one of the reasons many of the Orthodox are no longer on FR.
I know what current Catholic theology is, and know that it has changed in emphasis over the years. I also know the same to be true for most Lutheran synods. Since we stopped shooting each other and realized that islam and the secularists were a much bigger threat, the family quarrel has dropped off the radar screen.
*
This debate is striking to me. (Without having read the full thread) I’m struck by the apparent dichotomy that is proposed here:
1. Either it’s important what she believes about Catholicism or...
2. Her religious views have nothing to do with her political views.
I’m sorry, but at least as of right now, I have a problem with #2. I have actually spoken about this before, before even the 2010 elections.
Increasingly anymore, as I continue to take my faith, my humanity, more seriously, I cannot see how it is reasonable to say something to the effect, “My faith, my questions about my ultimate destiny, my humanity, are ‘important’ to me, but only as long as they don’t get in the way of my political views.”
Doesn’t anyone see a problem with that kind of statement? If one’s politics are separate from one’s faith, where do you think such political views come from? I submit they can only come from one place: The World, or, as Fr. Giussani puts it, the “powers that be”. There is no “independence” apart from God. There is no “freedom”, true “freedom”, apart from God. Either one believes that, or religion, one’s faith, is just something tacked on to make oneself feel better, but it isn’t really real. It isn’t truly something that one knows is a fact. That is, God isn’t really, truly, *real*, again, He is just a nice idea thought about on Sunday.
Sorry, I must reject #2 above for these reasons. With all this said though, this is still a moment where Rep. Bachmann can shine. It’s a fact she left that ecclesiastical group a year ago. If she simply comes out and says, “I left it because if its bigoted stance against Catholicism”, or something like that, then it is all resolved. It would be certainly more than anything Obama has said wrt his affiliations, but beyond that, it would be a reasonable statement to make.
Am I concerned about leftists trying to drive a wedge between conservatives? Yes. But quite frankly, I’m more concerned about living a lie, and indeed, that is what #2 is above, for me. I can no longer say, my faith is separate from my politics, because, to put it bluntly, then I have no reason that is reasonable, to believe my politics are correct.
Politics, as every human thought, must flow from one’s faith to be reasonable. My faith comes first, THEN my politics. My politics don’t dictate my faith. If I then say, it’s ok to vote for someone who not only disagrees with my faith, which is one thing, but is virulently opposed to it, that is an unreasonable position.
It’s basically saying my faith isn’t real,’not as real as politics’, which as I explain above is foolish. For me.
Does being a member of the Catholic church automatically get one into heaven where all non-Catholics go to hell like the Catholic teaches?
Then this means non Catholics cannot vote for Catholics and Catholics cannot vote for non Catholics.
I reject the infallibility of the Pope but I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and I hope that all Catholics also believe as I do in the Nicene Creed. (I exclude the liberal Catholics) We cannot let this divisive thread try to split the conservative movement. I found this extremely interesting and use it as a way to emphasize our similarities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
Until Joshua Green and Deacon Fournier decided they wanted to cause trouble.
Perhaps 15th Century disputes could be left in the 15th Century.
“If Keith Fournier, a very prominent Catholic (who, by the way, supports Rick Santorum, not Sarah Palin) and Bill Donohue of the Catholic League are calling on Michele Bachmann to explain her membership in such a church, she had better pay attention to it. This is not going away.”
Didn’t something like 58% of Catholics vote for Obama?
No, please let me clarify. I can understand why you or anyone may conclude what you wrote above though, I'm sorry.
To me, there is a difference between simply not being Catholic, and being anti-Catholic. The latter would clearly engender political motivations and/or beliefs, even if only at a subconscious yet still effectual level, that would and could threaten my faith should such a person gain any any political power. That is, even if such a person "didn't mean it", such a person could be a threat to the free expression of my faith. I submit this is a reasonable conclusion because we are all not robots. We do not do things, much less believe in ideas, just because, as if such actions and beliefs came out of the air. No, as I stated in my previous post, we either obtain our politics from our faith, or from the "world" or "the powers that be" (that is, because someone told us so, and we think that person should be able to tell us what to do because they "know more about history", or, "they know more about the Bible". This is what many think Catholics do wrt the Pope. Indeed, I will even grant that many Catholics do this, but that isn't Catholicsm; that isn't thinking for yourself. That's being a victim of the "powers that be".)
My point is that we, as human beings, don't live in a vacuum and behave like machines, in a truly "objective" manner ("objectivity" here defined as the ideal proposed in the so called "Enlightenment"). Human beings can never behave like robots. It's impossible. Human beings will always follow an authority, whether they realize it or not. And for the case of an anti-Catholic, a dangerous authority, at least for me. I don't think inhave to explain any more. I apologize for the confusion.
I do not believe you are correct wrt the claim, “The doctrine of Michelle Bachmann’s church is the doctrine of all orthodox Lutheran churches.”, at least as far as the claim, “The papacy is the antiChrist” is concerned. In the OP, the author points out that this is not the faith of all Lutherans.
Maybe I should have explained that better. This is what I find worrisome. If she does believe that, then she believes the same thing I do, when it comes to abortion. I believe abortion is literally “anti-Christ”, and this us why I work to stop it. Note that: I work to stop abortion BECAUSE it is anti-Christ. Who wouldn’t work to stop something they believe is “anti-Christ”? Let me put it this way: if someone SAYS they believe something is anti-Christ, yet don’t work to stop it, what does that say about their faith?
All of this is really quite silly. I see no reason, actually, why this engenders so much debate. It’s perfectly reasonable to ask someone running for president, “How do you feel about the Catholic faith?”, and that would resolve it.
Please, let’s not start constructing a cult of personality around Rep. Bachmann, immunizing her against any potentially critical question, as we have around Gov. Palin.
Your numbers are a decade old:
Here’s the list of the top 15, as reported in the 2011 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches:
1. The Catholic Church, 68,503,456 members, up .57 percent.
2. Southern Baptist Convention,16,160,088 members, down.42 percent.
3. The United Methodist Church, 7,774,931 members, down1.01 percent.
4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6,058,907 members, up 1.42 percent.
5. The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members, no updates.
6. National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc, 5,000,000 members, no updates.
7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 4,542,868 members, down1.96 percent.
8. National Baptist Convention of America, Inc., 3,500,000 members, no updates.
9. Assemblies of God, 2,914,669 members, up .52 percent.
10. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 2,770,730 members, down 2.61 percent.
11. African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2,500,000 members, no updates.
11. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America, 2,500,000 members, no updates.
13. The Lutheran Church– Missouri Synod (LCMS), 2,312,111 members, down 1.08 percent.
14. The Episcopal Church, 2,006,343 members, down 2.48 percent.
15. Churches of Christ, 1,639,495 members, no membership updates reported.
Deacon Keith should keep current, the pastor released a statement. I try to pray for all Christians instead of doing the evil ones work for him.
That they may be one...
What one does manifests what one really believes, and the religion of most politicians appears to be that self-serving pragmatism, whatever will get hem elected.
While you see it is as virtuous for a politician to renounces his/her membership in a church that sees Rome as false, i would see that as wrong if done for political purposes, as well as wrong in itself in this case (though that does not mean the view of the pope being THE anti-Christ is right), and your request would be akin to us demanding that a Traditional Catholic recant his/her belief that outside formal submission to Rome then one cannot be saved.
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.