Posted on 05/19/2007 3:25:34 AM PDT by Gamecock
I understand that his wife does if someone spills something on her seat on a plane.
“My yet unanswered question is, why couldn’t Catholicism spark a “personal” faith in myself or legions like me? Why’d we have to leave the Church to find God? “
Your last question is too hard for me, but I have some thoughts on this one, because I was raised Episcopalian, lost my faith for 20 years, found God, went back to the Episcopal church a few years ago, and am now becoming Catholic. So, I, too, have questions. The only thing I can figure out is that I had to really suffer before I could become truly a Christian— the faith I lost was only a child’s faith, and the faith I found so much later (outside of any church) is as solid and unchanging as God himself. So, I don’t think denomination has anything to do with it— I just think that after one studies enough, and prays enough, that Catholicism will be see to be the best way for many of us to go.
In Germany, Protestants (particularly in the north and east) comprise 34% of the population and Roman Catholics (particularly in the south and west) 31.4%. I don't know what the numbers were in the 1930s, but it is inaccurate to categorize Germany as a Protestant country. Besides, the cradle of the Nazi movement was predominantly Catholic Bavaria. Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler were raised in Catholic families, but were of course lapsed Catholics as adults and Nazis.
Well you're right about one thing. Protestantism fosters individualism. Unfortunately you glossed over the negative consequences of that. Chief among them is the scandal of a splintered Christendom which has divided Christianity into a multitude of sects and splinter groups in an ongoing process. A veritable modern Tower of Babel as an ever increasing number of individual, custom made churches do it their own way. That's where the wrong sort of individualism takes you. As for Protestants having a one on one relationship "with the Lord", in my experience that's not common. What they have is a one on one relationship with a book, not the person of Jesus. Muslims are a similar species. No true relationship with God. Just slavish devotion to the Koran.
In fact faith is both individual and collective. It's not an either/or situation. St. Paul makes it clear that gifts are given to each individual in order to build up the collective Mystical Body, which is the Church. Some are prophets, some are teachers, some are evangelists etc. But all are one in Christ.
Protestants believe that the Priesthood is Christ and Christ alone. Our faith is not handed down from other men, it is directly revealed from heaven through the Holy Spirit acting directly upon our souls and not through the medium of some intercessory.
Faith can not be handed down, period. Faith is a gift of God. That's true for Catholics, too. What is handed down is the deposit of faith. The fundamentals of Christian doctrine. And unless you've had a Divine revelation and are the head of your own church professing some novel doctrine, then your deposit of faith has been handed down to you also. You're confounding two different things. The deposit of faith is handed down and the Holy Spirit gives us the grace to accept and profess it.
Secondly, Jesus said to his apostles that "whoever hears you, hears me". He also conferred on them the power of forgiveness of sin. He charged them with continuing his work. Our faith comes to us precisely from the Apostles. The ones who wrote many of the books in the..... *gasp*.....Bible.
This is why Protestant countries have consistently fostered individual liberty and Catholic Countries have consistently fostered socialism and collectivism.
I know you don't believe this and are just having a dig at the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, whom do you claim as a "Protestant country"? Britain? The US? How about Germany? Maybe not the latter, for that gave us Hitler and Nazism, right? How about the countries of Scandanavia? Sweden, Denmark? Well they're all socialist too. So that won't work either. So we'll stick to the US and Britain.
Firstly, the so called "individual liberty" practised in these countries extends to murdering unborn children, flooding the world with pornography and sky-high divorce rates, amongst other things. Do you want to claim those as fruits of Protestantism too? Secondly, the US was founded by individuals who were fleeing not Catholicism, but another form of Protestantism; that espoused by Protestant, Monarchist England. So much for "individual liberty".
America could never have been possible unless the individual liberty and responsibility emphasized in Protestantism had found its way to our shores.
There's nothing biblical or scriptural about the American system of government. Patriotism is nice, but there's no need to lift it to the spiritual level. Catholicism too, emphasizes individual responsibility. We call it "subsidiarity". Allow me to quote you the relevant passages from The Catechism.
#1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.
And again:
#1895"The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order."
Protestantism didn't invent individual repsonsibility. We did it first:-)
“Did Jesus have to die to make the message I am hearing from any given pulpit true?”
Or as Luther put it, there are either Theologians (preachers) of glory or Theologians (preachers) of the cross.
Preachers of glory make God into their own image.
Preachers of the cross see God as he revealed himself.
This is one great post!
I had been hoping that someone would come along and respond and you did a great job.
Thanks, mm.
It does not prove that the United States was in any way theocratic, but that its people were spiritual, and free to be so.There is a very big difference, as I am sure you are well aware.There is no endorsement of one religion of GOD over another.That is the original issue that I addressed concerning " MOrmonism, Protestantism , or Catholicism or Puritanism,or Quakerism, or Masonicism or Judaeism or even Islamism. They all stand as spiritual paths ,in places like Rhode Island in the early days. That approach became the nations after the Bill of rights became ratified.
G_D's name is not in the constitution. His name is carved in the culture and hearts of the people, and long may it be so. Religion has no place in the distribution of power of our body politic.And by implication G_D should have little mention, if much, in out election process, in order for politicians to build a self image for people to falsely trust, as the people should only in G_D himself.
Perhaps, but Luther wasn’t born in Mexico. Sweden, Holland, England, and Minnesota are all socialist. As I said before, this is silly, fallacious reasoning.
You missed this?
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians
And this :
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
And this :
Proposed Seal for the United States
On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams "to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." Franklin's proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea. Jefferson first recommended the "Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . ." He then embraced Franklin's proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson's revision of Franklin's proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.
These are all Christian references.
Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress
The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.
The reason for this was quite simple, no one could likely agree on what should have been said, such an entry , say under the preamble, would have divided the delegates.
That is why religion, Christianity in particular, is a matter of individual choice by a free people. That is the context in which all of your Christian references must be couched, and it is the proper one, no matter which way you wish to cut it.
The second reason why religion of GOD is omitted from the constitution is that Americans did not want a Theocracy to evolve in the future, and purposely drafted the constitution accordingly.
That protection is what will prevent our various state governments from becoming , say , Roman Catholic Theocracies , due to the influx of Latin American illegal aliens in our nation. Not that Roman Catholics should not have political power. That is not the point. But such a community would never evolve the right to either disenfrachise those of other religious persuasions, nor have the power to convert them through governmental force.
It is a nice system with checks and balances. I applaud the resurgence of the influence of Christianity on government, but there is a line at which the dynamic cannot cross, and its perfectly clear where that line is, and why.
For that reason, I do not believe that politicians should use religion to create their public images, so that they can be "trusted." Spiritual strength is evident in many other ways, and of course, Ronald Reagan had that. Certainly George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had that strength.
On the other hand,Benjamin Franklin was not very trusting in religion, he rebelled from it in his Puritan family, thinking it too restrictive, but yet he was a great founding father, and very wise in his views on minimizing potential conflict due to religious differences, emphasizing instead, the fraternal assoiation of men for common cause, beyond individual religious persuasions.
Without men like Franklin, and there were many, the constitutional process would have devolved into bickering over "religion." Thats why any reference to G_D was ommitted from the constitution, not because no one loved G_D or did not have a connection to him. They mostly did, but it was not a litmus requirement socially, or politically. Or men like Franklin would have been outed.Likewise modern Republicans do not out their members if they are not Christian, nor should they.
I agree with what the article is saying. Enough with Religion and Politics already.
“Why’d we have to leave the Church to find God?”
although I never left the Church, there was a time in my early twenties where I was drifting and considering leaving.
My father advised me to take the time to research and understand what I was leaving before I left it.
It was excellent advise.
Through my own time spent reading about church history, about the lives of the saints, and John Paul II’s teachings - I realized I had never really been properly catechized by my own church.
The catholic church has a hard time evangelizing to others primarily because it struggles to evangelize to its own.
I was raised Catholic and lived in the Philippines for four years as a child. I vividly remember the “tradition” you posted. In fact, the first time I witnessed such an event I was only five years old. Believe it or not, even though these Filipino Catholic sects have been led astray, God used my memory of this event to draw me to Himself later in my life.
Religion and the State Governments
The Constitutional Convention chose to act as nursing fathers of the church and included in the draft constitution submitted to the voters the famous Article Three, which authorized a general religious tax to be directed to the church of a taxpayers' choice. Despite substantial doubt that Article Three had been approved by the required two thirds of the voters, in 1780 Massachusetts authorities declared it and the rest of the state constitution to have been duly adopted
I do not believe that politicians should use religion to create their public images,
No one should "use" religion. It's difficult to know who is using Christ and who really believes. That's why a person must listen to the message to see if it's Scriptural and have discernment.
You also have not checked the Library of Congress link. This is a Christian nation, founded by Christian men, built on Christian principles. The thing these men did NOT want was state-supported religion. The government should NEVER control a church which was exactly the situation they came from. But they fully believed that God should influence government.
Most states had an official state church at the time of the Constitution's ratification. Our founders didn't see it as a issue for the Federal government.
On the other hand,Benjamin Franklin was not very trusting in religion, he rebelled from it in his Puritan family, thinking it too restrictive, but yet he was a great founding father
Franklin's mother's family lived in a community in Puritan Massachusetts that was quite tolerant of Quakers. While Quakers were persecuted on the mainland, some of the original founding families of Nantucket had family members that had become Quakers. It was a small community & many of the children of the founders intermarried, so it's a good possibility that a number of Franklin's cousins were Quakers.
I agree, but through the actions of men who were spiritual, bounded by a constitution in which GOD is not mentioned.How many do we have like that today, probably precious few. Just because a politicians toutes himself that way, does not make it so, That is why I regard the issue as not particularly useful in a political campaign. Judging a politician by his record, rather than his religious averements is far more useful. Duncan Hunter strikes me as being a man of G_D, in his actions and demeanor, but he says nothing about it.
No politician can govern by saying it is "Gods" word. Nor should they as a matter for justification of law or policy.
Anne Coulter got it right in her book,"GODLESS."
Without that spirituality, we become subject to false paths as have many of the left. But America has been and will be a nation of many religions, and spiritualities, different ways of connecting with GOD or the divine principle in everyone's lives. That is a basic human trait, the acknowledgement of which separates us from say, our Islamofascist enemies, who are purely theocratic, and obviously quite crazed.
No politician can govern by saying it is "Gods" word. Nor should they as a matter for justification of law or policy.
It worked in The Declaration of Independence.
It also worked for the Revolution.
Religion and the American Revolution
Religion played a major role in the American Revolution by offering a moral sanction for opposition to the British--an assurance to the average American that revolution was justified in the sight of God.
The problem is that the godless left has made God something shameful. Socialism and communism has gotten a foothold here. And our founding fathers would be persecuted for their beliefs.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
“why can’t it be “both/and”?”
It can be, if it isn’t either your catechism failed or your faith fails.
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.