Posted on 02/23/2010 9:25:41 AM PST by stfassisi
The original standards were that inflammatory titles were not permitted.
Are you changing that?
It’s ill advised, imho.
Paragraph 2: "...Litvinov, the Jewish Soviet Foreign Minister of the 1930’s."
Ah, those infamous atheist-Bolsheviks who amazingly/rhetorically retain their Jewish identity. And in an essay that ostensibly is concerned with Protestantism. Cardinal Vlk's accusation that Rao peddles anti-semitism is looking more plausible.
Paragraph #3: "If ecumenism has been devised to appeal to the good faith of believing Protestants, to guide them lovingly back to the True Church, without rancor and accusation, then ecumenism is a good thing. When Christians are confused, then Rome must be loving and kind."
The irony of this passage, given the rancorous and insulting character of the entire essay, should be obvious. *********************************************************
The rest of the article is a mish-mash of caricatures of Reformed theology and scripture interpretation that aren't worthy of a response. The "seed" analogy is used merely as an excuse to focus on the issue of original sin, and then to build a house of cards based upon the rotten foundation of his misinterpretation of this issue.
Caricatures abound; that of the Puritans as humorless, grim men whose gloomy souls adorn their drab clothing is particularly funny...and innacurate, as anyone who has bothered to crack open a volume of Perry Miller would know.
Rao's fanciful and innacurate definition of America as "secularized Puritanism" merely opens up another of his purely rhetorical attacks on America and capitalism, the like of which got his work banned from FR. Anyone who commits a sentence like this to paper --
The United States has constantly had a tradition of denigrating the elaborate as effeminate, and has divinized a drab conformism in dress, music, architecture, art, food and drink.
-- is someone who has a very tenuous relationship to truth, or perhaps to reality.
Into the diatribe is mixed in what may be Schemann's notion of the sacramental nature of Creation. If so, then Schemann deserves better than this. Feh.
“Why, I am enjoying it immensely.”
Exactly. It’s all about you. In the same way, per your previous blatherings, the Holy Scriptures are all about you, that is, all about the free will of man. Your magisterium has bequeathed a different Bible to you, which you seem happy to accept without question. You have an anthropocentric Bible. I have a Christocentric Bible. The twain will never meet.
I knew it would take only one verse to let you prove it for all to see. So there is no point in going on to the myriad of additional verses that teach what you will not allow God to speak to proud, arrogant humanity.
You are not a serious man, only a self-absorbed man. You have no idea how to listen, analyze, and respond to sincere argumentation ... or, if you do, you choose to remain frivolous. Thus it is time to close this one out.
Soli Deo Gloria
Jewishness of Litvinov is germane to an anectode of his crossing himself.
To love someone is to correct their error. You can be assured of every serious Catholic’s love for the Protestants, who we dearly wish to come home to the Church that gave them the Holy Scripture.
You can argue with esthetic preferences for food and architecture with someone else. The concept of depravity of man has been socially harmful; Rao shows why. Of all his analysis you chose periferal issues of Rao’s character, and even those you could not get right.
Got more?
The Holy Scripture is indeed about the free will in great part, but no, it is not about me in the least.
Yes, we can ask the angels, and saints, to pray for us, and we will pray for each other. God knows how much we need Him, may He have mercy on us always.
O Little Therese of the Child Jesus,
Please pick a rose for me
From the heavenly gardens
And send it to me
As a message of love.
O little flower of Jesus,
Ask God today to grant the favors
I now place with confidence
In your hands.
(Come Holy Spirit, and enkindle in them the light of Your love) St. Therese,
help me to always believe,
As you did,
In God's great love for me,
So that I might imitate your
"Little Way" each day. Amen
What "jewishness"? The man was a bolshevik/atheist, had been for a while. Using Litvinov as an example, and emphasizing his Jewish heritage, in an article about Protestantism strikes me as gratuitous. It brings to mind Cardinal Vlk's identification of Rao as an anti-semite; that and the fact that Rao's co-speaker in the Czech Republic, E. Michael Jones, has problems with anti-semitism, too.
To love someone is to correct their error. You can be assured of every serious Catholic’s love for the Protestants, who we dearly wish to come home to the Church that gave them the Holy Scripture.
Yah, right. I can "feel the love" fairly often on FR when I engage RCs on contentious topics. It pleases me that I don't live in 16th century Europe, where in certain nations my "errors" might have delivered me to the tender mercies of the Holy Office.
You can argue with esthetic preferences for food and architecture with someone else. The concept of depravity of man has been socially harmful; Rao shows why. Of all his analysis you chose periferal issues of Rao’s character, and even those you could not get right.
Sure, Rao toots his horn about the doctrine of total depravity, but as I stated he can't accurately define the doctrine and thus arrives at a flawed analysis of Protestantism and society.
Got more?
Sure. Are you what Cardinal Vlk calls a Lefebvrist?
He is commenting on its social and cultural effects, so he does not have to. Still, where is the inaccuracy?
The rest of your post is more fishing for personal angles and I don't wish to discuss any of that with you.
In his fancy, Rao fashions unproven social and cultural effects of a doctrine he doesn't bother to accurately define AND whose significance within the context of Protestantism as a whole he does not bother to discuss. These are significant problems.
The rest of your post is more fishing for personal angles and I don't wish to discuss any of that with you.
Whether or not you approve of anti-semitism and Lefebvrism are "personal matters"? WOW.
Personally, I don't want to discuss matters with someone who won't answer any of my questions. Have a good night.
Where is the inaccuracy of Rao’s grasp of the doctrine?
Because it is. My church does not destroy man nor does it destroy God.
The Westminster Confession of Fail says that you are wrong.
Any comments on this, sir?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Are you or have you ever been a Lefebvrist?
LOL.
The one eyed man in the land of the blind.
Anti-American anti-Semite, maybe?
Catholic, American and proud daddy. :)
We are not an arm of the Vatican. Not even a finger or toe.
God bless you, Jim.
You know, if Catholic posters here wanted a toe-of-Vatican website, we would find one in a minute. I love FR because it’s home for any conservative American.
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.