Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[Darryl1958]

If we are talking about Fr Martin’s definition of liberation theology instead of Glenn Beck’s, can we please refrain from bringing up Marxists and holding people at gun point from now on. It serves no purpose other than to demagogue. Thanks! Peace.

Father Martin’s definition of liberation theology is Glen Beck’s!! It is one and the same thing.
Glen Beck has merely dressed it down to its rotting, materialistic core.
Liberation theology is Marxism dressed up and prettified to look like something that Catholics ought to believe in.

Really, we ought not to believe in it at all.

Ultimately, class warfare entailed by forcing one class to pay for another comes at the point of a gun. Taxes are ultimately enforced by brute government force after all. The demagoguery comes in enticing the masses to vote into things that they will not have to pay for. “Make the rich pay” is the demagoguery behind this liberation theology. It is not charity. It is class warfare.

This never helps the poor of course,but only enables leftist politicians to come into power.

Liberation theology does not help the poor. It destroys the middle class. It is the ultimate definition of demagogue.

 

[CMatt25]

He didn’t say to serve them just to get salvation. That’s pure legalism. Everything must be motivated out of love. Keep that in mind below.

In your statement, you did. You said:

" Indeed He said those who serve Him by serving the hungry, the homeless, the sick, would be saved."

Here Suudi maybe this will help you understand what Jesus said about salvation in those verses.

Matt 25:37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee?

39Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee?

40And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of **these** my least brethren, you did it to me.

And then Suudi, He spoke to those who do not advocate for these.  You can read it for yourself in your Bible.

45Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46And these shall go into everlasting punishment: **but the just, into life everlasting**. :shrug:

And Suudi, you apparently missed the part about what I said about love. If you’re going to grace me by quoting me will you please not be so selective as to what you quote me on and instead actually quote what I have said. And not merely quote my last sentence out of context. Here’s what I said.

“So yes part of His mission was indeed also to serve the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick. And in Matt 25:31-46 He taught how doing these things as an expression of love shows our faith. And if we show our faith and love by serving those He mentioned, He told us we would be serving Him. And here’s the kicker, Suudy. Indeed He said those who serve Him by serving the hungry, the homeless, the sick, would be saved.”

So please do not imply that in my statement I left out love. Thank you!

 

[po18guy]

So don’t believe in the theology, but help the poor. We don’t have to link the two.

Believe in the Church and her teaching. That is how we help the poor. In Latin America, “liberation theology” has turned neighbor against neighbor and created class envy. It is a from the ground up movement that tends to reject all hierarchies - even the Church’s. It failed, yet some of the radicalized members of the Church still embrace it. The Church spoke out against much (but not all) of it decades ago. As with all else, the devil is in the details of it.

 

[Suudy]

And Suudi, you apparently missed the part about what I said about love. If you’re going to grace me by quoting me will you please not be so selective as to what you quote me on and instead actually quote what I have said. And not merely quote my last sentence out of context.

I apologize. I missed that part. I focused on the last sentence.

“So yes part of His mission was indeed also to serve the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick. And in Matt 25:31-46 He taught how doing these things as an expression of love shows our faith. And if we show our faith and love by serving those He mentioned, He told us we would be serving Him. And here’s the kicker, Suudy. Indeed He said those who serve Him by serving the hungry, the homeless, the sick, would be saved.”

Ok! Now we are getting somewhere!

So you did acknowledge that love is essential. You do then agree that the act of caring for the poor has no salvific value if it is not done out of love? Further, do you agree that love is always a voluntary act? Thus caring for the poor, being motivated out of love, must also be a voluntary act.

So, if caring for the poor must be motivated out of love, and love must be a voluntary act, than how can government programs have any salvific value whatsoever? Funding of government programs is not voluntary, and cannot be motivated out of love. Thus government solutions to caring for the poor do not serve Christ’s mission.

In fact, there is only one solution that does serve Christ’s mission. Charity.

 

[Chrisy58]

I think God is working and I believe that if we turn to Him and do what Beck says needs to be done, that we still have a chance.

 

[CMatt25]

You list yourself as Catholic. The Church teaches there are, at least theoretically, just applications of capital punishment. either one of us is right or neither of us is right. Until we come to agreement, we cannot both be right.

Suudi, I’ve been down this path numerous times. It is not only I who lists myself as Catholic but the Church does as well. If you have a probem with that I suggest you modify the Catholic definition of who is a Catholic. I have discussed this with a bishop. His answer was, "A person becomes a Catholic by the sacrament of Baptism. Unless a person has “left’ the Church by a FORMAL act, that person would still be considered a Catholic.” I, Suudi, have also been confirmed. I have been properly catechized and have an informed conscience before you go down that route like many here like to do when someone disagrees with them. Sure there are degrees of adherence. But we Catholics are Catholics. So I would appreciate unless you reason you know more than an Apostolic successor about who is a Catholic, that you please refrain from this further.

On other matters I see a lot of CCC from you but very little Scripture.

In an case Suudi, indeed we can not both be right so we shall know when He comes again and whether if a lot of what we discuss and argue about here on CAF really matters in the end.

In the meantime once again God bless you Suudi and peace be with you always.

 

[Robert_Bay]

WARNING

Please discuss the issues not each other

 

[CMatt25]

I apologize. I missed that part. I focused on the last sentence.

Ok! Now we are getting somewhere!

So you did acknowledge that love is essential. You do then agree that the act of caring for the poor has no salvific value if it is not done out of love? Further, do you agree that love is always a voluntary act? Thus caring for the poor, being motivated out of love, must also be a voluntary act.

So, if caring for the poor must be motivated out of love, and love must be a voluntary act, than how can government programs have any salvific value whatsoever? Funding of government programs is not voluntary, and cannot be motivated out of love. Thus government solutions to caring for the poor do not serve Christ’s mission.

In fact, there is only one solution that does serve Christ’s mission. Charity.

No problem Suudi. We all make mistakes.

Yes I did acknowledge that. Where we may differ is I say we should voluntary love to pay income taxes to help the poor. Peace.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I Wouldn’t know. I’m addressing one comment. I didn’t think Irving Kristol was ever left of center. His son surely isn’t.

He was very much left of center before he turned conservative. I doubt his son ever was, as he probably learned better at his daddy’s knee.

 

[Suudy]

Sure there are degrees of adherence. But we Catholics are Catholics.

I agree with this. Yes, all by nature of their baptism become part of the Catholic Church:**CCC 837: **“Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not 'in heart.’”
**CCC 838: **"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."3
So while many may be Catholic by the nature of their baptism, many find themselves outside the Church.

So I would appreciate unless you reason you know more than an Apostolic successor about who is a Catholic, that you please refrain from this further.

Take note. I never once said you were not Catholic. Ever.

I recognize that through baptism all are joined to the Church. However, not all are in communion and not all “profess the Catholic faith in its entirety”.

On other matters I see a lot of CCC from you but very little Scripture.

And is there something wrong with the Catechism? Is the Catechism in any way in conflict with the scripture? The Catechism is the official teaching of the Church. It is the union of the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Not all that is true is found in scripture (though certainly all that is found in scripture is true). Thus the Catechism is a more complete source than scripture alone.

In an case Suudi, indeed we can not both be right so we shall know when He comes again and whether if a lot of what we discuss and argue about here on CAF really matters in the end.

Good. At least we agree on something!

But I do think what we talk about here on CAF does really matter. It can change hearts and minds. People’s souls are put into peril everyday by continuing to act contrary to God’s will. And how can we know God’s will if we do not make a sincere attempt to discern it?

 

[Suudy]

Yes I did acknowledge that. Where we may differ is I say we should voluntary love to pay income taxes to help the poor. Peace.

And I agree with that. The “voluntary” part is key.

But what is currently in place, and what is proposed by many politicians is not voluntary. It is in fact compulsory, under penalty of imprisonment and fines.

 

[iamrefreshed]

No I don’t have the time right now to respond further to you.

God bless you and as always peace.

You never seem to have time to defend why you think killing babies is something Jesus agreed with.

You just repeat “Read Matthew 25” “Read Matthew 25” like some robot.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Here Suudi maybe this will help you understand what Jesus said about salvation in those verses.

Matt 25:37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee?

39Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee?

40And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

And then Suudi, He spoke to those who do not advocate for these. You can read it for yourself in your Bible.

45Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

And Suudi, you apparently missed the part about what I said about love. If you’re going to grace me by quoting me will you please not be so selective as to what you quote me on and instead actually quote what I have said. And not merely quote my last sentence out of context. Here’s what I said.

“So yes part of His mission was indeed also to serve the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick. And in Matt 25:31-46 He taught how doing these things as an expression of love shows our faith. And if we show our faith and love by serving those He mentioned, He told us we would be serving Him. And here’s the kicker, Suudy. Indeed He said those who serve Him by serving the hungry, the homeless, the sick, would be saved.”

So please do not imply that in my statement I left out love. Thank you!

Not often you see someone use these verses to justify abortion.

Don’t you love babies?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DC_RALLY?SITE=TXWIC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

“From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck told the tens of thousands of activists he drew from around the nation Saturday that the U.S. has too long "wandered in darkness”

Beck also said at the rally,

" Something beyond imagination is happening," he said. “America today begins to turn back to God.”

Which God? Beck is a Mormon, thus defines God in a way that is completely heretical.

“For too long, this country has wandered in darkness,” said Beck, a Fox News host. He said it was now time to “concentrate on the good things in America, the things we have accomplished and the things we can do tomorrow”

How sad that faithful Catholics are cheering on a person who, among other things, holds religious beliefs that are blatantly heretical. Yes, “Faith is in short supply,” but I’m willing to bet that Beck and his ilk would return us to the American traditional values of anticatholicism. As a Catholic, I want absolutely NOTHING to do with this man unless he repents and comes back to the true faith. Until then, everything he says is suspect.

 

[po18guy]

How sad that faithful Catholics are cheering on a person who, among other things, holds religious beliefs that are blatantly heretical. Yes, “Faith is in short supply,” but I’m willing to bet that Beck and his ilk would return us to the American traditional values of anticatholicism. As a Catholic, I want absolutely NOTHING to do with this man unless he repents and comes back to the true faith. Until then, everything he says is suspect.

We cannot place conditions upon our love. Beck is distinctly controversial, and I do not like his hyperbolic and sensational style, but he is taking flak for standing up for his God, even though he may be mistaken in concept. Step back and look at the bigger picture: America is suffering exactly for the reasons that he elaborates - a turning away from God. I wonder to myself which is worse: a godless America, or one called back to their faith by a man who worships a mistaken identity of God? He calls those who worship the true God along with him.

Consider: Beck is doing what the Church cannot do. He is a secular figure that calls to the faithful. His message has struck a nerve in this nation. A nerve shared by all who see the evil creeping into our culture. In an attempt to marginalize him and thus, his message, many claim that he is condemning the corporal works of mercy. I think not. He has clearly labeled what he is opposed to: radical, secular, Marxist, socialist means of wealth redistribution under the guise of helping the poor. Never mind the theory. Show one example, anywhere, that this has worked in practice. It always leads to bloodshed, as it is opposed to the longings of the human heart. All forms of collectivism have been condemned by the Church, no matter the “good” they claim to do.

There is a lot of leftist political ideology that has infiltrated the Church in past decades, and that disobedient wing of the Church is tearing at the fabric of orthodoxy. Their hearts may be in the right place, but their prudential judgment capabilities are found wanting.

 

[Teelynn]

She is not my first or my tenth choice to be the Republican’s nominee. But if it falls to a choice between her and Obama, I will support her without hesitation.

I would as well. Without a blink of an eye. She has the strong moral values that I believe in, and that are in line with Catholic teaching…culture of LIFE number one.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We cannot place conditions upon our love. Beck is distinctly controversial, and I do not like his hyperbolic and sensational style, but he is taking flak for standing up for his God, even though he may be mistaken in concept. Step back and look at the bigger picture: America is suffering exactly for the reasons that he elaborates - a turning away from God. I wonder to myself which is worse: a godless America, or one called back to their faith by a man who worships a mistaken identity of God? He calls those who worship the true God along with him.

Consider: Beck is doing what the Church cannot do. He is a secular figure that calls to the faithful. His message has struck a nerve in this nation. A nerve shared by all who see the evil creeping into our culture. In an attempt to marginalize him and thus, his message, many claim that he is condemning the corporal works of mercy. I think not. He has clearly labeled what he is opposed to: radical, secular, Marxist, socialist means of wealth redistribution under the guise of helping the poor. Never mind the theory. Show one example, anywhere, that this has worked in practice. It always leads to bloodshed, as it is opposed to the longings of the human heart. All forms of collectivism have been condemned by the Church, no matter the “good” they claim to do.

There is a lot of leftist political ideology that has infiltrated the Church in past decades, and that disobedient wing of the Church is tearing at the fabric of orthodoxy. Their hearts may be in the right place, but their prudential judgment capabilities are found wanting.

Sometimes a man’s character can best be judged by seeing who his worst enemies are.
When it comes to Beck, sure, some people find him off-putting because of his style. Some don’t like his religion. But his ideological opponents; the ones who castigate him the most, and the most viciously, are some of the most unappetizing people in this society.

 

[Darryl1958]

Which God? Beck is a Mormon, thus defines God in a way that is completely heretical.

Which form of religion, Christian or otherwise, is not blatantly heretical?

With over half of our fellow Catholics supporting abortion and the whole gamut of the culture of death, even Beck, such as he is theologically or personality wise, is a fair trade in terms of heresy.

 

[A_Fortiori_33]

You never seem to have time to defend why you think killing babies is something Jesus agreed with.

You just repeat “Read Matthew 25” “Read Matthew 25” like some robot.

That’s a low blow. I think it is way out of line, especially from a Christian.

 

[A_Fortiori_33]

Not often you see someone use these verses to justify abortion.

Don’t you love babies?

And again, another toxic statement saying the same thing. Do you know how hurtful these statements are?