H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
Probably not, as the Church was still young. But he did say it, didn’t he? Also, you pretty much ignored most of my post. I’m sure I was very logical and you just didn’t want to deal with it?
- Status
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
Wow Hoosier you are a posting machine.
LOL my friend. I was trying to catch up from yesterday and at the same time interact in the discussion going on now.
It pretty much comes down to the same thing between Catholics and Non-catholics if Sola Fide is expressed as Faith Alone, but including love for God and actions that prove our love of God.
Which is the same as faith working through love, it just is pretty much two ways of expressing almost the same thing.
I agree. I came to this conclusion too.
Where we can diverge greatly is the different applications of Faith Alone as it can lead to a mental assent which is just saying “Lord Lord”, which Catholics repudiate.
That is why many say the words “Faith Alone” are inadequate as they lead to confusion, even though they sound cool.
I totally agree with you. A mental assent alone is not saving faith. I understand the confusion Catholics feel when we say “faith alone”. See, I’m learning here.
I can affirm a “Faith Alone” understanding if it really isn’t faith alone but requiring faith that understands it as a living faith with love for God evidenced by our works.
Some Catholics would object that as a contradiction but if faith is defined in that way then it really isn’t it just is a different understanding of the word “Faith”
This would be an understanding of the word “Faith” as one that encompasses more.
See in my eyes, you are still describing faith alone. The love for God and the good works can ONLY come as a result of having faith. And coupling that with many verses in Scripture (I’ll go with John 3:16 here), I come to the conclusion that we are saved by faith alone and this faith produces good works and love for God. It is still salvation by faith alone and meets the biblical qualifications for faith.
A Catholic specifies each part of a living Faith to specify we need to love God and evidence that in our lives, or else it is just a mental assent.
“Faith working through love” Galatians 5: 6
Doesn’t sound as good as Faith Alone but more accurate in my opinion.
I hear ya. See above.
After that is cleared up we can talk about free will and God allowing us that free will to reject Him.
LOL I don’t even think I want to get into that. It’s been my experience that that issue REALLY causes dissention among Christians. Let’s not and say we did eh? haha
God bless you.
In Christ
Scylla
M
MrS
Guest
[1] In the book of numbers we see the story of Korah, and the followers of the man who assumed the ministerial duties of the OT Priesthood. Not only was it very wrong, it was condemmed by God, and the illegitimate “priests” and their followers where all slain…2500 I think.
In the NT we certainly acknowledge the only
One High Priest, Jesus Christ…
the priesthood of believers - those Christians who accept the whole Word of God as He delivered it, and under the design of the Church He founded…
and thirdly the continued existence of the special ministerial priesthood.
These priests…with authority only found in the Catholic Church… can carry out the commands of Christ (forgive sins, say Mass, etc).
It is sad that when Luther, Calvin etc left the one true Church, the years and denominations that followed them began to assume the duties of the ministerial priesthood.
If you read the book of Jude (short book:thumbsup: ) you will see the early Church ( and all Christians to follow) are warned NOT to assume those duties… or they too will reap the wrath of Korah.
Hoosier, your Calvinist/Baptist pastor may be a well meaning and kind and sincere man who loves the Lord. But he has no legitimate authority to feed sheep or to tend the flock.
[2] as for incense and candles etc… they were never and could never be Traditions. All Tradition (the oral teachings given to the Apostles by Christ ) was revealed before the death of the last Apostle John. There is no new Tradition. Much of these Traditions were eventually written down (under the Holy Spirit’s guidance)
Much of the early writings were rejected as false or doubtful.
The Canon of inspired scripture is the product of the living, visible Catholic Church… not the “body of believers”. It is a great asset of the Catholic Church… please use it wisely.
The Church, however, is free to exercise disiplines, and practices(traditions) as it sees fit. It is too often these traditions, or practices, which our separated brethren take offense to … like statues, like genuflection, like kneeling, like vestments etc.
.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
It in no way justifies denominations as Jesus prayed “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17:21 and other passages as well)
There is nothing in scripture that even implies the mess we have today.
The “unity” of Christianity that people talk about today is an ideal, but the reality is an n-C pipe dream.
Pax tecum,
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
Damascus>>There is no salvation outside of the Church and even non Catholics will be saved in some mysterious way through Christ and His Church. even by the backdoor.
**a) I’m sorry but this is false;
b) it is illogical.
a) Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me”. We are saved and put into the Church by Christ Himself (so that disproves Catholic doctrine) and we are KEPT by Christ Himself. So you see, we aren’t saved by the Church; we are saved by Christ. I hope we are just misunderstanding each other and you really don’t mean that because it is “another gospel”.
b) IF there is no salvation outside the Church, then us Protestants are most miserable and have no chance. How then can you say that non-Catholics will still be saved? Especially through a backdoor? There is no backdoor. The only door is Jesus Christ. **
**a) I’m sorry but this is false;
b) it is illogical.
a) Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me”. We are saved and put into the Church by Christ Himself (so that disproves Catholic doctrine) and we are KEPT by Christ Himself. So you see, we aren’t saved by the Church; we are saved by Christ. I hope we are just misunderstanding each other and you really don’t mean that because it is “another gospel”.
b) IF there is no salvation outside the Church, then us Protestants are most miserable and have no chance. How then can you say that non-Catholics will still be saved? Especially through a backdoor? There is no backdoor. The only door is Jesus Christ. **
M
mrs_abbott
Guest
Are you talking about the concept of Catholics and non-Catholics uniting?
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
[1] In the book of numbers we see the story of Korah, and the followers of the man who assumed the ministerial duties of the OT Priesthood. Not only was it very wrong, it was condemmed by God, and the illegitimate “priests” and their followers where all slain…2500 I think.
This was because a non-priest tried to enter the OT priesthood. Only Levites could do this. Since the NT teaches the priesthood of all believers, I can’t agree with you here. According to the NT there is no such thing as a Priest so it seems to me that the RCC “priests” are the ones committing the sin of Korah. What do you think?
In the NT we certainly acknowledge the only
One High Priest, Jesus Christ…
the priesthood of believers - those Christians who accept the whole Word of God as He delivered it, and under the design of the Church He founded…
and thirdly the continued existence of the special ministerial priesthood.
I disagree with point three. See above. As for number two, you should have stopped at accepting the whole Word of God as delivered by the Apostles. The later leaders of your Church could have gotten things wrong just as much as any Protestant because I don’t believe in apostolic succession.
These priests…with authority only found in the Catholic Church… can carry out the commands of Christ (forgive sins, say Mass, etc).
I’m sorry, I disagree. Church leaders have the responsibility to preach to the believers and conduct the Lord’s Supper but as far as them being Priests, that is not Scriptural. How can you believe that Protestant ministers are the “false priests” of Korah, when your Church is the one with an ecclesiastical “priesthood” which directly contradicts the priesthood of all believers? I’mthere.
It is sad that when Luther, Calvin etc left the one true Church, the years and denominations that followed them began to assume the duties of the ministerial priesthood.
There is no ministerial priesthood though. Even Ephesians 4 which Mike used in our discussion never mentions priests. The only biblical priests were the Levitical priests and now that we are in the NT, we all have access ourselves to the Lord and we are a holy nation, a royal priesthood, etc. Luther and Calvin tried to fix the Church. They never would have left if the stubborn and mistaken leaders would have humbled themselves and listened to the Holy Spirit in the work He was doing through Luther and Calvin.
If you read the book of Jude (short book:thumbsup: ) you will see the early Church ( and all Christians to follow) are warned NOT to assume those duties… or they too will reap the wrath of Korah.
**This has to mean something else though. We’ve already seen that there is no such thing as an ecclesiastical priest today. **
Hoosier, your Calvinist/Baptist pastor may be a well meaning and kind and sincere man who loves the Lord. But he has no legitimate authority to feed sheep or to tend the flock.
**Friend, this is as offensive to me as it would be for me to say to you that the pope is the anti-christ. **
I just deleted the rest of your post to leave enough room and because you didn’t really say anything I wanted to take issue with. God bless.
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
MIke>>It in no way justifies denominations as Jesus prayed “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17:21 and other passages as well)
There is nothing in scripture that even implies the mess we have today.
The “unity” of Christianity that people talk about today is an ideal, but the reality is an n-C pipe dream.
**Then what DOES “we see through a glass darkly” imply? Since we (Protestants) are Christians and we were put into the Church by Christ Himself and He KEEPS us then wouldn’t the blame for us not being one be put upon the Catholic Church? After all, the Reformers tried to “reform” the Church. To get it back to the way that it was. This obviously means they had drifted away from what it was at the beginning right (since the Catholic Church goes all the way back to the apostles)
? So when will your Church smarten up, get back to the Bible, and consider us full members of Christ’s Church, which Christ has put us into and has promised to KEEP us?
I agree that the unity that some people talk about today is a farce. The unity we are supposed to have is in Christ. If you believe in salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, then you are my brother and we are united in Christ. Since your Church contradicts this truth, it seems to me that your Church is the one that truly does not want unity. Am I on to something here?**
There is nothing in scripture that even implies the mess we have today.
The “unity” of Christianity that people talk about today is an ideal, but the reality is an n-C pipe dream.
**Then what DOES “we see through a glass darkly” imply? Since we (Protestants) are Christians and we were put into the Church by Christ Himself and He KEEPS us then wouldn’t the blame for us not being one be put upon the Catholic Church? After all, the Reformers tried to “reform” the Church. To get it back to the way that it was. This obviously means they had drifted away from what it was at the beginning right (since the Catholic Church goes all the way back to the apostles)
? So when will your Church smarten up, get back to the Bible, and consider us full members of Christ’s Church, which Christ has put us into and has promised to KEEP us?I agree that the unity that some people talk about today is a farce. The unity we are supposed to have is in Christ. If you believe in salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, then you are my brother and we are united in Christ. Since your Church contradicts this truth, it seems to me that your Church is the one that truly does not want unity. Am I on to something here?**
S
scylla
Guest
I would agree, I am describing a correct understanding of “Faith Alone”, except that I would object that good works can be done by people without faith, it just doesn’t matter since they have no faith. I am not sure you meant that just want to point that out, real quick.
I can try and earn my way into heaven but no matter how much I do, it counts for nothing, heck I might as well be a clanging bell as the Paul says. So I have done good works but it doesn’t matter since Jesus is who matters.
So we can do works, without faith but it is useless.
Faith without works also is useless. So “Faith Alone” is inadequate as it directly is contradicted by Scripture if understood as the Bible understands those particular words.
Do you see the need for the clear definition or better rejection and replacement of “Faith Alone” I understand what you mean, but it without that understanding that you clarify it with, then it can just mean exactly what James 2:24 rejects.
I just can’t think of anything catchier than “Faith Alone” as it sounds very nice. I am sure others have tried but that is why it sticks.
God Bless
Scylla
M
mikeledes
Guest
Hoosierdaddy, take a chill pill man! 
I was not questioning your honesty or sincerity. I was just pointing out an apparent inconsisteny.
The teaching authority was established by God to interpret His Word (Both Scripture and Tradition). We can be sure this teaching authority will not fall into heresy or doctrinal error en masse because Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. The only way to justify the Protestant reformation is to claim that the Church en masse fell into heresy. Remember, Catholicism came before Protestantism. But if this happened, then Christ did not keep his promise.
The point of Ephesians 4 was that God gave us teachers so that we can be taught the correct interpretation of His Word and not be led astray by alternative teachings and heresy. If God established teachers to protect us from heretical interpretations of His Word, then He will ensure that this teaching authority will not fall into heresy. Otherwise, the whole point of establishing it (i.e. to protect us from doctrinal error) would be pointless. Its like giving you a vaccine designed to protect you from a certain disease, but you get sick anyway. What was the point of the vaccine?
God Bless,
Michael
I was not questioning your honesty or sincerity. I was just pointing out an apparent inconsisteny.The teaching authority was established by God to interpret His Word (Both Scripture and Tradition). We can be sure this teaching authority will not fall into heresy or doctrinal error en masse because Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. The only way to justify the Protestant reformation is to claim that the Church en masse fell into heresy. Remember, Catholicism came before Protestantism. But if this happened, then Christ did not keep his promise.
The point of Ephesians 4 was that God gave us teachers so that we can be taught the correct interpretation of His Word and not be led astray by alternative teachings and heresy. If God established teachers to protect us from heretical interpretations of His Word, then He will ensure that this teaching authority will not fall into heresy. Otherwise, the whole point of establishing it (i.e. to protect us from doctrinal error) would be pointless. Its like giving you a vaccine designed to protect you from a certain disease, but you get sick anyway. What was the point of the vaccine?
God Bless,
Michael
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
Scylla, good points.
I don’t believe that an unbeliever can do good works though. They would consider them to be good works but Scripture says that all our good works are as filthy rags. Apart from the Holy Spirit working within us we cannot do good works. So really the good works we do are the Holy Spirit doing them within us. The Holy Spirit is doing this because we are saved. And we are saved by faith. Good points you made though.
For the others that try to say that SS is disproven because of the many different beliefs that Protestants come to, let me show you this from spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part1
Consider if this can be the case:
I don’t believe that an unbeliever can do good works though. They would consider them to be good works but Scripture says that all our good works are as filthy rags. Apart from the Holy Spirit working within us we cannot do good works. So really the good works we do are the Holy Spirit doing them within us. The Holy Spirit is doing this because we are saved. And we are saved by faith. Good points you made though.
For the others that try to say that SS is disproven because of the many different beliefs that Protestants come to, let me show you this from spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part1
Consider if this can be the case:
- All things in scripture are not equally plain in themselves, nor equally clear to everyone, yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and revealed in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the educated but also the uneducated may attain a sufficient understanding of them by the due use of ordinary means.
M
MrS
Guest
if anyone can be a priest…
and there is no need for legitimate authority…
you may as well also scrap your bible and do it all yourself.
Perhaps you can refine the word presbyter
Perhaps you can discount the description of the early Church with its priests, deacons, and Bishops… each a distinct office.
And the similarity today is the point I was trying to make… a “non-priest” can be found in all the faith communities outside the Catholic Church.
So the question becomes (if you do not see the priesthood in the NT)…
“Where do you find support for your statement” :
According to the NT there is no such thing as a Priest so it seems to me that the RCC “priests” are the ones committing the sin of Korah. What do you think?
now, if your statement :
I disagree with point three. See above. As for number two, you should have stopped at accepting the whole Word of God as delivered by the Apostles. The later leaders of your Church could have gotten things wrong just as much as any Protestant because I don’t believe in apostolic succession.
is worth accepting as good advice… we again must reject all the written word which followed… and rely only on the Tradition of the early Church.
and there is no need for legitimate authority…
you may as well also scrap your bible and do it all yourself.
Perhaps you can refine the word presbyter
Perhaps you can discount the description of the early Church with its priests, deacons, and Bishops… each a distinct office.
And the similarity today is the point I was trying to make… a “non-priest” can be found in all the faith communities outside the Catholic Church.
So the question becomes (if you do not see the priesthood in the NT)…
“Where do you find support for your statement” :
According to the NT there is no such thing as a Priest so it seems to me that the RCC “priests” are the ones committing the sin of Korah. What do you think?
now, if your statement :
I disagree with point three. See above. As for number two, you should have stopped at accepting the whole Word of God as delivered by the Apostles. The later leaders of your Church could have gotten things wrong just as much as any Protestant because I don’t believe in apostolic succession.
is worth accepting as good advice… we again must reject all the written word which followed… and rely only on the Tradition of the early Church.
M
MrS
Guest
You are absolutely correct… the reformers had MANY legitimate concerns. However, they did not choose to stay and “fight the good fight”. They succumbed to pride and frustration… and left the Church… hardly a foundation for unity.MIke>>It in no way justifies denominations as Jesus prayed “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17:21 and other passages as well)
There is nothing in scripture that even implies the mess we have today.
The “unity” of Christianity that people talk about today is an ideal, but the reality is an n-C pipe dream.
Then what DOES “we see through a glass darkly” imply? Since we (Protestants) are Christians and we were put into the Church by Christ Himself and He KEEPS us then wouldn’t the blame for us not being one be put upon the Catholic Church? After all, the Reformers tried to “reform” the Church. To get it back to the way that it was. This obviously means they had drifted away from what it was at the beginning right (since the Catholic Church goes all the way back to the apostles)
I agree that the unity that some people talk about today is a farce. The unity we are supposed to have is in Christ. If you believe in salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, then you are my brother and we are united in Christ. Since your Church contradicts this truth, it seems to me that your Church is the one that truly does not want unity. Am I on to something here?
.
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
I’m sorry Mike. I hope you see now that I’m not inconsistent. At least, I don’t think I am.Hoosierdaddy, take a chill pill man!
The teaching authority was established by God to interpret His Word (Both Scripture and Tradition). We can be sure this teaching authority will not fall into heresy or doctrinal error en masse because Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. The only way to justify the Protestant reformation is to claim that the Church en masse fell into heresy. Remember, Catholicism came before Protestantism. But if this happened, then Christ did not keep his promise.
The point of Ephesians 4 was that God gave us teachers so that we can be taught the correct interpretation of His Word and not be led astray by alternative teachings and heresy. If God established teachers to protect us from heretical interpretations of His Word, then He will ensure that this teaching authority will not fall into heresy. Otherwise, the whole point of establishing it (i.e. to protect us from doctrinal error) would be pointless. Its like giving you a vaccine designed to protect you from a certain disease, but you get sick anyway. What was the point of the vaccine?
God Bless,
Michael
I believe the teaching authority was established to teach God’s Word. Anything He wanted us to learn, He took the time to have written down in the few thousand years of Scripture. Exactly, the Catholic Church came into heresy, hence the need for the Reformation. If us Protestants are not members of Christ’s Church who He says He added us into and promises to keep us, then He lied.
LOL I don’t understand the point of the vaccine either.
I do believe though that God gave Scripture to protect us and the teachers have to teach from it faithfully. That is a solemn and serious responsibility so they should be teaching what is established and absolute truth and that is the thing that we both agree on; Scripture. We just disagree on the added Tradition.Will God ensure that the teachers in His Church will not teach heresy? The Bible says that the devil is angel of light. The devil is apparently going to do whatever he can to harm the Church. God even says that there will be false teachers in His Church that lead others astray. This can’t be Protestants because we are not in the Catholic Church and certainly don’t hold teaching positions in the Catholic Church. It has to be false teachers within the Catholic Church, teaching false doctrines from Tradition instead of sticking to the pure Word of God which alone is able to lead one to the salvation of their souls, to the Saviour, Jesus Christ.
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
Mr. S>>You are absolutely correct… the reformers had MANY legitimate concerns. However, they did not choose to stay and “fight the good fight”. They succumbed to pride and frustration… and left the Church… hardly a foundation for unity.
**I’ll just address this post for now.
Thank you. I believe that Luther tried for years to fight the good fight, however, the Catholic Church wanted nothing to do with it and eventually kicked him out. The CC wouldn’t listen, they wouldn’t humble themselves, and they wouldn’t repent of all that they needed to repent of. Is THAT a good foundation for unity on the part of the Catholic Church?**
**I’ll just address this post for now.
Thank you. I believe that Luther tried for years to fight the good fight, however, the Catholic Church wanted nothing to do with it and eventually kicked him out. The CC wouldn’t listen, they wouldn’t humble themselves, and they wouldn’t repent of all that they needed to repent of. Is THAT a good foundation for unity on the part of the Catholic Church?**
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Show me in that passage where it says that one should ever serperate from the church. You can’t because it’s flat out not there Brian.
But what does the Word of God really say about those who left the church? 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. (1st John 2)
No it would not. There is nothing whatever in the Word of God that suggests that one ever seperate himself from the church. Note the passage cited above. This whole “reformation” thing is the result of rebellion and lack of commitment to Christ and His church. Go back and read the arrogant things that Luther and the rest said. Things like, “I will it to be so” and “papists and asses are one and the same”. Does that sound like the heart of one who is firstly committed to Christ and then to His church. I don’t think so. And that same lousy attitude is still prevelent today. I don’t like some teaching that my pastor spouts from the pulpit…I go shopping for a new church instead of working to fix ithe problem. Is it any wonder that there are thousands of N-C denoms all over the place? They’re like convenience stores… one on every corner!
This is not true…you need to learn your Christian history. Simony may have been happening where Luther was, but it was far from as prevelent as modern revisionists like to allege.After all, the Reformers tried to “reform” the Church. To get it back to the way that it was. This obviously means they had drifted away from what it was at the beginning right (since the Catholic Church goes all the way back to the apostles)
The other doctrines…primarily Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are unbiblical errors that those same arrogant individuals concocted from their personal and fallible interpretations and the rest that we have today are trickle down effect from that.
I say that the “reformers” departed from the truth or else I would not be Catholic.
Won’t happen…firstly because it is those outside of the Catholic Church who need to “smarten up, get back to the Bible” and come home. My fellow Catholics and I have already shown you several times that the beliefs that you hold are unbiblical and were never believed by the early church. It is God’s grace that you have found Christ at all, but if you believe there in such a thing as absolute truth then you will continue seeking until the Holy Spirit guides into all truth. I submit that you will be highly torqued off when that occyurs that you were decieved for so long. I am.
Am I on to something here?Only on a rant perhaps…
The Catholic Church teaches a Biblically correct way of salvation…most n-C churches teach what I call “Christianity Lite” with passages ignored or twisted to appeal to those who want something easier (or God Forbid! less Catholic!) than what the Word of God actually teaches.
Want unity? Sure we do! Right after you all come home to the faith. I wouldn’t say that if I wasn’t 100% sure and convinced heart and soul mind and body that the Catholic Church is the original New Testament (“Full Gospel”) church. All those outside of Catholicism are working with bits and pieces and I will never again buy into that. (My testimony)
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
M
MrS
Guest
At the time of Luther, we had one of the worst Popes in the history of the church… a man/sinner more concerned with art, and material things, than in safeguarding the Fullness of the Faith.
However,… nothing…nothing… the Church was doing wrong was the Church… it was the people in it.
The Church is the Bride of Christ… and is perfect. It is the people in it who are not perfect. Luther found fault with the people in the Church… and it was mostly right. However… he left the Church founded by Jesus Himself. He ignored the promise that this ONE Church would never apostocize (gates of hell prevailing).
It seems like about every 500 years my Church faces a great crisis. In this case it was the divorce of the reformers leaving the Church. And 8 million or so followed.
God, in His Mercy, however gave us a great miracle at the same time in Guadalupe… as nearly 9 million converted into Catholocism.
It may be difficult… but try to distinguish between the Church - the visible, living entity begun by Christ… and some Church leaders.
As for your pastor… I do not demean him, the man. I reject his self induced authority.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Only if one wishes to make excuses for the lack of consistent teaching that has fallen on n-C Christianity in the last 500 years.
Jesus said, by their fruits you will know them, right?
Well has SS and SF led to greater unity or even consistency of belief? No it has not! Not even close.
From church to church even among a single denom you find variances of teaching and belief and all of it purported to be scripture enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
The fact is that that is manifestly not the case.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
R
rr1213
Guest
I have never found this particular Catholic argument convincing. Everyone in the Church can, and does, sin to a greater or lesser degree, but the Church is perfect. It’s as if the President and his Cabinet and Congress and the Supreme Court all violate the law and act outside of their authority, yet the government is not acting badly just the people in it who compose it. And, anticipating the common rejoinder by our Catholic friends, I’m afraid that you see this attitude among Catholics on these boards–that the Church can do no wrong-- even when the subject under discussion lies outside of the definition of doctrine, faith or morals.
- Status