That was the week - that was

[JMS 0]

I don't think many people who worry about these things are all that interested in their respective faiths, tbh. If you sing Hello Hello or whatever the Timmy comparison is you're probably equally in transgression of God's Law, the principal difference being whether you say sorry directly or via a priest. The question is really political, as it always is, and about whether the nominal protestants or the nominal catholics get positions of power. Historically speaking, to be complacent about increasing RCC political power/influence is extremely unwise. However, that's not really a question of the Protestant faith but rather an expression of the political right to religious freedom won by the Reformers.

 

In truth, the protestant Christian position'd be to pray for the salvation of the Catholics, and convert them away from popes and priests and rosary beads through genuine compassion, service and humility, by offering them salvation not through a man or a church but through the resurrected and living christ, rather than hate them personally. Any challening them must be motivated by love for it to be truly a matter of protestant faith. The difference between what we're seeing now and Reformation times was that Christians were denied the right even to preach this gospel of love and obedience to God through christ alone, and so the political reconfiguration followed this conviction as religiously essential. What 'protestants' now want is not the right to preach this gospel, but rather to protect all the political and freedoms from the RC church that came from the desire to preach it. Whatever we're discussing here, it's not the protestant faith, which is supposed to be Christlike, but rather the ability not to be reigned over by the influence of the RCC. This isn't a matter of the protestant faith, but it is bloody important.

 

That's at least how I see as someone who was formerly entirely and thoroughly Calvinistic Reformed Protestant Christian.

 

Can't quite see how Hello Hello got in there, can agree somewhat with your post and follow your factual take on things.

Are we going back to the stage where we must take a stance against the roman church.

[bmck 117]

Can't quite see how Hello Hello got in there, can agree somewhat with your post and follow your factual take on things.

Are we going back to the stage where we must take a stance against the roman church.

 

I only meant with Hello Hello that any form of celebration of even terrorist death would probably, in the strictest sense, be sinful for both religious protestants and catholics. Certainly not that I'd have a conscience singing it myself

 

I think we are not so much going back to the stage where we need to be prepared to take a stance against the RCC, but are essentially always already there. Ignoring matters of genuine faith for a second, and their beliefs, or individual catholics, the RCC are a very big and very powerful organisation. For them there is no difference between furthering the interests of the Church and doing God's work because doing God's work can't be divorced from the increasing influence of The Church into all areas of life, which God has granted it sovereignty. For protestants the church is something 'invisible', made up of people who truly believe that Christ has taken away man's sin individually and makes him presentable to God. God's sovereignty is over each person individually. But for Catholics it is only through the Church that salvation can come, not just for persons, but for societies and the world and because they're based on a strict top-down approach to authority, they are also extremely efficient at adapting to all situations, and are always in the pursuit of increasing their influence. In emerging powerful countries in Latin America it will be hard to be a succesful politician without the RCC's backing, and hence influence, just like it is to a lesser degree here if you're a politician, or want a job of power in the GCC etc. In areas where they don't have lots of influence like, say, the British parliament, then they'll adapt to, say, "ensuring their right to practice their faith" as the best means of furthering the influence of the Church. They adapt to any and all situations and do so with a view to taking the most advantageous stance in furthering their influence. For protestants being a good Christian involves things like evangelism and prayer, as the Church is not an actual organisation you can point at or touch; it's a spiritual collection of those saved by Christ. For catholics, being a good catholic means using whatever resources are available to you to further the Church. If you're an academic, journalist, or politician you'll be sure that to some degree your own personal interests will be, insofar as its possible, adapted to the Church's. Academics will study the traumatic effects on women of abortion, journalists will report on catholic persecution, politicians will do whatever's possible within the current political climate to pursue the church's interests without costing votes.

 

I'm not saying their intentions are always bad, or always wrong, but the point is that if you're not Catholic, and don't want them to have more influence for whatever reason - whether it's because, as a member of the protestant faith, you think they're essentially idolatorous and substitute worship of man for worship of God, or if you're not religious, just because just because you don't want religious folk running countries, or because your a woman and don't want restrictions on abortion, you always have to take a stance because you can be sure whereever there's a Catholic in any position of power, they'll already be making theirs.

 

All the usual caveats included - most individual catholics, just average ones, don't share this sense of increasing influence. They just live out their life tryign to be good catholics - some of the most genuine and thorough kindness I've received has been through catholics just trying to be good catholics. But for practicing Catholics what it means to actually be a good catholic involves good works, and those good works rarely come divorced from the larger aims of the Church, as they are managed so well from the top down. For a Catholic with little, the demands you'll get from your priest is to try and share what little you have. For a Catholic with a peerage, the demands you'll get from your priest may be a little bit more worrying for those of us who don't share that priests preoccupations.

 

Feck me, can't believe I wrote that much, I need to go get back on with work!

[Guest PTB]

Absolutely spot on bmck and almost what I was trying to say when I mentioned the little wimmen scuttling to chapel every day. There are(at least) two types of RC's in this country.

 

Cardinal Thomas Winning once said that Glasgow will be a 'Catholic City' within 50 years of his death.

 

Well he died in 2001.

 

What exactly did he mean by that phrase?

 

Did he mean that all non RC's would be obliterated or 'ethnically cleansed'?

 

No - I doubt it.

 

I suspect he meant that RC's would have control and influence over all the major institutions like the council, education, the police, the banks (Lloyds?) the press, the BBC etc etc.

 

Now why on earth would they want control and influence over Glasgow and where does that leave ordinary law abiding non-RC's? The mind boggles, maybe Danny could enlighten us.

 

Now lets not be complacent here.

 

I can hear people asking what this all has to do with Rangers.

 

Well one of the biggest perceived non RC institutions in Glasgow is Rangers FC, whether we or anyone else (including Danny) like it or not.

 

Wikipedia says "The club have traditionally been identified with and favoured by the Protestant and Unionist community of Scotland, as well as the Unionist community in Northern Ireland."

 

Now heres the rub - For Mr Winnings 'vision' of a catholic city to become reality which institution do you think they might find the most difficulty infiltrating and controlling.

 

Correct - Rangers FC

 

Its highly unlikely they will ever be able to infiltrate and control Rangers so instead they will need to discredit and destroy us.

 

And that is what we are seeing now with the daily, weekly and monthly drip drip drip of anti Rangers propoganda, many of it at a low level but its there nevertheless.

 

Its your choice now Bears, we either roll over and have our bellies scratched by the RC machine or we make a stand and say enough is enough.

 

They already have control of most of the institutions listed above, a line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere.

 

Vanguard Bears are the first line of defence but we all should play our part in defending what is dear to us - for the sake of our forefathers.

 

No surrender.

Edited October 8, 2010 by PTB

[maineflyer 0]

I don't think many people who worry about these things are all that interested in their respective faiths, tbh. If you sing Hello Hello or whatever the Timmy comparison is you're probably equally in transgression of God's Law, the principal difference being whether you say sorry directly or via a priest. The question is really political, as it always is, and about whether the nominal protestants or the nominal catholics get positions of power. Historically speaking, to be complacent about increasing RCC political power/influence is extremely unwise. However, that's not really a question of the Protestant faith but rather an expression of the political right to religious freedom won by the Reformers.

 

In truth, the protestant Christian position'd be to pray for the salvation of the Catholics, and convert them away from popes and priests and rosary beads through genuine compassion, service and humility, by offering them salvation not through a man or a church but through the resurrected and living christ, rather than hate them personally. Any challening them must be motivated by love for it to be truly a matter of protestant faith. The difference between what we're seeing now and Reformation times was that Christians were denied the right even to preach this gospel of love and obedience to God through christ alone, and so the political reconfiguration followed this conviction as religiously essential. What 'protestants' now want is not the right to preach this gospel, but rather to protect all the political and freedoms from the RC church that came from the desire to preach it. Whatever we're discussing here, it's not the protestant faith, which is supposed to be Christlike, but rather the ability not to be reigned over by the influence of the RCC. This isn't a matter of the protestant faith, but it is bloody important.

 

That's at least how I see as someone who was formerly entirely and thoroughly Calvinistic Reformed Protestant Christian.

 

Wonderful post, thanks.

[Danny 0]

I don't think Danny understands the Protestant Faith in relation to the roman catholic church and it's religious history.

 

Not that this has a great deal to with anything, but I suspect I know as much about the Reformation and Luther as you do. Maybe more. Take it you know what indulgences were?

[Guest PTB]

Not that this has a great deal to with anything, but I suspect I know as much about the Reformation and Luther as you do. Maybe more. Take it you know what indulgences were?

 

 

 

Ice cream