Suzy writes: "For many, that means returning to a time before the Second Vatican Council, which, among many changes, expressly disavowed any theological basis for antisemitism. The conference attendees probably don’t believe the Jews are Christ-killers, but they do crave a more authentic Church, one that hasn’t forgotten itself."
Suzy writes: "For many, that means returning to a time before the Second Vatican Council, which, among many changes, expressly disavowed any theological basis for antisemitism. The conference attendees probably don’t believe the Jews are Christ-killers, but they do crave a more authentic Church, one that hasn’t forgotten itself."
"Probably???" Why the hell did Suzy feel the need to introduce this sort of snarky, back handed insinuation of anti-Semitism about a group of well meaning people who are trying to steer their church away from the leftist claptrap that masquerades as "religion" nowadays. My own local Episcopal church might as well be a DNC boot camp; it's just that leftist. I am increasingly bothered and annoyed by the elitist, urban snark that finds its way into the Free Press's writings about decent Americans from our Heartland trying to find meaning and social cohesion in these lunatic times. Just please stop and self-reflect.
She made all kinds of unnecessary judgement statements, mostly about politics, but she and Bari are "Jewish" and never let an opportunity go by without being overly sensitive to any perceived slight towards Jews. Of all the changes in Vatican II, which were MANY, she focused on one. "Antisemitism" is a euphemistic "cancel culture" slur used against anyone who dares to criticize anything or anyone Jewish, deserved or not, and especially when Jewishness was not even a part of the conversation. Their overt knee jerk is all over every article they write, as is their far-left politics. I usually skip over any article she or Bari writes, but as a former Catholic, I wanted to read this one. It's a great topic. Too bad she had to tinge her writing with her loathing for the Catholic church throughout the entire essay. Just pathetic.
Bruce, I guess ‘probably’ in 21st century journalism isn’t the same probably that we grew up with. Probably is now an all encompassing term that increasingly means, well, probably nothing. Let’s see what Suzy could have come up with instead. She probably meant the following:
Definitely
Most Probably
Most Most Probably
For Sure
Absolutely
Absolutely Probably
(don’t say probably at all)
(looking for a better word that’s much stronger than probably but my journalism school thesaurus isn’t helping me)
Anyway, I think I’m probably drunk on my third beer, so I’ll give this up while I’m behind..
There sure are countless so-called "evangelical" churches to choose from. And they don't all follow the same Bible. As a result, each member is his own final authority, rendering the term "Bible-based" an often flimsy reed.
You are incorrect in your claim. They all have the same bible but find emphasis in the different themes. The core faith of Christian churches is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" anything else if just like home furnishings in a house. A picture here, a shelf of knick-knacks there, window coverings, etc. It is when they begin their focus on the extraneous that they run into trouble.
But isn't that the same as our various political parties and groups? Each claim that they are a representative democratic group, but they all seek to limit the power of each other.
You can't separate human nature from any movement or idea. It will always alter the outcome of whatever they propose because at heart they have all bought into self-interest.
> The core faith of Christian churches is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism"
Do you mean just within the scope of evangelical churches? Because this is untrue of Christianity in general. Just on the subject of baptism, you'll have many different opinions.
Quakers do not baptize. They take Matthew 3:11 to mean that baptism with water is no longer necessary, and interpret baptism with the Holy Spirit to mean standing up and saying a teaching or encouraging word during meeting.
For another example, if you convert to (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity from Catholicism you must not be baptized (one saint wrote that re-baptism is the re-crucifixion of Christ). However, if you convert from Protestantism, you may need to be baptized, because you were not baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. There's also debate about corrective baptism for those who were merely Christmated. (I am not an Orthodox, so I may have gotten some of that wrong).
Agreed. Vatican II was a vast and sweeping change; the disavowal of antisemitism, while courageous and wonderful, was only one component of it. And while there were surely dissidents at the time, most Catholics have lived quite happily for the last several decades with its changes. Vatican II is not what these people are protesting.
The Episcopal Church is sophisticated, a quality that this lapsed Catholic girl appreciates. Of course, they're not as cool as the Unitarian Church, who married me to the love of my life, a Jew.
Our local Episcopal Church now has a Cross of St. George Flag (formerly the flag of England - red cross on a white ground) flying above a rainbow flag with a triangle and rainbow stripes coming off of the triangle in the US. What in the world does that mean? Are they claiming it for England?
Suzy writes: "For many, that means returning to a time before the Second Vatican Council, which, among many changes, expressly disavowed any theological basis for antisemitism. The conference attendees probably don’t believe the Jews are Christ-killers, but they do crave a more authentic Church, one that hasn’t forgotten itself."
"Probably???" Why the hell did Suzy feel the need to introduce this sort of snarky, back handed insinuation of anti-Semitism about a group of well meaning people who are trying to steer their church away from the leftist claptrap that masquerades as "religion" nowadays. My own local Episcopal church might as well be a DNC boot camp; it's just that leftist. I am increasingly bothered and annoyed by the elitist, urban snark that finds its way into the Free Press's writings about decent Americans from our Heartland trying to find meaning and social cohesion in these lunatic times. Just please stop and self-reflect.
💯
I saw that too. Unnecessary and unprofessional dig.
She made all kinds of unnecessary judgement statements, mostly about politics, but she and Bari are "Jewish" and never let an opportunity go by without being overly sensitive to any perceived slight towards Jews. Of all the changes in Vatican II, which were MANY, she focused on one. "Antisemitism" is a euphemistic "cancel culture" slur used against anyone who dares to criticize anything or anyone Jewish, deserved or not, and especially when Jewishness was not even a part of the conversation. Their overt knee jerk is all over every article they write, as is their far-left politics. I usually skip over any article she or Bari writes, but as a former Catholic, I wanted to read this one. It's a great topic. Too bad she had to tinge her writing with her loathing for the Catholic church throughout the entire essay. Just pathetic.
I grew up going to the Episcopal church. Now, it is unrecognizable. Haven’t found an alternative. So now, it is the church of beauty and nature.
Find a church LL, we flourish as Christians in community with the family of faith.
Bruce, I guess ‘probably’ in 21st century journalism isn’t the same probably that we grew up with. Probably is now an all encompassing term that increasingly means, well, probably nothing. Let’s see what Suzy could have come up with instead. She probably meant the following:
Definitely
Most Probably
Most Most Probably
For Sure
Absolutely
Absolutely Probably
(don’t say probably at all)
(looking for a better word that’s much stronger than probably but my journalism school thesaurus isn’t helping me)
Anyway, I think I’m probably drunk on my third beer, so I’ll give this up while I’m behind..
Probably.
For Suzy and her ilk, anti-Catholicism remains the only socially acceptable bigotry.
That's just a nasty thing to say.
Ridiculous.
"Decent Americans from our Heartland"
Lol....and others are "elitist?"
But some of the confrence attendees "probably," don't, Bruce.
Nothing wrong with that.
Like saying the massive support for Israel by white evangelicals is "probably" based on End Times Prophecy.
Maybe try an Evangelical church. Bible focused.
There sure are countless so-called "evangelical" churches to choose from. And they don't all follow the same Bible. As a result, each member is his own final authority, rendering the term "Bible-based" an often flimsy reed.
"And they don't all follow the same Bible."
You are incorrect in your claim. They all have the same bible but find emphasis in the different themes. The core faith of Christian churches is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" anything else if just like home furnishings in a house. A picture here, a shelf of knick-knacks there, window coverings, etc. It is when they begin their focus on the extraneous that they run into trouble.
But isn't that the same as our various political parties and groups? Each claim that they are a representative democratic group, but they all seek to limit the power of each other.
You can't separate human nature from any movement or idea. It will always alter the outcome of whatever they propose because at heart they have all bought into self-interest.
> The core faith of Christian churches is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism"
Do you mean just within the scope of evangelical churches? Because this is untrue of Christianity in general. Just on the subject of baptism, you'll have many different opinions.
Quakers do not baptize. They take Matthew 3:11 to mean that baptism with water is no longer necessary, and interpret baptism with the Holy Spirit to mean standing up and saying a teaching or encouraging word during meeting.
For another example, if you convert to (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity from Catholicism you must not be baptized (one saint wrote that re-baptism is the re-crucifixion of Christ). However, if you convert from Protestantism, you may need to be baptized, because you were not baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. There's also debate about corrective baptism for those who were merely Christmated. (I am not an Orthodox, so I may have gotten some of that wrong).
Prefer the Church that existed since Christ and actually compiled the Bible.
Which one? There are a several churches that can claim that, most notably, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy.
I know someone associated with an Anglican communion based in Africa that is evangelical. He and his family are located in CO.
So the Coptic Orthodox Church?
No.
Agreed. Vatican II was a vast and sweeping change; the disavowal of antisemitism, while courageous and wonderful, was only one component of it. And while there were surely dissidents at the time, most Catholics have lived quite happily for the last several decades with its changes. Vatican II is not what these people are protesting.
Yes!!!
The Episcopal Church is sophisticated, a quality that this lapsed Catholic girl appreciates. Of course, they're not as cool as the Unitarian Church, who married me to the love of my life, a Jew.
Our local Episcopal Church now has a Cross of St. George Flag (formerly the flag of England - red cross on a white ground) flying above a rainbow flag with a triangle and rainbow stripes coming off of the triangle in the US. What in the world does that mean? Are they claiming it for England?