Powered by TypePad

« Now He Tells Us | Main | Rand Paul And The Civil Rights Act »

May 20, 2010

Comments

peter

You know what? I think we should pull out of Afghanistan. We don't have an objective, or a plan, and we are slowly but surely losing some of our best.

Pagar

"we can only guess"
If the White House Embraces him - it is not a guess - it is an absolute certainty, he will do whatever the Obama Administration tells him to do.

Thomas Collins

My family purchased a Wall Street Journal subscription for me for my birthday. I was told the choice was between the WSJ and the NY Times. I'd say my family made the correct choice.

narciso

Looking back at the wiki, Sestak routed Weldon, who was a known defense hawk on Iran
and other issues like missile defense, shortly
after one of those DOJ indictments which really hasn't gone anywhere in nearly four years, shades of Ted Stevens

patch

"...Admiral Sestak led a Navy group off of Afghanistan a few years back. "

How is that possible, when Afghanistan is landlocked?

Clarice

Didn't I read Sestak had been demoted? If so, Leading a Navy group off landlocked Afghanistan might explain why.


Sestak's biggest problem is he claimed Obama tried to bribe him to not run against Specter and now refuses to answer questions about that.either he implicates Obama or he looks like a liar.

Captain Hate

Yeah how does Bammy come out looking good by embracing somebody he actively campaigned against? Gracious? BWAK lollers.

Pagar

He is a Democrat, what do you expect him to look like?

Danube of Thought

From an RCP column last June:

Sestak is considered smart - but also intense and stubborn. He graduated from Annapolis and earned two advanced degrees from Harvard. He served in the Navy for 31 years, including as the first director of "Deep Blue," an anti-terrorism think tank within the service; as commander of an aircraft carrier battle group during operations in Afghanistan; and as director for defense policy on the National Security Council. (Sestak was promoted to three-star admiral, but was relieved of command and left the Navy before he had held that rank long enough to be able to retire as a three-star. He actually retired at the lower rank of a two-star Rear Admiral, Upper Half. His official bio finesses it this way: "Born and raised in Delaware County, Joe Sestak spent 31 years serving our nation in the U.S. Navy, rising to the rank of three-star Admiral.")
Jane

Why does someone get "relieved of command"?

The whole bribe thing should not be allowed to go away.

Danube of Thought

Here's the whole article.

One of my nephews served under him and said he drove people nuts with micromanaging everything down to font sizes. A very unpleasant fellow to work with, which I suppose had something to do with his being relieved.

Pofarmer

Got a waaaayyyyyy OT question, as I know there are some Catholic's on here.

Why, as a Protestant, should I care about the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

narciso

So he was the closest thing to an Admiral Jimmy Carter, I know 'these goggles they do nothin' but the administration was supporting
Specter, who was against their Afghanistan policy, right, if I've recall his interviews
of FNS and other sources

macphisto

"Why, as a Protestant, should I care about the Catechism of the Catholic Church?"

well, speaking as a muddled Prod: History of Christianity; differentiation (just what were Protestants protesting?); understanding change in the CC by changes of the catechism over time; influence of the catechism on the CC and, by extension, upon millions worldwide.

Danube of Thought

Jane, you can get relieved for a whole host of reasons, and in many instances--apparently including this one--it's just a matter of your boss not liking the way you go about your business. This is much more common once you reach flag or general rank; below that, there's usually some sort of misconduct or gross negligence involved (a collision at sea; running aground).

Pagar

American Thinker had filled in the Blanks on Sestak a long time ago.

It puzzles me why we keep saying we don't know any think about these Democrats when we have millions of printed words on them.In this case the hiring of a CAIR official by Sestak should really fill in the blanks.

Captain Hate

Why, as a Protestant, should I care about the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

It's still the wellspring of Christianity, from which the Protestants emerged. Once you get past some irreconcilable differences, such as praying to Mary and confessing to a priest, it's all pretty much the same.

narciso

Great AT link to Doug Ross, Clarice, Ah those troublesome Quahtanis are always up to something in the LUN

Pofarmer

well, speaking as a muddled Prod: History of Christianity; differentiation (just what were Protestants protesting?); understanding change in the CC by changes of the catechism over time; influence of the catechism on the CC and, by extension, upon millions worldwide.

Well, that's basically where I'm coming from. Just don't see that I should take from it what is "correct". If I did that, then I suppose I'd be a Catholic.

Cecil Turner

This is much more common once you reach flag or general rank;

It's still very uncommon, and generally considered punitive if a reason is given. In this case one was (from the Navy Times):

But perhaps more striking than Mullen�s first orders to the fleet was his swift sacking of a key deputy who was promoted to three stars by Mullen�s predecessor, Adm. Vern Clark.

Vice Adm. Joe Sestak, deputy chief of naval operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs (N6/7), was considered an intellectual heavyweight in the Navy, but Mullen reassigned Sestak to points unknown on his opening day of business as the new CNO.

The official reason for Sestak�s removal: poor �command climate.�

The end of the article gives a little more detail (but from anonymous sources). It mirrors the complaints from his congressional staff in the RCP piece.

Pofarmer

Once you get past some irreconcilable differences, such as praying to Mary and confessing to a priest, it's all pretty much the same.

Cap'n you just made me laugh.

So, whaddaya think the penalty for kicking a priest's ass is?

Porchlight

it's all pretty much the same.

I know this was tongue in cheek, but even as a high church Anglican I don't know if I quite agree with that. The catechism/Magisterium is prescriptive and top-down; Protestantism is more DIY imho. Fundamental philosophic difference.

However, I don't disagree about the catechism's importance.

bunky

All you gotta know about Sestak is that he treats the people that work for him like sh*t.

Rob Crawford

All you gotta know about Sestak is that he treats the people that work for him like sh*t.

So it's like he's already a Senator?

Pofarmer

The catechism/Magisterium is prescriptive and top-down; Protestantism is more DIY imho. Fundamental philosophic difference.

Yep, yep.

Also, keep in mind, I'm a country church, 25 people in the pew on a "good" Sunday Protestant.

Captain Hate

Jeezus this software from hell is wreaking havoc on posts; although maybe it's being run by Episcopalians and detected too many slams against my confirmed religion and the idiot Rowan Williams. Porch it was only partially tongue in cheek; once you get past administrative differences (priests not being able to marry) plus a few things like needing to confess sins (which differs between Protestant denominations) before receiving communion, I think the underlying philosophies (sacraments & sins) are almost identical. I say that as somebody who attended a Catholic high school and took part in religion classes; ie. a view from the inside.

Ignatz

There are many fine and great Christians in the Catholic Church but I'm of the belief that Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church, is the wellspring of Christianity.
As far as dogma in the catechism that I find I am unable to get past chief are the magisterium and the ex cathedra doctrines.
Protestant doctrine, which IMO is wholly scriptural, says God alone in the persons of the Father and Jesus Christ is infallible and the Holy Spirit He sent to lead us into all truth is as well.
And the same Holy Spirit is in fallible me as was in fallible Peter and is in the fallible Pope. So the idea of the flock needing an "infallible" human interpreter, when Jesus has already provided us with a supernatural indwelling One, is impossible to reconcile with my faith or the bible.
Hope we don't spark any holy wars here. :)

Pofarmer

I think the underlying philosophies (sacraments & sins) are almost identical.

I dunno, there's pretty significant differences in how some of the sacraments are viewed, as well. Communion being a major one. Transmogrification or whatever it is.

Pofarmer

I can't believe I didn't get a spell check for transmogrification.

hit and run

From Cecil's quote:
The official reason for Sestak�s removal: poor �command climate.�

Put on Notice: anyone who questions why Sestak was relieved of command is a Climate Denier.

Pofarmer

Hope we don't spark any holy wars here. :)

Me too, there's not many groups I would hope to discuss this with in an intelligent manner, quite frankly.

Porchlight

and the idiot Rowan Williams

Cap'n, the identical phrase "the idiot Rowan Williams" went through my head not ten minutes ago as I was thinking about this discussion. Heh.

But it brings up a good point. If I were Catholic I would by definition be required to submit to the authority of the Pope, but, thankfully, as an Episcopalian/Anglican Protestant I am not required to submit to the authority of Rowan Williams, even though he is the head of my church. So again that's a fundamental difference.

Captain Hate

I'm of the belief that Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church, is the wellspring of Christianity.

That's all well and good but until 1517 there was only the Catholic church to promulgate a belief in JC. That's where I was coming from on that.

Porchlight

Hope we don't spark any holy wars here. :)

Yes, I am trying to tread lightly - I greatly respect the Catholic Church although I am not part of it.

I liken the comparison to the "special relationship" between the US and England. I am of English extraction, I recognize England's foundational role in the birth of this country, I adore English history and culture, and I revere its place in world civilization. But I am an American, and the Founding is where it's at for me as far as the expression of fundamental political beliefs.

Pofarmer

So, how do you self Identify?

I identify as Christian, but that's not first on the list. Many Catholics I know identify as Catholic first before anything.

Pofarmer

That's all well and good but until 1517 there was only the Catholic church to promulgate a belief in JC. That's where I was coming from on that.

What about the Coptics? I'll admit to being fuzzy on my history here, but it seems that there were probably other churches "taken over" by the Roman Catholics. So, what you get, is, essentially, the Catholic history.

narciso

So, treading deeper into that bit by Brennan, where talked about reaching out to 'Moderate
Hezbollah' he starts speaking in Arabic, the only thing I could make out was "Inshallah,
Filistin," and speaks of Al Quds, the Arabic
name for Jerusalem, as his most favorite city

Danube of Thought

Blumenthal...Blumenthal...say, was he the guy who beat his wife?

Thomas Collins

See LUN for an interesting summary of how the Calvinist/Roman Catholic/Elizabethan Settlement triangle played out in the 16th century in England, and Richard Hooker's magestrial work defending the ecclesiastical laws supported by the Elizabethans.

Pagar

If you're looking to fill in the blanks on the Euro, EUReferendum says There is a whole lot of Them, and they are much worse than imagined.

"But what is most intriguing are Ambrose's comments about undisclosed debt in the German banking system, and his suggestion that the underlying damage to the eurozone banking system runs even deeper than feared.
"
When you get to the link, click on the "Ambrose's comments" link in the article. There is no way this mess gets better in any near future, and it brings every thing down with it.

Barbara

transubstantiation -
"the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood (respectively) of Christ in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses (accidents) remains as before."

Bill in AZ

My family purchased a Wall Street Journal subscription for me for my birthday. I was told the choice was between the WSJ and the NY Times.

I would be wondering what I did to piss off my family. I wish I had a subscription to either one so I could cancel it again.

Thomas Collins

Whoops! Richard Hooker's work is magisterial, but my spelling isn't!

fdcol63

At least Sestak isn't known to fondle or tickle his subordinates. LOL

Antimedia

Perhaps his voting record would be helpful? Or his key votes on issues that matter.

Walter

Pofarmer,

As a country church Protestant, you can use the catechism as just another reference tool.

Each of the entries is footnoted--some go directly to biblical passages. Others cite writings of various scholars. Most of those sources are available online and in turn cite earlier sources or biblical passages. Those earlier sources, etc., etc..

It kinda boils down to a structured analysis as opposed to reasoning from first principles. The major difference as I see it is that RC's and high-church take the shortcut of relying* on the work of others before them.

For what it's worth, Catholics do not need to do what the Pope says, or even believe what he believes. Only a small minority of ordained priests or nuns take vows of obedience.** But we're supposed to think long and hard about why our view is the better one when we disagree.***

Not to leave anyone out: I view it as the difference between Orthodox and Reform****--there's a lot of stuff there that other smart people have spent much time on, but it is easy to say that some of it would not have been written the same way today.

___________
*I'm not the one to say that this reliance is always necessary. I also would not dismiss other thinkers just because they are not cited. After all, someone had to write it first at some point.

**My sister the Sr. did. We've had "angels on the head of a pin" discussions about what that means when her superior appoints her to a secular position wherein she is required to exercise independent judgement.

***One is supposed to follow one's "informed" conscience.

****Even the names are similar in English!

Neo
It took the new Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Mullen, less than 24 hours to dump one of the most disliked officers among the Navy's top brass. Vice-Admiral Joe Sestak, an arrogant and obnoxious "bully-boy," who delighted in being rude and unreasonable and getting away with it, found he was expendable the minute his mentor went out the door.
http://www.militarycorruption.com/mullen.htm http://www.militarycorruption.com/mullen3.htm
Walter

Coptics?

I find Gibbons on Christian history to be very interesting. IIRC, he began Protestant, converted to Catholic, and then went back again.

Pofarmer

Holy smokes Walter. Thanks for the Gibbons link. That's part of the problem with having this "discussion" is that you wind up needing to be a scholar on yet another issue to do it justice. Catholics like to say "the church says this" and then you have to go do two weeks of research to figure out why. Problem is, I don't have the time.

Neo

I tried to find the one ad that ran here in PA that had Sestak showing how he was left of Specter, but for some reason, I can't find it.

anduril

Why couldn't Rush say something like this re the G/S banksters?

"Let me get this straight… They're now saying that they deserve big bonuses because they're making money again. But they're making money because they've got government guarantees….

"These guys want to be paid like rock stars when all they're doing is lip-syncing capitalism."

Thomas Collins

Those interested in studying the various branches of Christianity may be interested in the book described in the LUN, which discusses the Council of Chalcedon from the perspective of a member of one of the Oriental Orthodox churches.

narciso

It turns out it was Citibank who got the best deal, and they are also in favor of this wretched bill

Captain Hate

That's part of the problem with having this "discussion" is that you wind up needing to be a scholar on yet another issue to do it justice.

Po, fwiw I've been reading Gibbon off and on for a couple years. I'm on volume 4 of a 6 volume set. It's an outstanding read although some parts are better than others (and some of the revised footnotes point out things that he got *entirely* wrong; but wtf, he was reading the original documents in a multitude of languages in the mid 1700s so a little forebearance is justified). Still I think some of his attitudes on religion and its impacts were pretty nutty and overly contentious. Jusy my opinion of course.

matt

the media will supress the Sestak narrative,just as they have done for most of the Left wingers.

Remember, catholic means universal, and while we are supposed to recognize the teachings of the Church and infallibility of the Pope on matters of doctrine,that infallibility is very limited in practice.

It is the message, not the messenger that is important. And since the Church was the only game in town, so to speak for 1200 years, the message became the common heritage of all Christian churches in the West.

And arguing over angels and pinheads s better left to those with the time and inclination who should be shunted over to a far corner of the room.....

Ignatz

Risking being shunted (equivlent to shunned?), :), I actually find the Catholic position on transsubstantiation to be fairly compelling, scripturally.
In fact, in general I find Catholic scholarship and reasonoing to be superior to most Protestant equivalents.

--That's where I was coming from on that.--

I know Capitan. It's just that there usually seems to be One lonely Guy left standing alone in the dust by the side of the road when discussions of church doctrine arise. Figure I can't go worng giving Him a plug. ;)

Ignatz

Actually, I obviously can go worng.

Pofarmer

fairly compelling, scripturally.

Fairly compelling doesn't equal "my way or the highway".

Pofarmer

Lot's of places I can "see their point" I'd just like to have the same courtesy in return. On that front, it's a lot like arguing with liberals.

Walter

Speaking of arcane doctrines, Pofarmer, I looked up the instructions for bleeding the power steering on the Mercedes. Turns out they issued a TSB on the subject: With the engine OFF, one rotates the wheels side to side THIRTY times. Cleared it right up, it did.

Praise the Load, and pass me a Lord of Coal.

Three things you should never discuss at dinner; religion, politics, and climate. Oh wait, that's only two.
==================

Pofarmer

one rotates the wheels side to side THIRTY times. Cleared it right up, it did.

That's awesome, shouldn't have needed the gym that evening.

Clarice

DoT, that was very naughty of you.

anduril

Some of these comments get into very deep water, important matters that are often avoided by official sources but are very much to the fore among ordinary believers.

Once you get past some irreconcilable differences, such as praying to Mary and confessing to a priest,

Actually, these are common misunderstandings. Intercessory prayer is not prayer TO someone (such as Mary)--it is a request that that person pray WITH you. The prayer itself is to God. To say that this is commonly misunderstood is, perhaps, an understatement. Likewise, the priest is an intermediary. We still are confessing our sins to God.

The catechism/Magisterium is prescriptive and top-down;

It kinda boils down to a structured analysis as opposed to reasoning from first principles.

The Catechism (CCC) is not prescriptive per se--what it is is a collection of teaching, a presentation of what the Church believes, but it is not itself a definition of faith in the sense of being defined dogma. That said, of course the CCC does contain many statements from councils, etc., that are dogma. However, determining what are the core Church beliefs is a more complicated matter than most are led to believe. A useful distinction to make in that regard is between defined dogma and theological explanations. Very often what people take to be dogma is in fact theological explanation (more on that below).

Re first principles. The Church's faith is essentially historical--it is based on the irreducible facts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as historical events. In that sense, history is the first principle from which Church teaching derives, but it is definitely not an analytic developmental process, like Descartes deducing the world from his handful of "clear and distinct ideas."

I dunno, there's pretty significant differences in how some of the sacraments are viewed, as well. Communion being a major one. Transmogrification or whatever it is.

transubstantiation -
"the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood (respectively) of Christ in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses (accidents) remains as before."

This is an example of what I meant when I spoke of the difficulty of determining exactly what the Church teaches. I'm not saying that within certain parameters it isn't straightforward enough--the statements in the Apostles' Creed, for example. However, when you get involved in what I termed theological explanations, it gets more complicated. So. Most people would say that Catholics must accept Transubstantiation. Here's the difficulty. The definition of that doctrine uses Aristotelian terminology of substance/accidents. However, even in Thomist thought--which is as official as you will get--there is much debate about exactly what a "substance" is in the precise philosophical sense. This is why the Church says that Transubstantiation as a doctrine doesn't rely on any particular philosophy--but the fact is it uses the distinctive terminology of a particular philosophy.

What it boils down to is another term that is used to refer to the Eucharist: the Real Presence--in some real way that is beyond our understanding Jesus is really present to us when we participate in the Eucharist. An indication of the flexibility involved here is that the Eastern Orthodox church doesn't demand use of Transubstantiation, yet the Catholic Church is very clear that their Eucharist is a real Eucharist.

If I were Catholic I would by definition be required to submit to the authority of the Pope,

Only in those matters in which the Pope has competent authority. The fundamental mandate of the Church, and especially through the bishops and their head the pope, is, in Paul's words, to preserve what has been handed down. You can get into a lot of historical controversy about this, but I don't think you're going to find any statement that broad ("required to submit to the authority of the Pope") in the CCC without significant qualification. BTW, a searchable online version is available here: CCC

I'm of the belief that Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church, is the wellspring of Christianity.

The Church's belief is also that Jesus is the wellspring of Christianity. The Church was established because, IMO, of man's social nature.

What about the Coptics? I'll admit to being fuzzy on my history here, but it seems that there were probably other churches "taken over" by the Roman Catholics.

This is another complicated historical subject. The Catholic Church never "took over" other churches. In origin there were local churches that were grouped under Patriarchs. But this was a development of Church organization, not really of doctrine. The way in which some of the eastern churches split off had a lot to do with resentment of the Byzantine Empire. The claims of Rome to primacy among the patriarchs, based on Peter, had not really been worked out fully by the time all that happened. I simplify, of course. In point of fact there are a number of eastern churches that are essentially at one with Rome, among them the Copts, Assyrians (similar to Chaldeans) and Armenians. The problems with full union are really matters of governance, not of belief. The Church has no problem at all, for example, with intercommunion with most of those churches.

Let me add that "infallibility" is also commonly misunderstood to mean: whatever the pope says goes. This is not at all the case. Again, theologians offer a lot of explanations, but all agree that the pope's statement, to be infallible, must pertain to some core teaching and must be intended to be definitive. There have been examples, some relatively recent, in which popes have made theological errors but without intending to define dogma. It is said that the pope was speaking as a "private theologian," in which capacity he is subject to error, like any other theologian. In that regard, you may notice in Benedict's book "Jesus of Nazareth" he explicitly disclaims any intention to define dogma.

anduril

Sorry, maybe I should've done some more formatting. Some judicious bolding might have helped. And I shouldn't have buried the link to the Catechism in the middle.

anduril

Once more re the Catechism as prescriptive. What I'm saying is that it's a useful guide but, depending to some extent on the issue, it isn't the last word. I'm not encouraging dissent, just pointing out that there's a lot more to be said on some matters.

Re infallibility, you often hear people claim that for example, declarations that so and so was a saint, canonization, are infallible. This is definitely not true. Such declarations, as also declarations such as annulments of marriages (a declaration that a valid marriage never occurred) are what are known as "prudential judgments": they're the Church's best, considered judgment based on the available information.

Pofarmer

Actually, these are common misunderstandings. Intercessory prayer is not prayer TO someone (such as Mary)--i

I'd like to see the biblical precedence for this practice.

However, even in Thomist thought--which is as official as you will get--there is much debate about exactly what a "substance" is in the precise philosophical sense. This is why the Church says that Transubstantiation as a doctrine doesn't rely on any particular philosophy--but the fact is it uses the distinctive terminology of a particular philosophy.

You should really try to explain that to my wife's priest.

in some real way that is beyond our understanding Jesus is really present to us when we participate in the Eucharist.

Agree on that.

I think your last paragraph goes to the "angels on the head of a pin" angle.

Our local diocese has gotten into a very, uhm, conservative, ie, IMHO, backwards view of some of these things you put quite reasonably, and that tends to cause, uhm, un-needed friction.

Pofarmer

Once more re the Catechism as prescriptive. What I'm saying is that it's a useful guide but, depending to some extent on the issue, it isn't the last word. I'm not encouraging dissent, just pointing out that there's a lot more to be said on some matters.

You do realize, that the "church" discourages that sort of thinking?

maryrose

I am a practicing catholic and it is basically a matter of faith. The pope upholds divine law but the laws of men are more debatable. Many do not practice reconciliation {mostly men don't } but it's all part of the package. It is not a smorgasbord type of religion.

narciso

See, a very civil discussion, now if the academy was as well informed on anything, in the LUN

Danube of Thought

It's still very uncommon, and generally considered punitive if a reason is given.

As SecDef Cheney did it a great deal, not hesitating to fire three-star officers without so much as a phone call just because there was someone he knew whom he wanted in a particular slot. His prerogative, but he is still largely loathed by many retired senior officers for the practice. No question that in Sestak's case it was a real blot on his escutcheon.

Captain Hate

Intercessory prayer is not prayer TO someone (such as Mary)--it is a request that that person pray WITH you. The prayer itself is to God. To say that this is commonly misunderstood is, perhaps, an understatement. Likewise, the priest is an intermediary. We still are confessing our sins to God.

I appreciate your comments on this; not to split hairs, but isn't the Hail Mary asking her to pray "for" you? Either way I think it's safe to say that the Catholics hold Mary in a higher regard than Protestants do. Personally if I were starting a church, I'd portray her as some stripper or pole dancer that God decided to knock up, as an example of God's grace and (e)mission can find any person when they least expect it and it's what they do with it that determines their worth. That's just me though and I could see where some could be easily led astray on something like that.

Regarding the priest being an intermediary, that's of course correct. The Episcopal church has a general confession in which the priest/minister grants everybody en mass absolution before receiving communion. I remember the first time I attended a Lutheran service with Mrs H paging through the liturgy looking for the confession. When I was told there wasn't one I sadly realized that they're all going to hell.

Clarice

Well, I pity those Hell bound Lutherans, because I understand that the heathens there play Mahjong, not Bingo, and things like Lutefisk are nowhere to be found.Bagels with a shmear and lox, yes--lutefisk, no. There are some punishments too dreadful for even Satan to contemplate.

Neo

Apparently, two Hispanic “entrepreneurs” attempted to avoid authorities and were shot dead in a Walmart parking lot (after killing two West Memphis policemen using “undocumented automatic weapons”).

anduril

isn't the Hail Mary asking her to pray "for" you?

Yes, of course. However, the point is, Mary is being asked to pray to God for us or, more likely, along with us. Our prayer, in the proper sense, is addressed to God. As I say, I have no doubt as to how widespread misunderstanding of this is. I will say, the nuns who taught me as a kid got this kind of stuff right.

anduril

I'd like to see the biblical precedence for this practice.

The mandate for intercessory prayer goes back to Jesus' injunction to pray for those who persecute you. The best I can do, I think, is to paste in the whole CCC section on intercessory prayer. Then you can check the footnotes that I'll paste in at the end:

III. PRAYER OF INTERCESSION

2634 Intercession is a prayer of petition which leads us to pray as Jesus did. He is the one intercessor with the Father on behalf of all men, especially sinners.112 He is "able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."113 The Holy Spirit "himself intercedes for us . . . and intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."114

2635 Since Abraham, intercession - asking on behalf of another has been characteristic of a heart attuned to God's mercy. In the age of the Church, Christian intercession participates in Christ's, as an expression of the communion of saints. In intercession, he who prays looks "not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others," even to the point of praying for those who do him harm.115

2636 The first Christian communities lived this form of fellowship intensely.116 Thus the Apostle Paul gives them a share in his ministry of preaching the Gospel117 but also intercedes for them.118 The intercession of Christians recognizes no boundaries: "for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions," for persecutors, for the salvation of those who reject the Gospel.119

114 Rom 8:26-27.
115 Phil 2:4; cf. Acts 7:60; Lk 23:28,34.
116 Cf. Acts 12:5; 20:36; 21:5; 2 Cor 9:14.
117 Cf. Eph 6:18-20; Col 4:3-4; 1 Thess 5:25.
118 Cf. 2 Thess 1:11; Col 1:3; Phil 1:3-4.
119 2 Tim 2:1; cf. Rom 12:14; 10:1.

Neo

isn't the Hail Mary asking her to pray "for" you?

Asking Mary to "intercede" on you behave.

Pofarmer

Mary is being asked to pray to God for us or, more likely,

Where, in the bible, is the precedence for this?

I have no doubt as to how widespread misunderstanding of this is

I think it's debatable which side is misunderstanding, just sayin.

anduril

Our local diocese has gotten into a very, uhm, conservative, ie, IMHO, backwards view of some of these things you put quite reasonably, and that tends to cause, uhm, un-needed friction.

It's difficult to strike a balance. There are of course people in the Church who lack basic faith. Just look at the involvement of CCHD with ACORN, for only one example. It also extends to purely theological matters. That's why there's so much mistrust.

anduril

"Intercession is a prayer of petition which leads us to pray as Jesus did. He is the one intercessor with the Father on behalf of all men, especially sinners."

That's why we pray to Jesus, pray to God, the Trinity. We ask others, alive and dead, to pray with us, for us, but we don't pray TO them in the sense that we address prayers to God. Only in the sense that we speak to them to ask them to pray with us.

anduril

You do realize, that the "church" discourages that sort of thinking?

Well, not so much anymore. There is a reason for distrust of everyone being their own expert--most people aren't experts.

Shooter

Other than the fact that Sestak has been posted on at websites like Daily Kos and Open Left and Move On and Fire Dog Lake on pretty much a twice daily basis for about two years now, he's a total blank slate -- and comes as a complete surprise to TM.

Then to that one should add the fact that he's been showing up regularly on MSNBC and CNN and even FN during that whole period, consistently describing himself as a progressive liberal and an unreserved Obama supporter, even through the period of Obama and the White House and the OFA and the DNC and the DSEC and the entire Democratic party establishment endorsing and supporting Arlen Specter, and yeah, you can see how his winning the primary just floors TM that Democrats would pick a candidate who's been living in a cave.

And yes, that admiral thing is going to cause Toomey problems.

Neo

Who'd a thunk it ? ..
The Salahis were stopped by the U.S. Secret Service last night at around 8 p.m. ET during the State Dinner for Mexican President Felipe Calderon as their stretch limousine ran a red light and seemed to be trying to turn into a restricted area near the White House, ABC News has learned.

A Secret Service Uniformed Division officer “observed a stretch limousine pass through a red light at 15th and Constitution,” Edwin M. Donovan, the Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Secret Service told ABC News. “The vehicle then signaled that it was turning into the Ellipse parking area at 16th and Constitution, a restricted area.”

Donovan said the “vehicle was subsequently stopped at 17th and H Street and it was then learned that Tareq and Michaele Salahi were among the occupants of the vehicle. The driver and occupants of the vehicle were interviewed at this point. The driver was issued a notice of infraction for passing through a red light and all the subjects in the vehicle were released.”

Walter

You do realize, that the "church" discourages that sort of thinking?

The IRS, as you know, puts out lots of paper. Form instructions and Publications are everywhere. If you (as a regular Po) call up the help line, they will likely as not read or cite something from one or the other in answering a question.

Nothing* in those documents is binding on either the IRS or any taxpayer.# The Constitution is infallible scripture. US Code (as Annotated) Title 26 is dogma, the Regulations are doctrine, and Revenue Rulings and Procedures are interpretations of those doctrines. If you get in a serious disagreement with the Service, your argument stands or falls based on those original sources.

As you go up the line, it is surpassingly rare that you will be able to show that the statutory dogma directly contradicts constitutional scripture.** Offhand, I'd guess that a regulation gets overturned perhaps once per decade. Revenue Rulings and Procedures go down more frequently. Unfortunately, you can be sanctioned for citing the form instructions or pubs for anything other than avoiding penalties by showing that you acted in good faith.

The IRS agent who answers the phone has likely not spent a great deal of time tying any or all of the standard forms and pubs back to their original sources. As a practical manner, practitioners will also look at the instructions and publications first. In most cases, there is no reason to go further. It sure is easier to have a simple, uncomplicated answer.

There is a quick answer; there is an uncomplicated answer; and there is a correct answer. The closer you get to the head of the pin however, the fewer quick uncomplicated correct answers there are. It's kinda like that.

_____________
*Careful here--Some of the _Forms_, however, are doctrine.

#This is a good place to say that nothing here is legal advice or even a particularly apt analogy.

**It's pretty easy to have a different opinion, just rare to have an undisputable one.

laura

Pofarmer,
I know prayer circles are very big in many protestant communities and there are requests from all sorts of people that the prayer circle include them as they pray. Think of Mary and the saints as a super prayer circle. Since we believe they are already with Jesus the hope is they may have a direct line and can plead our requests.

bgates

their stretch limousine ran a red light and seemed to be trying to turn into a restricted area

No human being is restricted!

If it turns halfway into a restricted area each time, how long before it's out of sight?

I've personally seen a car turn into a driveway, but I'm not sure I'd believe a limousine turning into a restricted area.
===================================

RichatUF

Hello JOMers;

Clarice emailed me last night and wanted to know how things were going with me because I haven't been in the comments lately. Things could be better. Some things are improving and other things are being ignored for the time being. One thing is going well and I hope to have some good news soon.

Thanks to everyone who was concerned and appreciate the thoughts and prayers. Rick and Clarice have my email address for anyone interested.

Cecil Turner

His prerogative, but he is still largely loathed by many retired senior officers for the practice.

Yes, and it's something they very rarely do to each other.

Other than the fact that Sestak has been posted on at websites like Daily Kos and Open Left and Move On and Fire Dog Lake on pretty much a twice daily basis for about two years now, he's a total blank slate -- and comes as a complete surprise to TM.

Dude, you missed it. The point was the Times's coverage was opaque (intentionally?), not the inability to find views and a voting record elsewhere.

Janet

Three things you should never discuss at dinner; religion, politics, and climate. Oh wait, that's only two.

LOL! Kim. I see I missed the religion discussion....it's probably just as well!

Pofarmer

Thanks again Walter.

I know prayer circles are very big in many protestant communities and there are requests from all sorts of people that the prayer circle include them as they pray. Think of Mary and the saints as a super prayer circle. Since we believe they are already with Jesus the hope is they may have a direct line and can plead our requests.

Yeah, sorry, no, that doesn't work for me. Different concept.

Sue

Rich,

So glad to hear from you. Can't wait until you share your good news.

Pofarmer

LOL! Kim. I see I missed the religion discussion....it's probably just as well!

Well, since we already discuss politics and global warming then.......................

I'd also like to thank the graciousness of our host, here.

Danube of Thought

Can we talk sex for a while?

Danube of Thought

Adm. Dennis Blair stepping down. Probably wishes he'd never stepped up.

Clarice

No kidding, DoT.

anduril
I'd also like to thank the graciousness of our host, here.

Posted by: Pofarmer | May 20, 2010 at 05:40 PM
Danube of Thought

Can we talk sex for a while?

Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 20, 2010 at 05:52 PM

He said host, not hostess. Some people have a one track mind.

Ignatz

Thanks for posting Rich. Always appreciate your comments and defintely noticed when they weren't here.

Porchlight

Hi Rich - glad to hear from you. Best wishes and hope you can make it back to post more often soon. I admit I don't understand most of your economics-related commentary, but I still miss it when you're not around.

centralcal

Glad to see you commenting (even if only for a minute) RichatUF.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame