Rick Santorum kinda sorta not really toned down one part of his speech. haha. Watch this video. It always makes me feel better to listen to him explain things. I need someone I can trust (especially because of my Bipolar Disorder and Asperger) and I trust him. I do. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. If you feel differently about things, that is fine, but I trust Rick Santorum and having someone I can trust in politics is important for everyone, but especially me.
Rick, if you’re reading this, I know I go rogue sometimes and gripe about Mitt Romney, but wherever you lead in the flawed, deeply fallen world of politics, I’m there.
The online version of this is available at New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Baptism. You will note that he is quoting heresies about baptism outlined by the Council of Trent. Heresies are things the Church forbids being taught in our churches. Here is his claim, in a reply to me.
@catholiclisa again you are ignoring truth, what was originally called Hersey was a title baptism. Please read the entire writing
Cheek is saying that a “title baptism” was a “heresy.” Judging from some of his earlier tweets, by “title” he is referring to baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19-20. He claims that baptism should not be done “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” and he further claims that such baptism used to be considered a heresy by the Catholic Church. His source for this is the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Baptism, but this is what it says, quoting the Council of Trent:
Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water; and it is indifferent whether it be cold or hot. The form is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not, however, deny that the words: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; or: This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, constitute true baptism; because since the principal cause from which baptism has its efficacy is the Holy Trinity, and the instrumental cause is the minister who confers the sacrament exteriorly, then if the act exercised by the minister be expressed, together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected. The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office. In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.
If you’re trying to find a source showing the Catholic Church teaching your view on baptism being only in the name of Jesus, Mr. Cheek, then you’re just going to have to keep looking. It’s not there. To the contrary, as it says, you can change some of the other words, but baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity must occur or it is not Holy Baptism.
If you wish to disagree with the Church, that is your right, but please do not say the Church teaches something she does not teach. That’s not fair at all.
Concerned that the Republican Party establishment selected the nominee for you? Tired of spending hours every day for months volunteering your hard work for a campaign doomed to fail because of the establishment and their millionaire supporters on Wall Street? Well, don’t worry. Just sit back and relax. The party has the next nominee picked, already, too. His name is Paul Ryan.
Ryan has been carrying coffee for the Republican establishment since he was a wee Congressional staffer back in the nineties, so you can be sure that he knows way more about Washington than you “little people” do, including how to be completely silent when his running mate takes troubling positions, so as not to “damage” the party.
Yes, I know that Rick Santorum came in second in this most recent primary, and we are told that those who come in second are traditionally given party backing the next time, but hey, you don’t expect the party to select someone who isn’t liked by Wall Street, do you? Remember, Rick Santorum needs “money and organization” to win, and without the “money” he doesn’t get the RNC “organization.”
It will be Paul Ryan, so you “little people” can sit back and rest. The party has taken care of this for you already.
It took some time for this to sink in with me because I did not watch the video until now. Mitt Romney has flip-flopped back to a pro-abortion position. (Via CBS News)
“My position has been clear throughout this campaign,” Romney said. “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”
Everyone in the pro-life movement knows that “health” means anything, including “mental stress.” It is the position of the Roe v. Wade ruling. He’s adopted the Roe v. Wade ruling, and he even specifically says that.
“Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court,” he said. “The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It’s been settled for some time in the courts.”
No one can now claim that Mitt Romney is pro-life. His position is the same position as the Roe court.
I could kick myself for not finding this until now. The interview aired on Monday night.
An article at Harper’s by Jack Hitt simply blows me away this morning with its ignorance in implying anti-Latino sentiment at the Republican convention yesterday. Let me walk through what really happened.
Yesterday afternoon, I was monitoring Twitter for tweets about the #RNCpowergrab when this one from Dean Clancy of FreedomWorks prompted me to tune in immediately to the convention on C-SPAN.
RT @deanclancy: It’s not over! The #RNCpowergrab fight will likely spill over onto the convention floor betw 3pm & 5pm today.
The tweet was in regard to the rules change that had grassroots conservatives up in arms yesterday. Michelle Malkin has a summary which I had already read when I saw the tweet from Dean Clancy.
When I saw the tweet and tuned in to C-SPAN, I saw the chanting on the floor that Hitt refers to and which he and others interpreted as racism. As you can see from the video Hitt posted, not everyone is chanting “USA!” You can tell that many are chanting something different, and that chanting was in opposition to the rules change. Hitt even wrote about the rules change in the article, and misleads people even on that point since it was not just about Ron Paul but about the change in the rules that affects all grassroots conservatives.
The chants of “USA!” were done to drown out the chants of the grassroots who were opposing the rules change that had just occurred. Reportedly, the “USA!” chant was prompted per instruction from establishment GOP. Rob Port tweeted this very thing later, and Michelle Malkin Retweeted it.
RT @robport ND delegate just texted me saying they were instructed to chant “USA” to drown out dissent. #RNCpowergrab
I know that I should not be surprised that people who have no idea what they are doing are being sent by left-leaning news outlets to report on the Republican convention. `I also know that I should not be surprised that these same people will assume (and report as fact) that racism is present at the convention no matter what is actually happening. Still, this knee-jerk behavior needs to be pointed out wherever we see it.
It’s one thing to drive resentments against people who are actually doing something wrong. That, in and of itself, is a problem. Even if someone is doing something wrong, it’s not okay to drive resentments. It’s far worse, though, to drive resentments against people when they are not actually doing what you claim they’re doing. Lying that promotes resentment is worse than lying by itself, especially in national publications on national events that are political in nature so that people are prone to have resentments in the first place.
At Hot Air is video of Reince Priebus saying that even if Todd Akin is tied with Claire McCaskill on October 1st, the RNC will “not send him a penny.”
Priebus and Romney are so worried about Republican candidates being damaged by the Democrats’ “war on women” messaging vis-a-vis Akin that they’d rather turn off the tap and see him lose a winnable race than rubber-stamp his candidacy by sending him a few million. They’re going to quarantine him financially, in other words, even if that quarantine removes any chance of taking the seat. That’s how toxic Akin is and how desperate the GOP is not to see the gender gap get worse.
So, what they’re saying is that the Republican Party will not support a candidate whose position on abortion is consistent with the pro-life plank in the platform because doing so might harm the nominee whose position on abortion is not consistent with the pro-life plank in the platform.
Tell me why the GOP has a platform if they are afraid to defend it? Tell me why they are so concerned about Todd Akin’s fumbling over some words that they are willing to lose a Senate seat and not concerned that Mitt Romney’s abortion position is not in line with the platform. Does the presidency matter so much more than the Senate that they will sacrifice human life and a Senate seat in order to win it?
If you think I’m being harsh, be glad I didn’t write in the headline that the GOP is willing to sacrifice children on the altar of power for Mitt Romney…because I could have done that and chose not to. It’s a legitimate question, though. Lives really are at stake here.
Voted 2nd Best Catholic to Follow on Twitter, After the Pope
Make a One-Time Donation
…Or Make a Recurring Donation
If you have been threatened, harassed, or made to feel afraid because you believe in traditional marriage, contact Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance
I am just a teeny, tiny, broken Passionist who loves Jesus very much. Please take what I say here with a grain of salt. I mess up a lot. -- Lisa Graas
'Your prayer ought to be continual. The place wherein we ought to pray is the spirit of God.' - St. Paul of the Cross