Who is Dorothy Day?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 дек 2012
- Part II in a series examining the sainthood cause of Dorothy Day, an American activist and founder of the Catholic Worker movement. Here's a look at Dorothy Day's early life and the founding of The Catholic Worker.
Great story of a great person for our times.
Dorothy Day is always with us!!!
so true
Bro she's dead tho
She is a genius. Modern day hero
She is a saint.
+Precy P
According to New Testament usage, anyone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ is sanctified by His blood and therefore a saint (holy one). As for rewards in the afterlife for service rendered, GOD is Judge of that; the Roman Catholic church has no authority whatsoever to determine status or rewards.
She is not a Saint.
@@stuffofmexx6077 yet...
Amazing woman!! ❤️
met her once met her friend Mike Gold who was a life long communist--their friendship endured till he died. It is a very touching story. We are called to be like Dorothy.
Where is part one?
Pam Richter of Anchorage, even through she was a Baptist, her best influence was Dorothy Day, the Roman Catholic. But her god father was the Charles Coughin-like Gerald L. K. Smith from the deep South who visited Alaska in the 1950's when she was born!!!
How about the canonization of Peter?
Who is Peter ?
Son of Johan?
Dorothy's friend and mentor Peter Maurin. :)
@@celticmist14 Dorothy's friend and mentor Peter Maurin. :)
Playboi carti I Love you !also Travis Scott. Myy HERO!
Beautiful. Sob sob
I confused Dorothy with Doris
Can you please just use the word “anarchist”? Dorothy said she was an anarchist. Multiple times.
We are anarchists, but catholic anarchists
@@aeo17948 Still anarchist
@@frogtownroad9104 but not secular anarchista
@@frogtownroad9104 Sounds like an extremely important distinction to me
weeeeeeeeeeee
dorothy day got that DAWG in her
nobody is perfect
fortnite ball
fortnite ball
Too bad she’s not around to stop late term abortion murderer.
The problem with most 'leftists' today, and to a large extent in the past, has been ignorance of the Gospel and even contempt for it. Or else its precepts have been twisted to serve political agendas whether of Right or Left. It appears however that Dorothy Day was able to find a niche for service in which her various interests could be reconciled. Too bad that she felt it necessary to align with the Catholic church, which promotes many superstitions and heretical beliefs. But there is hope for us all in the simplicity of Romans 10:9----------------
'that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.'
People can be economically leftists and socially conservative at the same
time others can be economically conservative and socially liberal don't believe
in horseshoe theory its a lie made to keep people fighting among themselves.
@@ollaniuspersson5762
Very good point. The Russian philosopher (who is a good political typologist no matter how crazy some of his own views) speaks of 'left conservatism', a category which might well have included Ms. Day------------also agrarian populists and Protestant 'social gospelers' in Canada and the United States from the 1890s onward. But I question whether Dugin has much familiarity with the North American scene. (He managed to get excited about the Trump phenomenon, which shows him as 'out of touch' IMO.) And in fact the way politics are set up in North America today, most people CAN NO LONGER CONCEIVE how, through the lens of Biblical ethical and social teaching, 'social conservative' and 'economically progressive' positions might be reconciled. Yet it seems pretty obvious to me.
Indeed care for the poor serves the cause of social order, which should appeal to the Right, whereas (in the long run) a morally disciplined society ought to allow the greatest opportunity for happiness of the many---------------arguably a 'leftist' goal.
People fall into all sorts of tragic outcomes when they are driven by their passions and appetites.
@@John-dw6ru
If her beliefs were orthodox, she would have been talking about behavior which follows as a result of salvation.
I hope you're not suggesting that people are saved by good works. If a single person may EARN his/her way to heaven by doing good deeds, why did Jesus have to DIE on our behalf? Surely He did not come merely as an example to be followed, more or less.
That was what I imagined in my pre-Christian days.
WHO is capable of following His example perfectly? Who else has done the will of the Father at all times? (Romans 3:23) 'FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.' But He was without sin, therefore qualified to act as MEDIATOR between God and men (see 1st Timothy 2:5).
Why did Jesus Himself say thing like these?
(John 3:17) 'For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.'
(Mark 2:17) '....It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to save the righteous, but sinners.'
Did not Jesus say that no one is good except God? (He, being God, had the right to say it.) Did He not address a crowd saying that they, being evil, knew how to give good gifts to their children? RELATIVE goodness is not enough to justify a person. Rather, Scripture says that 'ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.'
No sensible Christian denies the need for good works or following Jesus, but these are DEMONSTRATIONS of saving faith. Even James, when he speaks of justification by works, NEVER detaches those works from faith, but reinforces the connection.
How can a person follow Jesus who has not believed in Him? How can a person be saved who was not believed in Him? I'm not implying however that you think that way, nor that Ms. Day did. I hope that I'm only restating the obvious.
@Life
Have you ever compared dearly-held 'peculiarities' of Catholic belief with Scripture to see whether they are in alignment? A few years ago, I read a very informative book called 'Far From Rome, Closer To God', a series of 50 testimonies by former priests of the Roman Catholic denomination. These apparently exemplary men all left in order to serve Christ in spirit and truth, rather than according to the tenets and dictates of mere men.
Regardless of that, can you tell me where you get the teaching on Purgatory? How about the 'perpetual virginity' of Mary, bearing Mark 6:3 in mind? How about the reputed intercessory role of Mary in heaven? Surely the title 'queen of heaven', with its PAGAN associations, is an INSULT to this godly Jewish woman. Also it is stated in 1st Timothy 2:5 that there is 'one God and ONE MEDIATOR ALSO between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.'
Now I don't recall the context in which I quoted Romans 10:9, but a connection may be found. This verse, along with some others, provides a sort of 'litmus test' of elementary SAVING Christian faith-------------FREE from the distinctives and 'peculiarities' of Roman Catholicism. Let us put our faith in CHRIST, not in loyalty to an ecclesiastical organization!
@Life
Of course it has 'peculiarities', things which distinguish it from other TRADITIONS and DENOMINATIONS (for every sensible person knows that it is a denomination).
Your problem is that you claim to be the only player on the field. You seem to think that all the other figures are those of
spectators, even when they are running with the ball to score a goal. And believe me, non-Catholic missionaries have been scoring plenty of goals for the Lord's side in this generation, especially in Third World countries.
Of course I understand what you mean about non-Western Catholics. But the preponderance of power and worldly influence lies with the Roman church, and don't most of others profess loyalty to it?
The book which I mentioned, 'Far From Rome, Closer To God', disputes your contention about the prime object of Catholic faith. Don't trust my summary, though, when you can read the accounts themselves. Several writers made clear that sacraments IN THEMSELVES were understood to have salvific properties.
But if you have a more advanced understanding, that is excellent. I know of one Catholic TV ministry which has taught salvation by grace through faith for many years, the very same doctrine which sends other Catholics into fits. (But it is Biblical; see Ephesians 2:8-9).
Very interesting woman. How unfortunate the emphasis in this video on Catholicism as opposed to Christianity. The Church is a spiritual Body in which there are no denominations. Popes do NOT speak in lieu of Jesus. They do NOT have the right to arrogate to themselves the Divine title, Holy Father. JESUS is our High Priest, and the Jewish Aaronic priesthood is obsolete. We DO NOT NEED human priests anymore.
Mary was a wonderful woman, 'most blessed among women', but she is ONLY human and no one ought to address prayers to her, or to any of the 'saints'.
(1st Timothy 2:5) 'For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.'
@Life
Where do you find the word 'Catholicism' in the Bible? You scarcely find the word 'Christian', yet you DO find it. Is it necessary to 'be Catholic' in order to be saved? If you allege this, you are ADDING a condition for salvation, in order to EXCLUDE others who do not 'measure up'------------notably those horrible 'Protestants', 'Orthodox', etc.
The irony of your claim is that the Orthodox make an identical one. As for Protestants, in their best moments they seek to return to 1st-century origins.
Are you not making YOURSELF and your 'church' JUDGES of men, in place of GOD?
NEVER ONCE in Scripture does it say that the Body of Christ is the 'Catholic Church.' Read any pertinent verse, and see whether the adjective 'Catholic' is used as a modifier of the noun, 'Church'.
Do you think that DIVISIONS did not exist in the Church in apostolic times? Then why did Paul have to write 1st Corinthians 1:10-17? What is the essential difference between a 'division' and a 'denomination'?
As a matter of fact, I know from experience that some DOCTRINAL DIVISIONS run far deeper than denominational differences. I myself have
had little difficulty moving from one 'denomination' to another, within certain limits, because the underlying belief in all of them was similar. Many different ecclesiastical CULTURES are able to co-exist within the CHURCH UNIVERSAL--------------which is bound together in unity by the HOLY SPIRIT. Tyrannical rule by a Roman pontiff (typically an ethnic Italian), supported by a NOMINALLY celibate clergy, is NEVER put forward in Scripture as the necessary norm.
I would ask how you regard the 'spiritual authority' of your pontiff, Mr. Bergoglio, when he GOES ROGUE and declares (for example) that 'good atheists' may go to heaven?
What does the psalmist say?
'The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." '
Jesus says in John 8:24 (referring to Exodus 3:14)-------------
'Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM, you wil die in your sins.'
I submit to you that your pontiff, Mr. Bergoglio, is WRONG, and a blind leader of the blind.
What is the difference between a devout hard-line Catholic like yourself, and a Communist? Not much: you're both strict party men. I think the communists took notes from the Vatican with their Comintern.
For you, 'denomination' means 'wrong party'. It's as simple as that.
@Life
Excellent. It was always my understanding (since shortly after coming to faith in Christ) that 'Catholic' meant 'universal'. Unfortunately the word has acquired a polemical significance which it certainly did not have in the context of Acts 9:31. So when the Apostle's Creed is recited (not that I attach any special importance to it), I would say 'universal' in place of 'Catholic', because the acquired connotation of the word makes me a little queasy.
@Life
Maybe in your club. Elsewhere, the early Church is called just that, the early Church. Sounds good enough for me. Very apolitical and non-denominational.
Acts 9:13 'proves' nothing of the sort, as you have proven by equating 'Catholic' with 'whole' or 'universal'. You are applying an ecclesiastico-political sense RETROSPECTIVELY, in order to justify yourself and your PECULIAR ecclesiastico-political culture in its arrogance and spurious claim to supremacy.
Why don't you go and bother some Eastern Orthodox supremacists? You might find that entertaining.
'We're the TRUE CHURCH.' 'No, we are.' 'No way.' 'Yes way.' And so on.
ok and
Read scripture and Church history and the ignorance of your comment will become apparent.