Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ jbrenner 12 years, 1 month ago
    Pope John Paul II was a pope that I think many in the Gulch would have agreed with on a large number of things, other than Christianity and God of course. The current pope is one that I am no fan of. I do not have much evidence of this, but from what he has said, I think he has been influenced by "liberation theology" way too much.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 12 years, 1 month ago
    No Catholic would see that as an infallible statement. For the Pope to speak infallibly, under the teaching of the Church, several conditions must be met:

    1. He must state that he is speaking "ex Cathedra" (form the throne of Peter);

    2. He must be defining a formal dogma on faith or morals that all Catholics will be required to believe;

    3. He must be stating a teaching on faith or morals that the "whole Church" already believes, but that is not believed by all in the Church or that is under attack by some in the Church. In short, the majority of bishops in the Church must agree with the teaching; and

    4. He must use this power only because it is necessary to define the teaching and an Ecumenical Council cannot be convened to decide the matter by majority vote of all the Bishops of the world.

    In all other words spoken by Popes, the Popes are as fallible as any other human being. Popes have spoken thus infallibly only on three teachings in the 2,000 year history of the Church. This occasion was not one of them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 12 years, 1 month ago
      Ranter: You took this way too seriously. While a Catholic myself, there are those (often those of an atheist tilt) who want to point out every time a Pope says something not perfectly in line with doctrine/dogma or such, that that is proof of fallibility, and thus that God must not exist. This was more a tongue in cheek posting. But thanks for the lesson in church doctrine.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago
      If you're not Catholic and you have an understanding of the word "infallible" reading the above is bizarre. If the mystical conditions are just so-a claim can be made. The Pope is like any other public person with authority. When he makes absurd statements-it's reasonable to call him on it and question how he might use his influence and authority to take the statement to an action. His earlier statement about capitalism adds to it. They are political statements which are untrue.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 12 years, 1 month ago
        Basically, when the Pope speaks on church doctrine, he is speaking infallibly. Otherwise, he's just another guy who happens to be the leader of the church.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 12 years, 1 month ago
    I do not like that pope Francis is an opponent of capitalism. I do think that he may have integrity. He is a voluntary member of a communist group (Jesuits), which lets both of those statements be true.

    I just wish that he saw that capitalism and technology were the correct answers to poverty.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by john99 12 years, 1 month ago
    Pope or Jesus?

    Per Matthew 26:11, I'm siding with Jesus:


    …(v10) But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. (v11) "For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me.

    AND I'M A CRADLE CATHOLIC
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 12 years, 1 month ago
      John: Not sure I'm getting the exact point. I would say that many of the teachings of Jesus about the poor have been misconstrued (mostly intentionally in my opinion) by atheists - AR in particular - as sacrificing yourself for others. I don't think that is the true teaching.

      Matthew 19:21-23
      21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
      22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.
      23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

      That passage is often cited as commanding us to eliminate all our worldly possessions giving them to the poor and live a destitute life. That would be a wrong interpretation. Instead, like much of the teaching of Jesus, this is an allegory. It is meant to identify the struggle between the corporeal world (our possessions) and the kingdom of heaven. In order to reach heaven, we must be willing to give up all that we have on earth - not that we have to give it all up, but not hold it so dearly that we wouldn't give it up - and keep the overall priorities aligned. The young man leaves dejected as he now knows that he must view his life differently. It intentionally does not tell us what he ended up doing, merely that he has the struggle between what he should do and what he would prefer to do. One must live one's life justly and morally, treating others with respect and dignity.

      One passage that the anti-Christians don't often bring up is Matthew 26:6-11
      6 Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,
      7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at table.
      8 But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste?
      9 For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor."
      10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me.
      11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.

      In this passage Jesus is chastising his apostles who think that it would be better to give the proceeds of the scented oil to help the poor (the typical charge of those believing that Jesus was the ultimate altruist). But, Jesus says that there will always be the poor (wise or omniscient?) and what little could be done for them by such an action, while helpful, would be inconsequential - but honoring him (and God in turn) would forever be remembered. That isn't to say that we should ignore the poor, but it was a realization that despite whatever we do, they will always exist. Do what we can to help them but we must also honor God.

      Just 2 small examples.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 12 years, 1 month ago
    I guess i am a "lapsed Catholic" - still believing in the rights and wrongs, but not all the dogma. From the beginning, I have been concerned about the utterances of this newest Pope. He seems extremely socialist in nature. His latest statement is just too simplistic and not accurate.
    His messages to the individual churches have ignored the beliefs of many in those congregations. Telling them to abandon beliefs long held, to play nice, and do as he says is over the top, even for a Pope. He obviously is against Capitalism, a view shared with the commie UN. I am sick of the political power of who you know and how much money you have also. However, socialism will only increase that problem. This Pope deals in a fairy tale world, ignoring the real problems. The Cincinnati property of the Church was recently put on the market, rather than remodeled, because they did not want to go against the Pope's messages.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 12 years, 1 month ago
      Well, I don't consider myself "lapsed," but I also hold onto the rights and wrongs and not necessarily the dogma as well.

      As for this Pope, it would seem that he is sincere but naïve. I don't think that his living in a small apartment rather than the papal residence is a true exposition of his heart, not some façade to fool the masses. However, he seems quite naïve regarding world affairs and economics. This is what happens when the Papal Conclave uses flawed criteria in their selection process.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Stormi 12 years, 1 month ago
        I agree, I believe he is absolutely sincere, but misguided. Yes he lives in a small apartment. However, I do not see a giant garage sale of the riches and treasurers of the Vatican to redistribute the wealth therein. Obviously, there are areas of frugality and areas off limits. I have to wonder where the Catholic Church would be without capitalists. I remember when I was in Catholic school, they published the amounts donated by each family each year, for all to see. Why do you thing that happened, if not to get better donations.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 12 years, 1 month ago
          Please see my discussion elsewhere in this thread with two passages from Matthew. Selling the stash of the Vatican, while it would help some, for a short time, would not solve poverty. However, relinquishing those items would diminish the standing and power of the church to help those same poor in other ways.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Notperfect 12 years, 1 month ago
    And as like his Majesty he has problems with who I give to. Maybe he needs lessons from someone other than Barry. I do not see his robe being frayed from not enough washing's. The truth will keep surfacing. That's guaranteed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 12 years, 1 month ago
    So the new Pope is proving that he is a socialist and, as such, a hypocrite. I haven't seen the Vatican hold a clearance sale yet...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 12 years, 1 month ago
      True, but I, for one, have begun keeping instances of true hypocrisy (the Atlanta Archbishop and another one in PA who each have built themselves multi-million dollar mansions) and attach a copy of those articles to solicitations by the church organization with a comment that "perhaps you can obtain my donation from Archbishop so and so". Also stopped funding BSA council/national, GSA, Rep Party, damn near every large organization. I make my donations directly to my local parish, local Boy Scout troop, local food pantry, etc. Too many of the upper echelons of these organizations have lost their way and seek primarily to feather their own nests. A consequence of the corruption of altruism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 12 years, 1 month ago
    Hmmm, are there other statements by the Pope which clarify his position? From that article, I don't see grounds to disagree with him.

    What I see in our society (and the world as a whole) is a system of inequality of rights and privileges, and that disturbs me. I see a class of politically-connected elites to whom the normal rules don't apply. This kind of social inequality does seem to lead to evil, to me.

    Inequality of results on a level playing field doesn't bother me, of course, but I don't think that's what we have. Has the Pope said elsewhere that this is what he wants: equal benefits for all, regardless of effort or merit? Or could he be criticizing the system which skews the results unfairly?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Maritimus 12 years, 1 month ago
      It seems to me that the avoidance of defining what iniquality they are complaining about is quite deliberate. Why are they talking about undefined iniquality? My guess is that both the Pope and our infestation in the WH do it for the same reason. Keep as many voters, members, parishers, whoever thinks that they "deserve" more than they can earn or have now, keep them in the "fold". Oh, I misspelled: HOLD.
      How come they ignore the bell curve inherent in everythig that depends on DNA for its existance?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo