Pope Tweets: Inequality is the Root of Social Evil
#31
I still don't agree that calling an Evangelical Protestant a "bishop" fosters anything but confusion and relativism. Dangerous road, one can be fraternal and still be correct.

I don't think Santo Papa Giovanni Paolo Secondo was even guilty of calling Protestants titles reserved for actual princes of the Church.
Reply
#32
(05-10-2014, 06:58 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I still don't agree that calling an Evangelical Protestant a "bishop" fosters anything but confusion and relativism. Dangerous road, one can be fraternal and still be correct.

I don't think Santo Papa Giovanni Paolo Secondo was even guilty of calling Protestants titles reserved for actual princes of the Church.

So nothing else he said matters then? The context doesn't matter. The way he frames the whole "brother" idea doesn't matter? The story of Joseph?

So we don't focus on meaning anymore, just labels, or hot button words?
Reply
#33
(05-10-2014, 07:40 PM)triumphguy Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 06:58 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I still don't agree that calling an Evangelical Protestant a "bishop" fosters anything but confusion and relativism. Dangerous road, one can be fraternal and still be correct.

I don't think Santo Papa Giovanni Paolo Secondo was even guilty of calling Protestants titles reserved for actual princes of the Church.

So nothing else he said matters then? The context doesn't matter. The way he frames the whole "brother" idea doesn't matter? The story of Joseph?

So we don't focus on meaning anymore, just labels, or hot button words?

And this, children, is the practice of the Figure known as Rhetorical Question.
Reply
#34
(05-10-2014, 08:20 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 07:40 PM)triumphguy Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 06:58 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I still don't agree that calling an Evangelical Protestant a "bishop" fosters anything but confusion and relativism. Dangerous road, one can be fraternal and still be correct.

I don't think Santo Papa Giovanni Paolo Secondo was even guilty of calling Protestants titles reserved for actual princes of the Church.

So nothing else he said matters then? The context doesn't matter. The way he frames the whole "brother" idea doesn't matter? The story of Joseph?

So we don't focus on meaning anymore, just labels, or hot button words?

And this, children, is the practice of the Figure known as Rhetorical Question.

No, because by him referring to a material heretic (meaning it's most likely not his fault since he was never Catholic, but Protestantism is a heresy and he preaches it) as a bishop does far more damage to Evangelizing, then trying to make Protestants "like our Pope"

Let's be honest. This move will gain us a few converts and tens of thousands of people having more respect for the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church; but the downside is...we would have confused millions of Catholics and continue to confuse millions of Protestants.


So the damage done I feel, far outweighs the benefits.


It is not logical to confuse the majority of Catholics for the sake of earning the respect of some Protestant heretics.
Reply
#35
(05-10-2014, 08:20 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 07:40 PM)triumphguy Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 06:58 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I still don't agree that calling an Evangelical Protestant a "bishop" fosters anything but confusion and relativism. Dangerous road, one can be fraternal and still be correct.

I don't think Santo Papa Giovanni Paolo Secondo was even guilty of calling Protestants titles reserved for actual princes of the Church.

So nothing else he said matters then? The context doesn't matter. The way he frames the whole "brother" idea doesn't matter? The story of Joseph?

So we don't focus on meaning anymore, just labels, or hot button words?



And this, children, is the practice of the Figure known as Rhetorical Question.

Presumably children, this poster doesn't want to answer said question. :eyeroll:
Reply
#36
(05-10-2014, 08:28 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 08:20 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 07:40 PM)triumphguy Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 06:58 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I still don't agree that calling an Evangelical Protestant a "bishop" fosters anything but confusion and relativism. Dangerous road, one can be fraternal and still be correct.

I don't think Santo Papa Giovanni Paolo Secondo was even guilty of calling Protestants titles reserved for actual princes of the Church.

So nothing else he said matters then? The context doesn't matter. The way he frames the whole "brother" idea doesn't matter? The story of Joseph?

So we don't focus on meaning anymore, just labels, or hot button words?

And this, children, is the practice of the Figure known as Rhetorical Question.

No, because by him referring to a material heretic (meaning it's most likely not his fault since he was never Catholic, but Protestantism is a heresy and he preaches it) as a bishop does far more damage to Evangelizing, then trying to make Protestants "like our Pope"

Let's be honest. This move will gain us a few converts and tens of thousands of people having more respect for the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church; but the downside is...we would have confused millions of Catholics and continue to confuse millions of Protestants.


So the damage done I feel, far outweighs the benefits.


It is not logical to confuse the majority of Catholics for the sake of earning the respect of some Protestant heretics.

I think we (Catholics) are brighter than that.
Reply
#37
(05-10-2014, 09:02 PM)triumphguy Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 08:20 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 07:40 PM)triumphguy Wrote: So nothing else he said matters then? The context doesn't matter. The way he frames the whole "brother" idea doesn't matter? The story of Joseph?

So we don't focus on meaning anymore, just labels, or hot button words?



And this, children, is the practice of the Figure known as Rhetorical Question.

Presumably children, this poster doesn't want to answer said question. :eyeroll:

Possibly this poster comes here in part to entertain himself, in part to educate himself, and not get drawn into a long debate.  Possibly this poster has been reading large numbers of treatises on Ancient Greek and Latin Literary Criticism.  Possibly this is because said poster is writing a very challenging paper on why the Greeks and Romans preferred Homer to every other poet.  And that, in turn, might just possibly be the reason that this poster has no desire to do tons of research to prove what he might just possibly think should be patently obvious to anyone who is willing to see.

There really are all kinds of possible explanations.
Reply
#38
(05-10-2014, 09:04 PM)triumphguy Wrote: I think we (Catholics) are brighter than that.

I think you have a naive view of Catholics. Yes "we" as in the community here might be brighter than that; but you have to account for the millions of Catholics who think that one can promote sodomy, abortion, divorce and other grave sins and still think they are a practicing Catholic.
Reply
#39
(05-09-2014, 07:37 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: P.S. From Quod Apostolici Muneris, by Pope Leo XIII, December 28, 1878:


At the very beginning of Our pontificate, as the nature of Our apostolic office demanded, we hastened to point out in an encyclical letter addressed to you, venerable brethren, the deadly plague that is creeping into the very fibers of human society and leading it on to the verge of destruction; at the same time...

...You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning -- the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.

Surely these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, "Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty."[2] They leave nothing untouched or whole which by both human and divine laws has been wisely decreed for the health and beauty of life. They refuse obedience to the higher powers, to whom, according to the admonition of the Apostle, every soul ought to be subject, and who derive the right of governing from God; and they proclaim the absolute equality of all men in rights and duties. They debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is "the root of all evils which some coveting have erred from the faith,"[3] they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life....

...5. For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist: "for what participation hath justice with injustice or what fellowship hath light with darkness?"[7] Their habit, as we have intimated, is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal, and that, therefore, neither honor nor respect is due to majesty, nor obedience to laws, unless, perhaps, to those sanctioned by their own good pleasure. But, on the contrary, in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel, the equality of men consists in this: that all, having inherited the same nature, are called to the same most high dignity of the sons of God, and that, as one and the same end is set before all, each one is to be judged by the same law and will receive punishment or reward according to his deserts. The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature, "from whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named."[8] But the minds of princes and their subjects are, according to Catholic doctrine and precepts, bound up one with the other in such a manner, by mutual duties and rights, that the thirst for power is restrained and the rational ground of obedience made easy, firm, and noble....

... 9. But Catholic wisdom, sustained by the precepts of natural and divine law, provides with especial care for public and private tranquillity in its doctrines and teachings regarding the duty of government and the distribution of the goods which are necessary for life and use. For, while the socialists would destroy the "right" of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate.

Thanks for reference, Vox.
Reply
#40
(05-10-2014, 10:25 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 09:04 PM)triumphguy Wrote: I think we (Catholics) are brighter than that.

I think you have a naive view of Catholics. Yes "we" as in the community here might be brighter than that; but you have to account for the millions of Catholics who think that one can promote sodomy, abortion, divorce and other grave sins and still think they are a practicing Catholic.

But this (off topic) "Brother Bishop"  phrase is not in relation to liberal Catholics, but an evangelical church which seems to be in training for a swim across the Tiber.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)