Posted on 03/18/2017 12:30:39 PM PDT by Syncro
President Trump was recently interviewed by David Brody.
“Let me switch gears. You know, it wouldn’t be an interview between us if I didn’t ask a ‘God question,’ if you will,” said Brody.
“How has that spiritual journey been for you? Especially being here and knowing the gravity of the office. Do you feel the need to pray more? Where are you on that?”
As Mr. Conservative notes, Obama would have tried to dodge a question like this, but President Trump did not hesitate to answer.
“Well, I’ll tell you what,” Trump began. “I’ve always felt the need to pray. And you know that… So, I would say that the office is so powerful that you need God even more, because your decisions are no longer, ‘Gee, I’m going to build a building in New York,’ or ‘I’m going to do this.’ These are questions of massive life and death, even with regard to health care. You know we’re working very hard on health care.”
“But there, you’re talking about life and death and you’re talking about better lives,” Trump added. “People living better because they have better health care at a lower price, which we’re working very hard on.”
“So yes, you realize these decisions are all so important—there’s almost not a decision that you make when you’re sitting in this position that isn’t a really life-altering decision. So God comes in even more so.”
I think we can all agree that Islamic-sympathizing Obama would have never made these comments.
SHARE this report if you’re glad to have God back in the White House!
H/T Jolene Peters IHTT
Do you think millions of Catholics have left the C-church because it has a leader they must be in subjection to as Catholics even though he is unfit to the office?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You’ve raised several issues in your question.
1. Not many Catholics have left the church because of the current Pope, so far as I know.
2. The word “subjection” is one fraught with ambiguity of meaning. Most Catholics, myself included, do not think of themselves as being in subjection to the Pope for the very good reason that they are not.
3. What they are in subjection to are the dogmatic doctrinal teachings of the church which is another way of saying “the Catholic faith.”
4. What many Catholics and non-Catholics misunderstand is that the Pope is NOT the Catholic Church, nor is he the Catholic Faith. And, virtually any position he may take on any issue whatsoever may be accepted or refuted according to one’s informed conscience in regard to whatever that position is.
5. BUT, there is one caveat to what is outlined in #4. And that is, if the Pope makes a pronouncement regarding a matter of faith and/or morals and makes it clearly understood that he is speaking ex cathedra, it is then incumbent upon members of the faithful, i.e., sincerely practicing Catholics, to give their assent to that teaching.
6. And finally, it is extremely rare that a Pope pronounces a position regarding the faith and/or moral teachings of the Church officially speaking ex cathedra.
Who needs to consult with some guy up in the sky, when you got me? I’m brilliant, and I make sure other people die for my sins, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
You mean a queer named Barack Hussein Obama was not a Christian? Who else knows that?
At lease one, although the name "Valarie Jarrett" might have been on the door instead.
i thought it was Notre Dame that the kenyan had the crucifix of Christ in the back ground covered during a ramble. i could be wrong, but as close as i kept an eye on the fraud i doubt it.
“i thought it was Notre Dame that the kenyan had the crucifix of Christ in the back ground covered during a ramble. i could be wrong, but as close as i kept an eye on the fraud i doubt it.”
Bozo may have done it at ND also, but he definitely did it at Georgetown. My niece was a student there then and it really pissed us all off.
i stand corrected,.
The phrase, "left the church" i what is fraught with ambiguity of meaning. We are told by RCs that while one may no be a practicing RC, they are still Catholic if they were ever baptized as one. But the same will excommunicate multitudes (liberals) such as whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death.
In the light of such confusion, rather than laity judging what is of God based upon their understanding of what the church teaches, RC teaching is that the one duty of the laity is to simply follow the pastors, and thus let leadership interpret itself by what is manifestly teaches, meaning Teddy k. Catholics are indeed Catholic, who never left the church.
2. The word “subjection” is one fraught with ambiguity of meaning. Most Catholics, myself included, do not think of themselves as being in subjection to the Pope for the very good reason that they are not.
It is so fraught with ambiguity of meaning that you can declare who is and who is not subject to the pope. However, as used by popes it excludes resisting this authority, including non-infallible teaching*.
3. What they are in subjection to are the dogmatic doctrinal teachings of the church which is another way of saying “the Catholic faith.”
No, it means they believe they are in subjection to the dogmatic doctrinal teachings based on their judgment of what they mean, contrary to how current leadership understands them to whom they dissent from. Then they then censure us for "private interpretation" versus following Catholic leadership. Both trad. RCs and evangelicals dissent from Rome to varying degrees, based upon their judgment of what historical teaching is and means, the difference being for us Scripture is the supreme, only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth.
4. What many Catholics and non-Catholics misunderstand is that the Pope is NOT the Catholic Church, nor is he the Catholic Faith. And, virtually any position he may take on any issue whatsoever may be accepted or refuted according to one’s informed conscience in regard to whatever that position is.
Misleading. Freedom of conscience does not justify your judgment as being Truth, nor (according to historical RC teaching) public dissent as being valid, and understanding that dissent of conscience means dissenters are faithful RCs, who are not guilty is contrary to much papal teaching.
5. BUT, there is one caveat to what is outlined in #4. And that is, if the Pope makes a pronouncement regarding a matter of faith and/or morals and makes it clearly understood that he is speaking ex cathedra, it is then incumbent upon members of the faithful, i.e., sincerely practicing Catholics, to give their assent to that teaching.
Wrong. Magisterial teaching requires religious assent to non-infallible teaching also, which excludes public dissent. .
According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM)
...there are three kinds of magisterial statement, three levels of authoritative teaching which establish the “the order of the truths to which the believer adheres.”[1] They are (1) truths taught as divinely revealed, (2) definitively proposed statements on matters closely connected with revealed truth, and (3) ordinary teaching on faith and morals. A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis.[2] (http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html)
There is a difference in the kind of submission required: infallible, teachings, irreformable divinely revealed truths (which arguably constitute the smaller portion of what RCs believe and practice), require "assent of faith" (which, according to various Catholic sources, is that of "sacred assent," "internal assent," being "without wavering," "submission of faith," "assent of mind and heart," “obedience of faith,” "theological faith," “divine and Catholic faith.”
One who doubts these articles lacks faith that Rome possesses ensured veracity, and falls into heresy), while "authentic" while non-definitive ordinary teaching requires "ordinary assent," that being "religious submission of will and intellect," submission of mind and will," which "forbids public contradiction of the teaching"." An obstinate refusal to give "assent of faith" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of faith, while obstinate refusal to give "religious assent" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of charity. Of course, which of the 3 or 4 levels of magisterial teaching falls under is also subject to interpretation, and thus what type of assent is required. To such a Prot responds,
Boy. No disrespect intended...and I mean that honestly...but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn't trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task.
The solution for which is cultic, just obey and don't question:
Praxis [practice] is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That's what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that's what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to "obey your leaders and submit to them." This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1565864#post1565864
While trad. RCs criticize Prots for seeking to ascertain the validity of teaching by examining the warrant from the source for it, they themselves pick and choose what to obey in Catholic teaching based on their judgment of its conformity with what they see Rome teaching in the past. Many RCs here scoff at the idea of encyclicals, esp the latest one of the pope, as requiring religious assent, while others disagree, with both sides selectively quoting popes and teaching from the past.
And submission is also required to V2. As stated by pope Paul VI in closing V2,
You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic.(Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)
Some RCs reject all or parts of Vatican 2 (or at least reject religious assent as disallowing public dissent), based on a difference btwn a "pastoral" vs. "dogmatic" council. To which a RC apologist responds,
"This "pastoral" vs. "dogmatic" council distinction is a bunch of hooey (a technical canonical term meaning whatever). Those two words are descriptive, not definitive. Whatever Vatican II taught authoritatively, Catholics are bound to hold. Period. Of course, finding out just what Vatican II taught authoritatively is not always so clear as it was with, say, Trent, but that's a different problem from the one your friend wants to pose." ...So you are not at liberty to dissent from its teaching in part or in entirety. It's as simple as that. - Dave Armstrong, http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/vatican-ii-is-it-orthodox-binding.html
6. And finally, it is extremely rare that a Pope pronounces a position regarding the faith and/or moral teachings of the Church officially speaking ex cathedra.
Misleading: RC teaching is that "infallible" teaching can come from the bishops in union with the pope, not simply directly from the pope, and submission is required to basically all formal papal teaching (including encyclicals) even if not considered infallible.
* Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.
Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to [only] concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Quanta Cura. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm)
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm
In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:
80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
And it is quite well evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).
Thus we either have Trad. RCs contradicting past papal teaching in dissenting from modern papal and magisterial teaching, and that Rome's interpretation of herself is to be trusted.
Which (regardless of attempted levity) would make you a false messiah, in contrast to Christ, who died for the sins of man, not those of God which are not, and you are not omnipotent, omniscient, but are a finite sinner, and thus you will ultimately fails us. Don't quit your day job superman.
I agree and have seen more than one pope in the past (through research) declaring the subjection I mentioned.
And we have been told it is required many times by Catholics posting on FR. Mostly a while back
Now? not so much...
Thanks so much for your excellent response to my question.
Odd the MSM didn't play this up. /s It's religious bigotry after all - and the press is big on that, right?
If a Republican had acted the same way at a Mosque it would have been front page - above the fold at the New York Times. Effing liberal hypocrites.
Daniel1212, everything you’ve stated may be accurate in terms of the information sources you’ve cited, but every point you’ve alluded to has also been contradicted countless times by countless Catholics for countless centuries. That is because, in the final analysis, the faithful will believe and do what their conscience, informed or otherwise, compels them to believe and do. And this is as it should be, thus the pastors of the Church throughout history have themselves, by their words and actions, contradicted one another innumerable times. And of course the informed laity has always been, to one degree or another, influenced by that undeniable fact.
I am aware of the contradictions, and am not even saying dissent is necessarily wrong, which is how the church began, but I am pointing out the double standard of those who condemn us (conservative evangelicals) to ascertaining the validity of Catholic teaching by examining them in the light of wholly inspired Scripture and dissenting from such when it is not (as is the case with basic Cath. distinctives) , while they essentially do the same in principle, judging modern teaching as invalid in the light of their understanding of historical RC teaching.
Not to mention his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs.
you talking about Obama or Pope Paul VI...?
but I am pointing out the double standard of those who condemn us
sniffle sniffle...need a kleenex...?
No double standard on my part: as said, I am not saying dissent is necessarily wrong, for as said, we ourselves engage in it, judging Rome to be wrong based upon our understanding of Scripture, while RCs condemn us for doing so yet they judge Rome to be wrong based upon their understanding of certain historical writings. And which manner of Trad. RC dissent is contrary to significant historical RC teaching.
Who said;
"...Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen."
Isn't this what Dan is doing?
He; also; has the freedom to speak HIS mind; to contradict what the monolith of Catholicism puts forth.
If the 'church' has the freedom to put forth it's view; then I; likewise; want the freedom to put forth mine.
It's only fair.
Of course! I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here, and don’t recall anything in my previous posts that would make you think I do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.