Posted on 10/13/2009 12:56:05 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
Just as I thought, all hat and no cattle.
Fail!
Regardless, I hope I have pursuaded you that the Pope is not a fan of many of the UN’s activities, and perhaps not even a fan of the UN at all.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh . . .
that seemingly chronic incapacity for some RC’s to
DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN
SAME VS DIFFERENT.
1. A DIFFERENCE between cattle now vs cattle months ago is not the SAME difference as no cattle vs plenty of cattle.
2. Sounds like a major check or overhaul of logic circuits could be in order.
3. Sometimes, I don’t consider it a priority to be
REDUNDANT &
REDUNDANT AGAIN &
REDUNDANT REDUNDANT AGAIN AGAIN &
REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN
. . .
even though cluelessness in some spheres might indicate it was warranted.
Haven’t convinced me.
He writes out of too many sides of his finges . . . which side of which finger is operationally in charge any given moment?
Do they take turns?
Is it a different one every 4 hours? Every 4 days?
Let’s see . . . 4 sides of 10 fingers . . . 40 different positions . . . so, he could have a different position for every day of the month easily and please most everyone.
What masterful “leadership!”
finges = fingers! LOL.
Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions like a liberal/left-wing political lobby.
Which was clearly soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo effective with Scuba Teddy, Puhlousey et al
/s
This Religion Forum thread is "open" by default. That means the posters can argue for and against beliefs. They may ridicule deities, beliefs, groups of believers. It is a town square format.
Posters who are uncomfortable with the town square style of debate should ignore the open threads altogether and instead post to the "prayer" "devotional" "caucus" or "ecumenical" threads.
But "making it personal" is not allowed on any Religion Forum thread - that includes reading the mind of another Freeper personally, attributing motives to him or making the thread "about" individual Freepers.
For more guidelines to the Religion Forum, click on my profile page.
Therefore antagonism, though not encouraged, should be expected on "open" Religion Forum threads.
I can and do intervene to keep posters from "making it personal" but there is nothing I can do to prevent a poster from taking it personally.
However, the "caucus" and "ecumenical" threads are there for safe habor.
I’m Catholic and if he did what is reported in that article, that is a socialist/communist new world order he’s advocating for. And he is not stupid so he knows exactly what he is doing to the world by advocating for that.
"If" the Pope has said what Kincaid alleges you would be right. Too many will accept any anti-Catholic opinion as fact because it agrees with their preconceived notions of the Church. Fair people will do their homework and conclude that Cliff Kincaid lacks both objectivity and credibility.
“...Cliff Kincaid lacks both objectivity and credibility.”
How do you know? Where can I read what he actually said? Thanks.
You can start by reading the actual words of the Caritas in Veritate Encyclical from the Vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
Additional information can be gleaned from The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church at:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#In friendly dialogue with all branches of knowledge
This section of the _Caritas_ encyclical doesn’t say what you want it to say, Natural Law:
>>> “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer... <<<
To have no “technical” solution does not mean the same as having NO solution. It also doesn’t prevent making a call — which is what _Caritas_ does, and on a fairly regular basis — for solutions to well-defined social, economic, and political “problems,” and on a (cough-cough) global scale.
>>> ...and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.’” <<<
This baldly contradicts the rest of _Caritas_, which is an attempt to influence the politics and policies of States through reasoned argument. I can see why Quix is bothered by the presence of what might be called “lawyerly language” in this encyclical.
Ignoring the incoherence of the section you quoted, Natural Law, I’d say that anyone who claims that _Caritas_ is non-political or that it doesn’t take a POSITIVE interest in a Roman Catholic-based “development” of globalism is someone who has not read the encyclical, or someone who is not able to read it with comprehension, or is purposefully lying.
Any clear minded RC must see that the proof is in the pudding and this pudding that you brought up is really, really rotten. WHERE IS THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE??????? THE PROVERBIAL BUCK STOPS WITH HIM!!!!!!! IF THE POPE DOESN'T DISCIPLINE THESE PEOPLE HE IS NEGLIGENT!!!!!! HE IS NOT THE INFALLIBLE VICAR OF CHRIST ON EARTH!!!!!
If a equals b and b equals c than a equals c! You cannot believe the Pope is infallible if he does not execute his office as he is suppose to. He is the disciplinary head of all the RCC and is responsible to God according to it's own doctrines for what goes on in it. Granted he may not be aware of every little thing that goes on in it but he must be aware of the large things such as the fact that leaders in The USA who are Catholic are advocating and voting for every evil thing. If he does not make a public example of disciplining them then he is negligent. There can be no denying this unless one puts blinders on the eyes of one's soul.
How much error will RCs accept before they can finally see that all is not right with The Pope and that he most certainly isn't infallible? When will RCs stop bending so far over backwards to deny what is undeniable and stop making up myriads of excuses for the inexcusable that is allowed in the RCC?
I really do wonder what many RCs think the responsibility of their Pope is suppose to be. If the Pope, is derelict of his responsibility to make sure that proper discipline is carried out in the RCC, how then can the average RC be expected to distinguish between what is right and wrong?
The First Vatican Council clearly states:
If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.
Thank God there are traditional Catholic chapels and churches throughout the United States, Canada and the world. They believe that everything that happened in the church subsequent to Vatican II was heresy. More and more and coming to the conclusion that is exactly what the Vatican and the Pope represents.
By couching the 'encyclical' in terms that only a U. S. Congressman would use and attempt results in obfuscation and confusion that seems to be the intent.
Foremost, why issue such a convoluted text at all? Why even surreptitiously leave the 'document' open to interpretation by the NWO crowd and what's left of the faithful?
My advice to you is simple: read it again!
Lashing out in such a way demonstrates not only a lack of couth, but a serious lack of intellectual ability to discourse.
Yes, as I stated here I have indeed read the 'encyclical' and find it about as enlightening as the 1,000 piece of obfuscation issued by the U. S. Congress.
From the head of my Church I expect more and deep down I suspect you do as well.
To be in difficulty with our government is one thing, but to have to wade through a document issued by the head of my Church and larded with newspeak is quite another.
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.