Posted on 03/27/2013 7:20:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[big snip]
Many Jesuits have been lukewarm at best ...the distrust stems from Francis's six years as Jesuit provincial of Argentina ...He was fiercely opposed to liberation theology.
"As a provincial, he was extremely strict and fairly conservative, which goes against the grain of the society," said [historian Michael] Walsh.
Fr. Jose Maria Sang, who recalls his former mentor as an earnest, well-prepared teacher with a strong spiritual orientation, also believes that those seeking to pigeonhole the new pope as conservative or progressive are missing the point.
"These terms are political, not religious," he said. "It is better to look at what Bergoglio has done since becoming a bishop – the concern he has shown for the poor and for street dwellers."
Francis... is a familiar figure in a giant slum in Buenos Aires where 45,000 people live in extreme poverty. For 15 years, Bergoglio rode the bus, and then walked in normal priest's robes through the dangerous neighbourhood to celebrate mass...
"I would say you'd find a photo of him in 60% of the homes in 21-24," said Father Juan Isasmendi... "He is a true man of God, he baptised so many children, he gave communion himself to thousands here....he was a father to so many people, a father to us priests."
Then-Cardnal Bergoglio on bus in Buenos Aires
Despite his missionary vigour, however – and a readiness to engage with the secular world– Francis remains an outspoken opponent of abortion, divorce, women's rights and euthanasia.
"A pregnant woman is not carrying a toothbrush in her womb, or a tumour," he once said. "Science shows us that the entire genetic code is present from conception. It's not therefore a religious issue, but scientifically based morality, because we are in the presence of a human being."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
...but that wasn't quite the issue...forthere wasn't the claim that the new pope said they were "identical"...
However, he did say;
What lies? besides...here on the religion forum calling other thread participants liars is prohibited, for reason that those sort of accusations lead to flamewars.
As example, I won't say that you yourself were lying when you were directly insinuating that another was lying, but more properly point out, in this instance I am persuaded to believe, you were merely incorrect.
So ease up on the hair trigger defensive response mechanism...and don't look now...but you just shot yourself in the foot. BWAAHAHHAA.
Look both ways before crossing the street maybe? And leave the flamebaiting accusations AT HOME.
Sister Mary Elephant has a word she'd like to share. word
Unsubstantiated horsecrap is permitted to stand while those who call it out are not?
If there’s proof, I want to see it. No proof - it should be taken down.
Then prove it.
I would like to see one thread where the discussion stays on the topic rather then opening up the thread, and seeing the second post engaging in the usual muckraking.
This is why we have Caucus threads in the first place, so that we can actually read and enjoy them. If you don’t like the Pope - please go somewhere else.
I like that picture in the article, which shows Pope Francis doing what he does best, being pastorial.
I think you described it well. There was one biblical figure left out of your list that is significant to Islam. They put that person, a son after the manner of flesh, a literal bastard, in the place of the son after the manner of promise.
I'll put a link here to Genesis 22 though I'm confident that you know that story.
For centuries, the Muslims have contended the scripture was changed. It's a nonsensical claim, for there are more than enough existing copies of Genesis which pre-exist Muhammed by centuries.
I think the answer is, yes.
But the evidence was presented on this thread BEFORE my own reply to you...all you would have to do is to have scrolled up just a teensy bit, and the direct quote was right above the reply I sent to you.
How about a little acknowledgement of your own error, huh?Or is that too much to ask.
If there’s proof, I want to see it. No proof - it should be taken down.
There was proof. But even if there wasn't, you don't get to get your way, and have posts removed just because they rub you the wrong way. Remove yourself from the religion forum if you can't handle it.
That would be nice. But who then would be bound? Yourself?
rather then opening up the thread, and seeing the second post engaging in the usual muckraking.
So now it's downgraded to muckraking? Whatever happened to it being "a lie"?
This is why we have Caucus threads in the first place,
This isn't a caucus thread, noOb. See to it when behind those walls there is no sniping at others, no denegrations, no idle comments concerning others. The Mormons had their caucus priviliges pulled for just such sort of monkeying around.
... so that we can actually read and enjoy them. If you don’t like the Pope
I don't have anything particular dislike of the current occupant of that office, nor much the previous either. Stop with the mind reading and attributing motive. Those sort of things also lead to flamewars.
- please go somewhere else.
Just where do you get off?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
My take is that officially the Church sees Islam as a false religion.
My evidence:
There is no Saint Muhammad, and his ‘revelation’ is not a certified miracle.
For Muhammad’s visions to not be declared a miracle by the church some or all of the following have to be true.
- The Church never got around to looking into these events (not possible)
- The Church found that supernatural visitation did not happen (Muhammad made it up or dreamed it)
- The Church found that the visions were supernatural but not Devine because they are in direct conflict with the true teachings of God (satan involved)
To put is plainly, if the Church’s official position was that the one true God spoke directly to Muhammad, then we would have a St. Muhammad.
****************************
He is a gift from God.
Yeah, but they have to be careful how they say it (or heads will quite literally roll).
So such kind comments towards Islamic people themselves as have been highlighted should be seen in wider context...
I don't know that the way several successive popes in a row have spoken towards Muslims is altogether wrong. There is much to be consider.
One thing I do know...that even as there are a great many Muslims who can be easily agitated & stirred up, those fields are also ripe to the harvest. 'Trouble is...one has to be very careful how they go about scything, for there are some hard stony places that can set off sparks when hit, starting fires that burn in bad ways...
“Yeah, but they have to be careful how they say it (or heads will quite literally roll).
So such kind comments towards Islamic people themselves as have been highlighted should be seen in wider context...” - BD
I totally agree.
The Church has to use diplomacy regarding Islam.
However, after scraping away all the varnish, there is no denying that there is no St. Muhammad. (and there are only a few reasons that would be the case.)
Someone starts an informative thread about the new pope and the second comment attacks him? Yeah, real ‘balanced coverage’ there. :)
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.