Posted on 05/16/2016 7:25:41 AM PDT by detective
Writing in Forbes last year, Steve Moore, a Catholic, asked: “What is the theological case for telling those in the poorest villages of the planet where people still live at subsistence levels, that they have a moral obligation to save the planet by staying poor and using less fossil fuels, less energy and electricity?”
Three months later, Vatican Radio ran the telltale headline: “Pope: Christians Should Kneel Before the Poor.” The article cited Pope Francis’ assertion that “poverty is the great teaching” Jesus gave us, and that “the poor are not a burden but a resource.” He capped his homily with, “How I wish that Christians could kneel in veneration when a poor person enters the church.”
His comment was a red flag that went largely unnoticed. Only a handful of Catholic bloggers remarked on it. They are sensitive to Francis’ tendency not to genuflect at those sacred moments during Mass that traditional rubrics require it. Yet he kneels to wash—and kiss—the feet of juvenile offenders or women in a Buenos Aires maternity hospital. Why not at Mass? Have the poor become surrogates for the Eucharist? And what are we to make of elevating poverty from a condition to be addressed to a teaching to be cherished?
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
I’m not sure why you are bringing up Innocent III.
I understand that, but if any cleric commits adultery (for example) that does not mean that he is officially sanctioning it as a teaching of his church.
Again, my original post in this thread is not an indication that I wish to debate you or any other Protestant.
Then it appears you cannot read and understand the question:
Is this statement infallible or heresy, or just mere ‘opinion’?
There is nothing to debate.
A statement made by a POPE was posted.
We Prots would like a clarification of it; if it's not to much trouble.
All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost.
So, yes, it is infallible. You can read more in the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
You’re right. Nowadays one can not assume that a Catholic will disagree with a Protestant when he/she states something against Catholicism. My bad.
I think the way you broke it up into parts made it confusing for me.
Yet when asked for a reaction to news of a split in the Methodist faith you refuse to make a comment. This sounds a bit hypocritical.
I get in a hurry to post; and then I think of something ELSE I should have added.
Heck; half the stuff I post ends up being confusing to ME the next day after I post it!
Perhaps hypocritical is the wrong descriptor.
Maybe folks just don't want to be bothered again.
Who are you referring to? If one posts something that they should not think they should be protected from replies, though if a poster evidences that he/she is not fit to engage in meaningful exchange (resorting to spitwads in lieu of an argument; constant arguments by unsubstantiated opinion; etc.), then they can expect to be placed on an ignore list. Yet while one may request not to be pinged to posts they were not involved in, by participating in a forum then one is choosing to engage in exchange.
As for why a Protestant can say some pretty anti-Catholic posts on a regular basis and it's still okay to ping a certain poster but who requests sedevacantists do not, i would say that has to do with the nature of the exchange. Asserting something like Pope Benedict didn't believe in the Resurrection seems pretty absurd to me.
But why is it wrong from a RC to ask a certain poster, who is disobeying forum rules by repeatedly asking a question (not that your question did not warrant an answer) of a person who has expressed she finds you unfit for exchange (and in the past whose posts were reviewed and either posted or denied for several weeks), to not ping or post to her, while you state that you do not wish to debate any Protestant?
As for personalities, while i have strongly and substantively (by the grace of God) opposed RC teachings and the promotion of Rome, regardless of the poster, i consider Mrs. Don-o to be one of the most cordial RC regulars here.
Which premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (when speaking according to the infallible scope and subject-based criteria) is novel, unnecessary and unScriptural. You are welcome to try to defend it, and your basis for assurance of the veracity of this doctrine.
That presumes that the Methodist faith represents the faith of the poster(?), while if your example is meant to impugn Protestantism, as defined by even its most fundamental distinctive, then you must show that this Methodist declension is a consequence of holding Scripture to be the supreme authority as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God. And likewise, that those who most strongly hold to the authority of Scripture, with its basic literal hermeneutic, would not be the most unified major religious group in basic conservative beliefs, in contrast to those Rome treats as members in life and in death.
Thank you, daniel1212.
Credit to whom credit is due, by the grace of God.
and I agree!
Thank you, Elsie.
And you have a welcome sense of humor. O:-)
I think I already made it clear that I am not interested in debating with the Protestants in this thread.
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.