Posted on 07/07/2009 10:30:02 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
You wrote:
“I don’t know of a single Protty on FR who opposes God or His Church.”
I know of many. You’re one of them.
“It’s just that we are not responsible for
Vatican Roman Catholic delusions and mangling of history and Biblical facts.”
You’re responsible for your own delusions and mangling of history and Biblical facts. That will be enough.
You wrote:
“So, as you correctly point out, why stress the need for susidiarity to mitigate something that there will not be more of?”
You are conflating two separate things. In this encyclical, the pope expressed no desire for more bureaucracy. What he would like, however, would lead unintentionally to more bureaucracy. That is entirely different than saying: “If the pope is not naive and understand the ‘pitfalls’ of bureaucracy, why then does he want more of it?” I do not assume people start to smoke because they actually WANT lung cancer. You apparently would assume that.
“Since he is proposing something that he knows will create more bureaucracy then it is fair to say that he wants more bureaucracy, or at the very least is willing to tolerate more bureaucracy.”
No, it is not fair to say he wants more bureaucracy. If he did then he would not mention subsidiarity at all. I think it is much more fair to say he is willing to tolerate more bureaucracy.
“It is as simple as that. Logically speaking, more bureacracy > the amount of present bureaucracy, or less bureaucracy. Therefore the Pope wants more bureaucracy, regardless of whether he is merely willing to tolerate it or thinks it a necessary ‘downside’ or not.”
No. Again, to be willing to tolerate something is far different than wanting it. When someone needs chemo for cancer, they are not hoping to get sick from it. They are wiling to tolerate the chemo and the accompanying downside sickness so that they beat the cancer.
No problem. I’ll be on the road off and on myself.
You wrote:
“Just a slight historical correction. Sir Thomas More, a Catholic and “saint”, was the author of Utopia which deals the idea that the world would be best ruled by a few rather than the masses.”
More is not a “saint”. He is a saint. Period.
“This philosophy wasn’t anything new in the Church for the Holy Roman Church which sought to expand itself.”
The Church does not seek to expand itself. It preaches the gospel. If the Church sought to expand itself it would do a much better job!
“He only vocalized it and Utopia planted the seeds for socialism.”
You’re not making any sense. Hierarchy, which More accepted and beieved in both as a concept and a reality in daily life, is a perfectly natural and Christian thing.
“The whole philosophy behind the “infallibility of the Pope” doctrine, devised in the early 20th century was to consolidate decisions and authority with one man. And one could go on and on.”
You could indeed go on and on...making mistakes as you did above. Papal infallibility was defined as a doctrine in the 19th century, not the 20th. Also, the philosophy of it was already largely worked out in the 13th and 14th centuries. Apparently this is news to you.
“Compare this to Protestantism that preaches every man is their own priest and individualism;”
Uh, gee, I hate to enter facts into your little dream world here, but Catholics also HAVE ALWAYS believed all baptized persons are priests. We got that from our religious forefathers - the Jews - who believed in both a priestly nation and a select priesthod. That’s what we have in the Church. After all we know and believe 1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it:
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.”20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”21 1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace —a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit—, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Look here: http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/625/Priesthood_of_Believers.html
Also, the idea that Protestants invented individualism is just bizarre and completely ahistorical. Individualism is a product of the Middle Ages. That’s incredibly clear if you read The Idea of Natural Rights by Brian Tierney. Read especially starting at page 208.
“and I think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that Protestantism is Marxist.”
It would be. And of course I never said it was. It would help if you actually got what I said right.
“It seems to me the evidence is the other way around. That is unless, of course, Marxism and Socialism have been redefined.”
Nope, but clearly you’re not above making up things I never said.
“Please note that what the Pope is preaching IS Socialist in nature.”
Nope. Charity and concern are not socialist. If Benedict is a socialist than all the early Christians were too. And Jesus? You must think He was a raging COMMUNIST. Clothe the naked? Feed the poor? Wow, how Marxist of God.
“You will not find a Calvinist on this board (or I would gather in the world) that would agree with the Pope on this.”
Yeah, actually I would:
http://www.calvin.edu/henry/ISSRC/Conferences/Papers/monsma06.pdf
I think you don’t know nearly as much as you think you do. And that is so often what becomes clear when talking to Protestants about even their own religion. How sad.
Thank you for your kind words.
I’m just a person who believes Christ died for my sins, A simple Christian if you will. (totally non-denominational)
Since when did the Catholic church become God’s church?
I can't read it any other way.
Maybe he was taken into a dark room at the Vatican and was shown the *real* Kennedy assassination flick.
My antenna tell me that the Pope, as is custom, has buried a few very important words in a multi-thousand word Enclycical. This, one a very dangerous concept to the freedom of individual nations, is true to long held principles of the RCC.
You wrote:
“Since when did the Catholic church become God’s church?”
Since Christ founded His Church - the Catholic Church - about A.D. 33.
Amen. His Church is the Body of Christ, hallelujah.
You got that right. We know better. Too bad the Pope doesn’t.
After reading this article and seeing what the *Church* has been involved in over the years, his return is undoubtedly imminent.
That’s amazing. I only skimmed it but have saved it to my computer. Who ever would have known all this? Whew.
I believe that, too, wolfcreek.
I wish the Pope better understood such things as the credit derivatives market that blow up the financial markets and trashed the global economy. There is a fundamental immorality in these marets that lack transparency and are too complex. See story on the attack on these secretive markets by Christopher Whalen in testimony last month at this link: http://mindovermarket.blogspot.com/2009/07/credit-derivatives-largest-source-of.html
It would not take a central authority to deal with this central problem to the global financial system.
. . . and the number shall be 666.
I agree we should take Reuters interpretation with a grain of salt. They have every desire to misrepresent the Pope.
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.