Posted on 06/18/2015 1:22:58 PM PDT by detective
Leaders of the Catholic Church in America took their “marching orders” from the Pope’s encyclical on Thursday, fanning out to Congress and the White House to push for action on climate change.
The high-level meetings offered a first glimpse of a vast and highly organised effort by the leadership of America’s nearly 80 million Catholics to turn the Pope’s moral call for action into reality.
“It is our marching orders for advocacy,” Joseph Kurtz, the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Archbishop of Louisville, said. “It really brings about a new urgency for us.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Miriam would disagree
Prove your claim; Buster!
Oh c'mon Arthur...Christians wouldn't waste their time reading or listening to Tim Staples...On top of being basically biblically ignorant, he adds to scriptures, removes from scripture and generally just perverts scripture...Catholics don't know any better because, hey, it's scripture...
So you, even being a priest, don't know enough scripture to back up your apologizers...Show us, anywhere in the bible where Mary is a co-mediator between God and man...Anywhere...Just once...
You brute!!!
Thank you for posting this information!
It appears you appellation is still confusing folks, old cow. But we tried to tell you using a cow’s name to name a bull (or is it steer?) was gonna cause problems!
EXACTLY! THANK YOU!
And we have liftoff! How many MSM reporters have actually read it all? How many are Catholic and understand the Church? How many are anti-Catholic? Some of them may misinterpret; some just hate Catholicism.
Socialism is atheistic. Catholicism teaches care for the poor because Jesus Himself encouraged it. Giving to the poor is done out of love for God and compassion for one's neighbor.
That's absurd. 1.2 billion people are Catholic and scattered throughout the world.
Only when the conditions for infallible teaching are met.
So?
When they vote in the United States they vote pro-abortion liberal, and support the politics that their European headquarters is pushing.
You were responding to post 15, which was in response to post 2, which was in response to post 1.
All of them about Catholics voting in the United States, and the effect of the the denominations’ European based headquarters on that vote, which of course, is majority “liberals, and vote democrat”.
Catholic, vs. Mainstream, Point of View "Normally in the modern epoch, Popes have included in encyclicals doctrinal themes. But 'Laudato si' is not a doctrinal text -- it is rather a pastoral letter based on the classical Latin American method: see, judge, act."
What I’m saying is, don’t judge all Catholics throughout the world on the ones you see in the US. I agree that many do not follow, yet consider themselves Catholic. There are, however, those in other parts of the world who do not take their Faith for granted. There are also those of us who try our best to follow their Faith, but our votes get nullified when we live in liberal states, although I never give up my right, and privilege, to cast my ballot. We’re not all Kennedys, nor do we all think as they do.
No, the context does not show that Mary herself expected Jesus to DO anything about it when she remarked
as if that was Mary's own prime motivation for having made the observation, unless you are trying to say there was something along lines of stereotypical Jewish mother, guilt-tripping hidden requirement, inherent within the words Mary is attributed to having spoke, instead of those initial words, at face value be simple observation; "they have no wine".
But go ahead, try to explain how Mary's initial comment carried all which her later comment ("do all which he says") may have, or should we say ----likely did.
Can't do it if relying upon Scripture itself, can you?
No, that's where the rest is left to be read-in-between the lines, which can be done in some instances of Scripture, for that is among the ways which other Scripture writers have been led to communicate the things of God, but in others instances (if one makes it a habit to always be trying to read-in-between the lines what they would like to find) can be pure (and misleading) imposition upon Scripture itself that which some may prefer to be read into the texts.
In this instance, it's as if what could be well enough understood was likely to have been among Mary's own sense of events which ARE evidenced right AFTER Jesus responded to her --- is being fully transported to apply to her own, initial opening comment of observation.
One way of approaching biblical texts (exegesis) derives meanings from, extracts from Scripture that which can be openly enough found within Scripture, the other way (eisogesis) inserts meanings, imposes upon the texts that which is not actually there, or well supported from elsewhere with OT & NT texts, or even earliest decades Christian church "tradition", as those be known.
But thanks for providing yet more example for just how slippery things can be between well enough founded exegesis, and flat-out, slight, subtle, and depending upon theological application significant departure from Scripture through eisogesis, and how those two differing approaches produce results which are then set right next to one another, even blended together as if they were one and the same.
After Jesus replied to her, then, at that point it does seem as if she had some sense that there was going to something which her own son --- whom she knew well enough who's father he truly was --- would do something significant.
Before then, when she simply remarked "they have no wine", there is nothing of the sort.
It's much more likely that Mary's own internal thinking, when she remarked, "they have no wine" would have been in context of Jewish cultural/religious sensibilities of that era, as in the wedding party running out of wine be a "bad omen" sort of harbinger for the marriage which they were gathered together to attend celebration of, rather than her initial observation carrying along with it something like "hey son, I know you can do miracles, how about one now?" sort of thing, regardless if Jesus could be imagined to have responded as He did, as IF his earthly mother had been deliberately & intentionally goading Him into "doing something", as if Mary EXPECTED Jesus to do a miracle.
So once again, you sir, are wrong.
Context does not show that "Mary told Jesus this (they have no wine) because she expected that He would do something about it.
The Beast of Revelation has been birthed
Get a clue, my interest is in the Catholic vote, and how the American left and JFK and Ted rewrote the immigration laws to import 10s of millions of more of them from the most Catholic nations, to advance the left’s political agenda and defeat the conservative vote.
This Pope’s politics are typical for Catholics, and the democrats.
“Everything I said about Mary is taught in Scripture.”
I went to three different Catholic Seminaries to see what the curriculum the future “priests” must go through and was appalled at how little training in the Scriptures they receive.
You are a self-described priest. If you graduated from a Catholic Seminary, it would explain why you believe what you wrote it taught in Scripture.
“All those parts of Scripture are simply ignored by Protestants.”
Not a single verse of Sacred Scripture was “ignored” at my seminary. Every book, verse-by-verse, chapter by chapter was taught, translated, outlined and studied in multiple languages. Each was correlated with the totality of systematic theology.
There are no verses that support your claim.
“Get BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER, by Tim Staples. The books shows where in Scripture all the Marian dogmas are taught.”
Better yet, I have the original - the Bible. I do not need a book by someone who accepts pagan theology and makes Mary into a demigoddess.
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.