Posted on 09/24/2015 9:11:44 AM PDT by Biggirl
Pope Francis delivered a stinging blow to nativist conservatives bent on keeping illegal immigrants and Middle Eastern refugees out of the United States, saying Thursday in a landmark address to Congress that Americans should show compassion to immigrants of all stripes.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I don't see a comparison at all between the two addresses to Congress.
The fact that a Pope does demand his flock answer to him is very different from a leader of a Democracy. The papacy does have the moral authority......therefore he is telling Americans to move left politically.
Naturally, on FR we believe leftwing policies are bad for America.
Never said that. I said several freepers called him "leader of the free world" and argued that his comments are above our government's. You previously said nobody thought of him that way when he addressed Congress.
>> I don't see a comparison at all between the two addresses to Congress. <<
What differences do you see? The Pope wanted to talk about human dignity and environmental stewartship. Netanyahu wanted to talk about Iran. They chose those topics at the expense of other issues. Neither topic is my cup of tea but I respect their right to bring attention to those issues.
People here are criticizing the Pope for not talking about abortion loudly enough. Abortion is wrong, whether America is doing it or Israel is doing it. Either way its taking an innocent human life. The Pope briefly touched on that, Netanyahu did not. You say the Pope is a "leftist". Netanyahu claims to be a conservative. If anything, freepers should be MORE upset that a "conservative" government official is silent while his people abort themselves out of existance. But nope, after his government passed one of the most liberal abortion policies in the world, he got the rock start treatment here. Not one person lifted a finger to criticize him for his liberal domestic policies. Plenty of people bashed the Pope for his liberal economic and immigration policies.
>> The papacy does have the moral authority......therefore he is telling Americans to move left politically. <<
On some issues he's telling them to move left, on others, he's telling them to move right. If the U.S. government actually integrated Pope Francis' call to protect human life at all stages, they wouldn't be moving left politically.
>> Naturally, on FR we believe leftwing policies are bad for America. <<
Agreed. They're not just bad for America, they're bad the entire world. That includes when Israel adapts far left wing domestic policies under a "conservative" government. Fortunately for him, Netanyahu will never be criticized for his liberal policies the way the Pope is.
Not Catholic and could really give a flying fig what the Pope says or thinks.
I’ll bet there are millions of people here like me.
But on the Pope you must concede that the leftwing media, and Conservatives are not just hallucinating this, he is in fact on the left on every single position he's liturgically permitted to be on the left on.
The problem with that is that while he does occasionally say things that appeal to traditionalists, he rarely says them, as if he's obligated to say such things as the cost of getting to talk about what he really wants to talk about, which is income inequality and (non-existent) global warming.
He spoke in long stretches on Nancy Pelosi's agenda. So naturally I was not moved by his speech.
Nope. I will not concede that point.
For example, he IS "liturgically permitted" to change the Catholic Church's rule for allowing ONLY celibrate, unmarried men to be ordained. This is one of the MOST conservative rules of ANY Christian denomination in the world, and it is NOT dogma of the church (several married men from other denominations have converted to Catholic and been allowed to keep their ordinations)
Under Catholic canon law, the Pope could unilaterally change this rule tomorrow. If he was such a "radical marxist progressive liberal reformer", he would have jumped at the chance to do so (probably his FIRST week in office!), and get fawning praise from the mainstream media for being such a forward-thinking, inclusive pontiff.
In fact, even many "very conservative" Catholics would be OK with that rule change.
But he chooses not to, and the issue is not even on his priority list.
I can name numerous other examples, but your premise is simply wrong. Pope John XXIII was probably must more a "Rock the boat" type who wanted to liberalize the Catholic Church, than this guy.
I will agree that the mainstream media gives coverage of him being "on the left" of "every single position" they can find to broadcast.
The head of the SBC doesn’t even head the SBC. All the congregations are autonomous. But if God was choosing someone to be his Vicar, I suspect He’s choose someone who knew the difference between good and evil.
As good Christians, I'm sure they'll appreciate me treating their church as they treat others.
=======================================
Floyd: Have compassion on undocumented immigrant children
Wow! Ronnie Floyd is CLEARLY a moron who has never read his bible. The bible doesn't say ANYTHING about "undocumented" immigrants. Who elected this open borders marxist? Maybe the Baptists should worry more about their ilegal-alien loving President before they judge others.
============================================
(gee, I'm guessing you don't like when Catholics treat protestant officials the same way you treat ours)
Right now between an appeasing Pope, Obama and Rouhani, I’m not sure that we don’t have three false prophets already.
Ronnie Floyd doesn’t speak for Southern Baptists. He can’t. He has ZERO authority over southern baptists.
““Our Lord Jesus himself was a so-called ‘illegal immigrant.’ Fleeing, like many of those in our country right now, a brutal political situation, our Lord’s parents sojourned with him in Egypt,” Moore wrote.
“Therefore, without any question at all, Jesus Christ is sympathetic with immigrants,” Floyd added.”
If I meet Floyd, I can and will tell him he’s full of horse poop, and that he’s reading his stupid politics into twisting the Bible and that he ought to be ashamed of himself. And as I said - he does not and cannot speak for the SBC. He has no authority of any kind over me or my pastor or our elders.
Floyd makes no claim of speaking as the Vicar of Christ. If he tried, he’d be booted out of the SBC in a heartbeat. He is just one of 45,000 pastors in the SBC. Nothing more. One of 45,000.
Well, here's their comment on his election as President:
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological seminary, had praised the Arkansas pastor, whom he nominated, as "dependable" and "faithful" and someone who will "lead all Southern Baptists and lead them well," during his nomination address to messengers prior to the voting.
If has zero power to lead them and "just another pastor", they don't seem to think so when they nominated him. Take it up with Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. It seems they go through a lot of trouble to give someone a meaningless figurehead title of "President" in the SBC. The Catholic Church has meaningless figurehead titles, but none of them are "President" of the Catholic Church.
He was also completely unopposed when he was up for a 2nd term. If his far-left pro-illegal views aren't shared by most SBC pastors, you'd think at least ONE of them would have challenged him for the title of "President" since he doesn't represent the majority viewpoint of his denomination. Why would you want to honor someone with the title of President who doesn't represent how the SBC feels? Even if it was a figurehead title, I'd choose the person I think best represents the SBC's theological beliefs as a whole:
http://www.bpnews.net/44954/ronnie-floyd-unopposed-as-sbc-president
>> Ronnie Floyd doesn’t speak for Southern Baptists. He can’t. He has ZERO authority over southern baptists. And as I said - he does not and cannot speak for the SBC <<
If that the case, then the SBC really ought to consider removing the "President's page" from their website that highlights HIS beliefs for the national organization. He certainly gets more attention than the other pastors. It seems to imply he speaks for the SBC as a whole. At the very least, if he was "just another pastor", you'd think they'd have a "Pastoral Highlights" on their page featuring a different pastor every week, instead of focusing on the President when his views are irrelevant and don't matter:
http://www.sbc.net/presidentspage/
I also think you're being a bit disingenuous by claiming he's "just another pastor". There are thousands of baptist pastors in this country, I doubt the unknown ones stand much of a chance of being elected President. Floyd is a very well known, prominent baptist pastor (he heads an Arkansas megachurch and is the Duggar family's pastor), which is probably why he was nominated for President. I'm sure "in theory" any ordinary Baptist pastor could be elected President, just as "in theory" any Catholic can be elected Pope, but we know the actual pool of candidates is pretty small when they meet to elect someone.
>> If I meet Floyd, I can and will tell him he’s full of horse poop, and that he’s reading his stupid politics into twisting the Bible and that he ought to be ashamed of himself. <<
Interesting. I agree there, he seems to be even further left than Francis on immigration. I'd probably tell him he's wrong as well. If I met Pope Francis, I'd also likely tell him in person that I don't agree with him that human activity is the primary cause of climate change, and he should consider other viewpoints on the matter because his conclusion is wrong. And if I met Benjamin Netanyahu in person, I'd tell him I'm utterly appalled that his "conservative" government just passed an abortion policy that is further left than the most pro-abortion Democrats in the United States, and he ought to be ashamed they're killing so many Jewish babies when he's coming here talking about preserving Israel for future generations.
That being said, if Floyd was speaking before Congress to blah blah blah about some liberal topic, I'd be respectful for the event and I wouldn't made snide remarks about his denomination or his character, or attack his relationship with God. I'd do the same for the Pope and Netanayu. That's the Christian thing to do in public. See how this works?
“If has zero power to lead them and “just another pastor”, they don’t seem to think so when they nominated him.”
Sorry. The President of the SBC has ZERO authority. That is just the way it is. The SBC exists to coordinate spending for missions and seminaries. Nothing else. It is probably hard for someone used to a rigid church hierarchy to understand having none.
“If his far-left pro-illegal views aren’t shared by most SBC pastors, you’d think at least ONE of them would have challenged him for the title of “President” since he doesn’t represent the majority viewpoint of his denomination.”
Again, you totally misunderstand what the SBC does. There is no authority in being part of the SBC leadership. It exists to coordinate missions and seminaries. The President of the SBC can believe whatever he wants politically. It means NOTHING to member churches or their congregations.
” Even if it was a figurehead title, I’d choose the person I think best represents the SBC’s theological beliefs as a whole”
The theological beliefs of the SBC are set forth here - but no member church has to subscribe to them. Many do, many do not. Some use one of the previous versions:
http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp
Here is what it says about church structure:
” A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. “
Also here:
“Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.”
Please notice: “Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches.”
I’ve been a baptist for over 30 years. I haven’t known the name of the President of the SBC during ANY of those years. I had no idea who held the office this year until you told me. It simply is not relevant to anyone I’ve met. I doubt any of our members could tell you his name.
“we know the actual pool of candidates is pretty small when they meet to elect someone”
WE know no such thing. The vote is done during the Convention. Any delegate gets to vote. I could be a delegate next year IF I wished to go. I’ve never gone and I’ve never cared who was President. He doesn’t speak for anyone besides himself.
Well, I think you need to take up this matter with your fellow Baptists then. They clearly seem to think he “leads” them, that’s how they described it when discussing the matter to the media. There was no talk of them electing a meaningless, powerless figurehead with a title for an organization that merely “coordinates missions and seminaries”. Numerous articles on the election of the SBC President say he was elected over 2 or 3 other prominent pastors that were nominated for the job, and that he would focus on growing the SBC nationally. Their website gives him his own page and clearly highlights the President’s personal views and opinions on all sorts of matters — very odd decision if they feel he should not represent the denomination more than any other pastor, and would be completely out of place by doing so.
If you disagree with how the President was chosen and what his role should be, you might indeed consider being a delegate next year. They seem to have a very different vision than you.
Also surprised you claim to have no knowledge of who the SBC President ever was until I mentioned it. I had to google the current guy, but the last one was the first black President in the entire history of the SBC, so it received lots of news coverage. I didn’t comment on the matter at the time because I’m not a fan of sneering at the choice of other religious denominations and telling them how much their leader sucks. Perhaps I should rethink that policy.
“Well, I think you need to take up this matter with your fellow Baptists then. They clearly seem to think he “leads” them...Also surprised you claim to have no knowledge of who the SBC President ever was until I mentioned it.”
I’m not “claiming” anything. I’m stating a fact. I don’t need to take up anything with my fellow Baptist, having been one for close to 40 years now. I KNOW the vast majority of my fellow baptists neither know nor care who the president of the SBC is.
I also know EVERY baptist church I’ve been in has been very well aware that the SBC exists solely to coordinate spending on missions and seminaries.
Given this fact, the SBC should just reunite with the National Baptist Convention (NBC); National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.; (NBCA); American Baptist Churches USA (ABC); and Baptist Bible Fellowship International (BBF).
It apparently makes no difference who the powerless “President” is, since every pastor has complete and total freedom to say and do whatever he pleases, so then there’s absolutely no need for different Baptist denominations in the U.S. Add up all the Baptists denominations and you might outnumber those pesky Catholics who get all the attention.
Also given that fact, I’d hope and pray you don’t end up with some self-described “Southern Baptist” pastor running around telling everyone that Jesus wasn’t divine, the holy spirit doesn’t exist, and the Bible is a fairy tale. Or maybe you could even have one going around preaching that Muhammad is a prophet like a decently defrocked Methodist pastor tried to do. Good luck with that one since your SBC is absolutely powerless to do anything about such an apostate self-identifies as a pastor in the “Southern Baptist Convention”. The Unitarians certainly haven’t been helped by letting their pastors say and believe any theological viewpoint they want. I believe they even have atheist “pastors” now.
“Also given that fact, I’d hope and pray you don’t end up with some self-described “Southern Baptist” pastor running around telling everyone that Jesus wasn’t divine, the holy spirit doesn’t exist, and the Bible is a fairy tale.”
If the local Baptist church did not throw him out, then he could not be dealt with until the annual convention. The annual convention meeting could throw his congregation out. We only have an annual meeting to do it in.
“Given this fact, the SBC should just reunite with the National Baptist Convention (NBC)...”
We have theological differences with some of the other Baptist conventions, and thus do not support their seminaries - or they support ours. But a Baptist church can be a member of more than one convention.
“Good luck with that one since your SBC is absolutely powerless to do anything about such an apostate self-identifies as a pastor in the “Southern Baptist Convention”.”
Since each baptist church is autonomous, no one in the SBC CAN do anything about it until the annual convention meets. Then a vote of those attending the convention can remove the congregation. It happens at times, usually over something like ordaining women as pastors or accepting homosexuality.
I was baptized by a pastor in the American Baptist Church. I’ve been a member of baptist churches who were not part of the SBC, and of those who were. Having moved around a lot in the military, I’ve been in a lot of churches. About half were SBC. The church I’m a member of now is in the SBC, but we have had discussions about leaving if the SBC gets too political.
All of this follows from letting the Holy Spirit be the “Vicar of Christ” instead of man - as the scripture says:
“For if I did not go away, the divine helper would not come to you. But if I go, then I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convince the world of the meaning of sin, of true goodness and of judgment. He will expose their sin because they do not believe in me; he will reveal true goodness for I am going away to the Father and you will see me no longer; and he will show them the meaning of judgment, for the spirit which rules this world will have been judged.
12-15 “I have much more to tell you but you cannot bear it now. Yet when that one I have spoken to you about comes—the Spirit of truth—he will guide you into everything that is true. For he will not be speaking of his own accord but exactly as he hears, and he will inform you about what is to come. He will bring glory to me for he will draw on my truth and reveal it to you. Whatever the Father possesses is also mine; that is why I tell you that he will draw on my truth and will show it to you.”
But I’m not sure someone who is a member of a church whose popes have included murderers and adulterers has much business criticizing others. Your bishops and popes have often been disgraces who revel in their public sins. Given the child molesters and practicing homosexuals who have run rampant in the Catholic Church, getting upset because baptists don’t care who the SBC president is seems a bit out of proportion.
Indeed, Pope Francis the Communist is only preaching to Congress what the Catholic Bishops in America have been preaching a long time...
Disagree. Jesus directly tells Peter in scripture that he is the rock upon which with the church will be built. He could have said "the holy spirit will lead my church, not you or any other man", if the intent was as you claim it was.
Of course if you accepted apostolic succession, you wouldn't be baptist.
I find just it amusing that other Christian denominations LOVE to bash Catholics about their leaders and tell us how much we suck and how stupid our cardinals are for electing him, then cry fowl and can't take it for five minutes if we do the same and google who they elected at their latest "annual convention".
You going ballistic when I held the SBC to the same standards you demand of the Catholic Church is proof of that. You've taken "turn the other cheek" in exactly the opposite context. Now its "keep your cheek facing this way while we slap you"
I don't think any Christian denomination can claim the high ground here. Human beings are sinful and thus all Christian churches are going to have prominent clergy that strayed from God's word and committed terrible acts, especially if the denomination has been around for centuries.
I'm sure we could find several examples of Baptist pastors who were "murderers and adulterers" over the last 400 years, and quite a few more who were "disgraces who revel in their public sins". If I was a Baptist, I'd be embarrassed to join the SBC simply because of their sinful origins as a Baptist denomination that started because they disagreed with the National Baptists over slavery, and broke away to support the "right" to own other human beings. That being said, I know no current SBC has this belief, so I can't blame the 2015 SBC clergy for the odious actions of their 1845 predecessors. Nor should the 2015 Catholic clergy be blamed for the horrible crimes that their predecessors committed centuries ago.
The latest "Communist" Pope, by the way, just denounced communism in his latest encyclical saying "Communism and other totalitarian regimes have been employed to kill millions of people". I'm sure you haven't read it aren't aware he wrote that. Can't blame you since you're not Catholic, but yes its disturbing you're also not aware what your own denomination is up to.
I'd say you need to go back to that bible passage about casting stones.
Doesn’t give him a right to tell us how to run our country. We are under thr authority of the COTUS, not 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.