Posted on 12/02/2013 7:06:42 PM PST by marshmallow
Jes·u·it·i·cal
adjective
of or pertaining to Jesuits or Jesuitism.
( often lowercase ) practicing casuistry or equivocation;
using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.
Or as the say you can take the Jesuit out of the Jesuits but not the Jesuit out of the Jesuit.
On Saturday, Radio Vatican said Pope Francis had said,
“In the Gospel, Jesus does not become angry, but pretends to when the disciples do not understand him,”
The ancient Fathers would baulk at such a suggestion, I can't think of one who would be be comfortable with the idea that the Gospels did not reveal the plain meaning of what Jesus said and did, it is only the Jesuits of the 17th century who would begin to suggest otherwise.
There is no suggestion in the Gospels that Jesus feigns, or pretends anything. On the contrary he is the 'Truth'. He says, "Let your 'yes' mean 'yes' and your 'no' mean 'no'". His Kingdom stands in contradistinction to that of the kingdom of the Father of Lies.
If Jesus really does 'pretend' to be angry but isn't really what else does he pretend? Is he really just 'acting' in other emotional responses, when he sighs, when he weeps, when he rails against the Pharisees. Is he really grinning broadly when he calls Simon Peter, 'Satan'?
I do not agree with Pope Francis on this, we do not need smiley or angry face marks to interpret the Gospels. Perhaps this says more about the Pope than it does about Jesus. Rather than Jesus pretending, is Pope Francis 'pretending'? After all if one believes the Son of God can and does 'pretend', why shouldn't the Pope? And if the Pope can 'pretend', why not the Church?
(Excerpt) Read more at marymagdalen.blogspot.com ...
I’m not impressed that the pope is teaching subsidiarity very well, even though he name-drops it.
The Financial Times article quotes the catechism’s already shaky definition, but the Pope says this: “’It is the responsibility of the State to promote the common good of society.’ Based on principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, and full committed to political dialogue and consensus building, it plays a fundamental role, one which cannot be delegated, in working for the integral development of all.”
His use is almost the exact antithesis of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity DEMANDS that the responsibility BELONGS to the lower levels of organization and CANNOT be usurped by the state!
SUBSIDIARITY:1. a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over; 2. the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level.
The only way that is consistent with the claim that the state cannot delegate responsibility is that the state has no responsibility to delegate!
And he writes with an ambiguity which is even worse: “It is the responsibility of the State” is orthodox because one could interpret it as meaning, “One responsibility of the State is...” but who wouldn’t read that as saying that the responsibility is the State’s, as opposed to anyone else’s?
When he writes so tragically poorly, he welcomes criticism. And Catholic apologists are forced to abandon citing him as an appeal to an authority.
1) Abortion,
2) Women pastor-teachers. or
3) Ordination of homosexuals.
Evangelism is a type of spiritual gift of communication given to some believers by God the Holy Spirit to communicate His Word to unbelievers.
A similar spiritual gift is given to others to communicate His Word to believers, also known as the gift of pastor-teacher.
Where described in the New Testament, both gifts are only indicated as being given to men. Ordination by a group of believers doesn't confer these spiritual gifts to another believer anymore than voting on a person's sainthood can confer salvation. These are still the domain and reign of God Himself, not humanity.
In regards to homosexuality, as with sodomy and effeminate behavior, we also understand such persons will not inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9).
Perhaps as fellow believers in Christ we can agree to place Christ before any group of believers and rely on Him before we rely on other institutions or upon provision made by human good instead of what He provides by Divine Good.
Surely you aren't trying to pass this off as LOGICAL?
Hee hee...
Watch THIS!!!
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
More LOGIC?
I've noticed that you've NOT commented on the ones with GOOD links...
I heard someone say one time that when Jesus wept he was weeping for the two mourning sisters and what they must be feeling when their brother died. What? These both seem to be attempts to dehumanize him. He felt what we feel. No need to create distance between us and him in that way. Just makes him hard to understand and intellectualizes.
He might not have known about Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank and all the other regulations. He is just a tad unsophisticated in that way. We have plenty of fetters. I still think he was really trying to make people think.
You might be thinking of Maryknoll, or perhaps Times Square Church. Both eschew holding wealth and pass everything received on to the missions, except for what is needed to maintain their operation.
About that known homosexual priests thing......
Homosexuality and Roman Catholic priests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests
And foreseeing the denouncement of the source, the wiki article provides a plethora of sources at the end of the article for further confirmation.
Vatican Won’t Ban Gay Priests
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/10/07/vatican-wont-ban-gay-priests/
And then there’s the current pope’s latest ramblings.
All in all, there are homosexual Catholic priests which the Catholic church still accepts as ordained practicing priests. No Catholic is in any position to throw any stones at any other denomination for having homosexual clergy.
Not every non-Catholic church ordains gay clergy as some liberal denominations so so broad brushing non-Catholics as doing so is not accurate.
However, I have also noted that in general, when a member of the clergy is found to be in sexual sin of any kind, it usually results in having their credentials revoked, something the Catholic church does not do.
Perhaps he should be renamed pope Joseph (as in Biden). ;)
You’re being kind.
Of course, I said nothing like this.
What I said was that the Pope can hold erroneous opinions about the causes of poverty. And he can publish them. Many Popes have.
The only sodomite priests are the ones that are found out after they have been ordained. Then, like any other priest they are expected to remain celibate. If they can’t, just like any other priest, they are not allowed to remain in the priesthood. The Catholic Church will not allow in the priesthood any man that says he is a homosexual. The question is asked “do you have any homosexual tendencies”. Some answer no. If they answer yes they are not allowed in the priesthood. In otherwords they lie their way into the priesthood.
This is 190 degrees the opposite of the Episcopalian Church that openly accepts homosexuals AND lesbian women into the clergy and makes no distinction at all with their perverted lifestyle. This is the reason that thousands of episcopalian converted flock to the Catholic Church each year. This is also the same reason that the Angelican Church in England is about dead. Their liberal stance on women ordaination, women clergy and homosexual clergy. Like the American arm of the Angelican Church, the Episcopalians will also “marry” sodomites.
“However, I have also noted that in general, when a member of the clergy is found to be in sexual sin of any kind, it usually results in having their credentials revoked, something the Catholic church does not do”.
You seem to be forgetting about Jimmy Swaggart who got on national TV and started crying when it was found out he had been running around with prostitutes. Last time I looked the Jimmy Swaggart ministries are alive and well and doing good.
Or how about Ted Haggard, the protestant preacher that had thousands and thousands of followers in the Denver area. He was found out to be snorting crack and having homosexual sex with his boyfriends, but last time I checked he was still preaching.
And let’s not forget Eddie Lee Long,the senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, a megachurch in Georgia. Accused of sodomite sex with countless young male members of his parish. When the story broke pastor Eddie told them all to go to hell and kept on preaching.
Good post, but no answer?
It would be nice is you notices the ^ as referring to the last referenced source, which the site i directed you to for more tells you. But i forgot, many RCs will refuse to look at sites that impugn Rome. And even Catholic sites are to be dismissed when they do so. Yet this would include the Vatican's.
That itself is what is biased, as you cannot allow any validity for any source that impugns Rome, and even dismiss them as being anti-Catholic instead! What bondage! Meanwhile even Catholic polls or those which were sponsored by Catholic orgs concur overall with the rest.
Of course you must dismiss it, as devoted RCs must reject all such evidence that impugns Rome. But I think you evidence you do care, by resorting to the typical damage control of impugning the credibility of the polls.
As long as Rome overall treats as members those whom you exclude as being so, then it is your assertions that are "skewed."
What evangelical “church” believes in NO...
Not Rome, as it is the kind of church that ignores that what one does constitutes what they really believe, and like the Pharisees, "they say, and do not," (Matthew 23:3) but treat even known public liberals as members in life and in death. In so doing she provides the interpretation of what she means by her teachings.
Meanwhile, what evangelical churches actually teach is seen by evangelicals being overall far less liberal and far more conservative and unified in moral views than Catholics.
However, such preach Christ, not a church as you must, and thus it is you whom must defend your church, as hard as that is (besides official doctrines) in the light of what it really believes.
And if you think the media that constantly blasts the Catholic Church
Actually, evangelicals have been the greatest threat to their immoral and liberal agenda, versus a church that mouths conservative values but largely fosters the opposite, and thus it has been evangelicalism that has been treated as the greatest threat by both liberals and Rome.
Meanwhile, RCs have well evidenced here that they have a persecution complex, overreacting to even the slightest thing that seems to impugn their fantasy of a holy church, and often unwilling or incapable of objective judgment.
Lastly, ignoring the morons that call themselves Catholic and voted for Obama, the number of devout practicing Catholics that abide by their church’s teachings, voted for Romney 60% to 42 for Obama.
And that is supposed to show Rome as a strongly conservative church? Besides the fact that the church you trumpet does not exist, as it does not treat liberal RCs are morons, a mere 18% difference btwn the two candidates hardly commends "real" RCs as conservative, esp. when one was the most radically liberal Democrat ever to run for the office.
. The number of Catholics that voted for the conservative candidate dwarfs any protestant denomination in the country.
That is deceptive sophistry, as it is not the numerical quantities which matters but percentages, and by using the former you can assert they provided more conservatives vote than any single Prot denomination even if the majority of Catholics voted liberal, as Rome is the single largest denom, even if only constituting about 25% of Americans. . Meanwhile, it was 80% of white evangelicals - those who most esteem Scripture as the Word of God and supreme authority - who voted for Romney, more so than Mormons!
Would you use this same method, versus percentage, for how many priestly pedophiles Rome has provided? Honestly?
More for the file:
47% of white Catholics identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party, while 46% supported the GOP in the mid-September [2012] poll [up from 41% in 2008], while 72% of white evangelicals identified with the GOP. http://www.pewforum.org/Race/Latinos-Religion-and-Campaign-2012.aspx#president
37% of Catholics were registered as Democrats [2007], 27% Republican, and 31% as Independents. Aggregated Pew Research Surveys, 2007. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=295#ideology
34% of weekly Mass attending Catholics are Democrats, and an additional 19% are not affiliated with a party but lean toward the Democrats (53% identifying or leaning as Democrats). 28% of weekly attenders are Republicans and an additional 17% lean toward being a Republican (43 percent identifying or leaning as Republicans). Thus Democrats have a 10% point edge among weekly attendees, Catholics who attend Mass less than weekly are even more likely to be a Democrat rather than a Republican. http://cara.georgetown.edu/NewsandPress/PressReleases/pr061808.pdf
91% of faculty and administrators from America’s top 23 Catholic universities who contributed to presidential campaigns in 2012 gave to President Obama. 89.6% of all 928 donors contributed to Obama, versus 10.3% who gave to Romney. Employees of the Catholic schools contributed $449,229 to President Obama while giving just $70,304 to Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Of the 826 individuals who donated over $200 to the two major candidates, 748 gave to President Obama’s campaign while 78 contributed to Romney. Based on official Federal Election Commission data made available by OpenSecrets.org; http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4529
Based upon exit polling, 74 percent of Evangelicals voted for McCain in 2008, with 25 percent for Obama. (Another measure which put the percentage of US evangelicals at 23 percent, with 73 percent voting for McCain, 26 percent for Obama.) http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367
Catholics overall supported Obama over McCain by a nine-point margin (54% vs. 45%) ^
Exit polls in 2008 reported that weekly churchgoing Catholics voted for John McCain over Barack Obama, by just 50 percent to 49 percent. Weekly Protestant church attendees voted for McCain over Barack Obama 66 to 32 percent. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/churchgoing_catholics_chose_mccain_over_obama/
In the 2012 election (preliminary exit-poll analysis), white Evangelicals (23% of the electorate) voted 79%/20% Romney/Obama; Protestants overall (53% of the electorate) voted 57%/42%; black Protestants (9% of the electorate) and other Christian voted 5%/95%; Catholics overall (25% of the electorate) voted 48%/50%; white Catholics (18% of the electorate) voted 59%/40%; and Hispanic Catholics (5% of the electorate) voted 21%/75% Romney/Obama http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx
Weekly Church attendees (28% of the electorate) voted 57%/39% Romney/Obama; more than weekly (14% of the electorate) voted 63%/36% and “never” attendees (17% of the electorate) were at 34%/62% Romney/Obama. ^
According to Barna, in 2012 45% of the people who voted in November indicated that their faith affected how they voted. 72% of Evangelicals, 34% non-evangelical born again voters, and 19% of Catholics, 17% of non-Christian faith said their faith affected their presidential preference a lot. 9% of voters overall and 10% of evangelicals felt strongly that Mr. Romney's Mormon connection diminished their likelihood of supporting him. http://www.barna.org/culture-articles/595-the-role-of-faith-in-the-2012-election
Evangelicals supported Mr. Romney 81% to 17% over Mr. Obama (a smaller percentage for the Republican candidate than in previous years). Born again Christians who are not evangelicals supported Romney 56% to 43% over the incumbent. Catholics supported Mr. Obama by 57% to 42% — the largest margin since Bill Clinton topped Bob Dole by 21 points in 1996. Protestant overall voted 57% to 42% in favor of Mr. Romney. ^
Notional Christians (the largest segment of voters and who consider themselves to be Christian but are not evangelical or born again) voted 57% to 41% in favor of Mr. Obama. 68% of Skeptics and 69% of non-Christian faiths (14% of total voters) also voted for the Democratic candidate. ^
1% of Evangelicals, 10% of non-evangelical born again voters, 14% of Notional Christians and 33% of Skeptics said they were politically liberal. ^
48% of voters overall, 54% of Notional Christians, 53% of Catholics, and just 14% of Evangelicals agreed that the United States will be better off four years from now than it is today. 64% of voters overall said they would prefer that the presidential campaign be decided by the popular vote rather than Electoral votes. ^
Your hated of the Catholic Church clouds reality.
Your mind reading is wrong, as i could actually provide a list of positive things about Rome, but which does not warrant the promotion and elite status she is given, and which i counteract. Meanwhile, RC adoration of their church prevents so many of the devout from seeing reality when contrary Rome.
But one more thing before I go. Catholic Charities is the biggest faith based charity in the United States.
Besides contradicting Forbes list which places the Salvation Army at #2 and Catholic Charities (USA) at # below it, and also below others in total revenue, once again you are resorting to a specious method for determining conservative commitment and values, which evangelicals testify to far more of than Catholics.
Moreover, as http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7587 states,
...you would think that Catholic Charities USA would be a perfect model to emulate, getting the poor into the mainstream by emphasizing moral values and ethical conduct. But no: rather than trying to promote traditional values and God-fearing behavior, Catholic Charities—and the same could be said about the Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies or the Lutheran Services in America—has become over the last three decades an arm of the welfare state, with 65 percent of its $2.3 billion annual budget now flowing from government sources.
Thus, and as more of the article illustrates, rather than being an example of superior Christian commitment and conservative values, then like Rome itself, is effectually much supports the counterproductive liberal ethos.
And the Knights of Columbus does more than any protestant fraternal organization.
Another specious argument, and much of what it does is promote Catholic errors. Of course, RCs would consider the Masons to be Protestant.
Would you like for me to tell you how many Catholic hospitals there are in the United States.
Likely with substantial fed funding for most of these also. But this again is a vain argument, due to comparing one church with many, and does not indicate a superior level of commitment and conservative values among RCs than evangelicals. Instead, survey after survey shows the reverse.
Moreover, Sr. Carol Keehan, the president of the Catholic Health Association, which represents 620 Catholic hospitals and 1,400 nursing homes said her group is “pleased” that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It can live with the birth control mandate.
More commitment to liberalism.
Catholics started the first hospitals in the country
Actually, the first is said to be one begun by William Penn in Philadelphia in 1713, or the Pennsylvania Hospital, founded in 1751 by Dr. Thomas Bond and Benjamin Franklin
However, all of your specious attempts to show superior Christian commitment and conservative values actually testify to institutional liberalism. Which is where the rest of the evidence points to in reality.
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.