Could the Pope place a President Biden under personal interdict?

Status
Not open for further replies.
He says that, but the math doesn’t work. Whether or not he believes his own words, the fact is that what he proposes can’t be done. Consider that when Social Security benefits first became subject to income tax, it only applied to those who had an income of at least $25,000/year ($32,000/year married filing jointly), which was comfortably middle class in 1986. However, because the threshold was never adjusted for inflation, the tax is now imposed even on those who are barely above poverty.
 
mythbuster1 said:
He says that, but the math doesn’t work. Whether or not he believes his own words, the fact is that what he proposes can’t be done. Consider that when Social Security benefits first became subject to income tax, it only applied to those who had an income of at least $25,000/year ($32,000/year married filing jointly), which was comfortably middle class in 1986. However, because the threshold was never adjusted for inflation, the tax is now imposed even on those who are barely above poverty.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m someone who can’t work out the household budget let alone involve myself in discussing federal tax policies. But this link seems to emphasise that all and any changes will be restricted to those earning in excess of $40k. Biden Tax Plan: Details & Analysis | Tax Foundation

Anyone who is expert on matters such as this feel free to chip in.

And my post which you referenced was flagged and removed? Uh?
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Actually, it might be 2022, as if he were to leave office after 01/20/23, Harris would have then been in office less than two years, therefore enabling her to run for two more terms beyond that. Unless she were really “all things to all people” (or at least enough people to win), I can’t see the American people being willing for her to be president for ten years. She’s not Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
Ah, that makes sense.

I’m kind of hoping that she is honest about her plans for the United States. I’m afraid that she might keep a low profile and appear family-centered and likeable, and only reveal her true plans for the country after she has become President. Remember the kindly lady with the candy house in Hansel and Gretel?
 
I think Pope Francis will be more friendly to Biden than to Trump because they have similar political views, even though Biden effectively rejects some Catholic doctrine and supports abortion.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I have in mind Biden’s stance in favor of abortion choice.

. . . .

And what would be the effect of it? Would individual priests and bishops buck this? And what then?
Click to expand...
He could, but I doubt he would. Historically, Popes have been very careful when dealing with leaders of non-Catholic Countries.

Even though Joe Biden is Catholic, he’s not a Catholic from a majority Catholic nation. So I personally doubt the Pope would do anything official. I also, doubt any Bishops will say anything to do him officially, unless they already had a personal relationship with him.
 
AlNg said:
“But what should I do with a friend, neighbour, an Orthodox person? Be open, be a friend. “But should I make efforts to convert him or her?” There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism. We should never proselytise the Orthodox! They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.”
Click to expand...
I would, first of all, be interested to know what our working definition of the term “proselytism” is. I fail to see how seeking to bring someone into the Catholic Church can ever be sinful. (I can definitely see how not seeking to do so, could be sinful.)

But the situation with the Orthodox may be a bit different. My view — and views are like foreheads, everybody has one — is that the Orthodox are neither 100% in the Catholic Church, nor are they 100% out of it. Their ancient historical churches are indeed true particular Churches (capital letter C), the Body of Christ is split, as it were. The Churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria exist, they are just not in union with Rome, nor Rome with them. And as far as Eastern Rite Catholicism is concerned (aside from the Maronites, who have never been in schism), my understanding is that the establishment of Eastern Rite bishops and eparchies was bad ecclesiology, “what’s done is done, but we won’t be doing anything like that going forward”. (Eastern Rite people on here, please correct me if I’m wrong.) So to tell Orthodox “come on over and join your corresponding rite” wouldn’t be quite the thing to do. If they choose to of their own initiative, fine, but we wouldn’t bring it up as a possibility or encourage it. Again, am I right?

In other words, you might be able to view it as similar to an SSPX situation writ large, mutatis mutandis.

Thoughts?
 
HomeschoolDad said:
my understanding is that the establishment of Eastern Rite bishops and eparchies was bad ecclesiology, “what’s done is done, but we won’t be doing anything like that going forward”.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure, because Pope Francis erected the Eritrean Catholic Church in 2015, to correspond with the autocephalous Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, divided from the Ethiopian.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I would, first of all, be interested to know what our working definition of the term “proselytism” is. I fail to see how seeking to bring someone into the Catholic Church can ever be sinful.
Click to expand...
Definition of proselytise (from my reading of the papal statement):
" make efforts to convert him or her"
HomeschoolDad said:
I fail to see how seeking to bring someone into the Catholic Church can ever be sinful.
Click to expand...
I guess that means, with reference to the Orthodox, that you do not agree with the teachings of the Pope ?
 
Anesti33 said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
my understanding is that the establishment of Eastern Rite bishops and eparchies was bad ecclesiology, “what’s done is done, but we won’t be doing anything like that going forward”.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure, because Pope Francis erected the Eritrean Catholic Church in 2015, to correspond with the autocephalous Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, divided from the Ethiopian
Click to expand...
I did not know this, but I have to think that it was a corollary to Eritrea having seceded from Ethiopia a few years prior — it might not do, to have Eritrean Catholics subject to an Ethiopian bishop. Besides, if I am understanding correctly, Catholic-Orthodox relations are less touchy in Africa (Coptic and Ethiopian) than they are in the Eastern (“Greek”) Orthodox sphere (Constantinople, Moscow, et al). Not all Eastern Christians are “Eastern Orthodox”.
AlNg said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
I fail to see how seeking to bring someone into the Catholic Church can ever be sinful.
Click to expand...
I guess that means, with reference to the Orthodox, that you do not agree with the teachings of the Pope ?
Click to expand...
No, because as I said, the Orthodox seem to constitute a special situation, “neither 100% in, nor 100% out”. Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical efforts seek to knit back together what was at one time united. Orthodox Churches are true ancient and apostolic Churches (capital C). Protestant sects are not. They were created from whole cloth in the post-Reformation era. (Anglicans would quibble as to whether theirs is the ancient British church, and I am not entirely deaf to their arguments.)

So far as I am aware, we are as free to convert Protestants as we ever were. Unlike Orthodox, they are not schismatics, they are material (i.e., unknowing and inculpable) heretics. Big difference.
 
Last edited:
ref: Mat 18,15. we find discreet due process is still the order of the day. The subject is still in charity allowed to receive a warning, and the concerned informer expects to receive a satisfactory answer if the action is justified.

The atmosphere between them is still one of peace and brotherhood. The informer either acts to the second stage by first verifiying his position through discreet counsel of others, and perhaps involves clergy, a gradual but reluctant opening to the process at this stage one is still bound to show the “desire to extend the desire of good will to others”, and therefore there is still hope of persuasion. The rule becomes more open in the last stages eventually, but still reluctantly, and priority may shift from the danger or effect and offense to the subject, and in this case to the public our trusting little ones who depend on us the Divine right to allow them to have a chance to exercise God’s plan evidenced by their conception and protection of legislation.

I’m concerned about the attitude of the world in general. There is a move to accept disorder first and non-chalent carelessness. We see this manifest in the press by the throw-away rights of others of fame. The order that Christ gives us in this passage in question I feel is sheer beauty in itself. One feels the flow of love here, an order and Divine reluctance of sorts to give up. Every step to give one another chance is a responser to Christ’s desire to “have him at my Father’s table”. The now informers lovingly try again for that last time.

That said, there is a responsibility to God’s people that will always override, one I have come to know during my years service with this awesome Nation. The president elect is entitled to inform the public what he would do during his tenure. There is a due process in this Chapter that our Lord desires becomes a practice and it takes precedence if it can be done. I feel it still applies and there is still room for it.

Recall that even during WW2 was in process the then Pope reminded Catholic leaders of their responsibility through private letters of correction to the recipient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top