The Pope is a LIBERAL

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Debora123 said:
He meant exactly what he said. Nothing he said was against Church teaching. What the liberal media took from all that was a huge reach on their part.

The pope says homosexuals should be loved and not bullied? The media says “look, the pope supports homosexuality!”

The pope says it is good for women to participate in Church roles? The media says “look, the pope thinks women should be priests!”

Nothing the pope said is problematic. It’s what the media said that is false.
Click to expand...
Technically, he said women are more important than Priests and Bishops. That’s where a lot of people said “whoa, hadn’t ever heard that before in the last 2000 years.”
 
You didn’t read the article, did you?
Click to expand...
Ya, I did.

And I’m sticking with my post. I did a 4 year stint at a Jesuit College, I have the street/and academic creds to back it up.

I know how to parlay Chivas and Courvoisier.
 
Least said:
Ya, I did.

And I’m sticking with my post. I did a 4 year stint at a Jesuit College, I have the street/and academic creds to back it up.

I know how to parlay Chivas and Courvoisier.
Click to expand...
Those quotes didn’t come from Pope Francis. They came from Pope Benedict.
 
Julian_Bashir said:
Technically, he said women are more important than Priests and Bishops. That’s where a lot of people said “whoa, hadn’t ever heard that before in the last 2000 years.”
Click to expand...
Where did he say that? Can you quote it?
 
Those quotes didn’t come from Pope Francis. They came from Pope Benedict.
Click to expand...
I didn’t reference any of the quotes, or the article, Pope Benedict is-so in name only. I was talking about the Pope, and his stemming Order.
 
Least said:
I didn’t reference any of the quotes, or the article, Pope Benedict is-so in name only. I was talking about the Pope, and his stemming Order.
Click to expand...
Ok. I was just making sure you knew those quotes were not coming from a Jesuit.
 
Debora123 said:
Where did he say that? Can you quote it?
Click to expand...
Sure, here is one of many sites that discuss it: cnsblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/women-in-the-church-are-more-important-than-bishops-and-priests/

*Pope Francis told reporters on his flight from Rio to Rome that women cannot be ordained as priests, but that they are “more important than bishops and priests.”

What does that mean? Earlier this year, the papal theologian explained the theology behind these statements in an interview with CNS.*

Not sure where he got that tidbit from.
 
Julian_Bashir said:
Sure, here is one of many sites that discuss it: cnsblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/women-in-the-church-are-more-important-than-bishops-and-priests/

*Pope Francis told reporters on his flight from Rio to Rome that women cannot be ordained as priests, but that they are “more important than bishops and priests.”

What does that mean? Earlier this year, the papal theologian explained the theology behind these statements in an interview with CNS.*

Not sure where he got that tidbit from.
Click to expand...
Thanks. This is what it says:
“It is not enough to have altar girls, women readers or women as the president of Caritas,” he said. “Women in the church are more important than bishops and priests,” just like “Mary is more important than the apostles.”
Click to expand...
I see what he’s saying. Priests/bishops are supposed to represent the apostles (men), and since since Mary (a woman) is more important than they were, that means women are more important than priests/bishops in the Church.

It does make sense actually.
 
fortunately Ive learned in life never to trust what I read in commentary and follow along with an open eye and non judgmental quality. None of the quotes were out of step with what I understand and was starting to feel better about things, and also wondering how some things could be missing in the nano second moments, without words so to say…but not in any way lessened in the better carrying on…and then the end information that they were deliberately intentionally setting out to trick my mind.

this trickery is in-excusable and atrocious representation. a socially planned out idea in some back smokey room with grins to go, almost a political style manipulating commercial type of thing

they mock the reader with stupidity turn around and admit it

and think you will swallow the cheese like a little mouse and be happy and forgetting all about the very bait that they grab right back.

see for a person with hope …how that backfires? divisive 101 playing games with peoples head so as to create a laugh for whatever and themselves…so the message This is a game and get with us…we have fun and will go about with the laughing …( cessation of conscious awareness btw)…mocking tool for showing our value.
 
Ok in no time at all its easy to say I’m not getting into chatting with any of this political or hierarchy…whatever word is used and arguing things. Its a waste of time and you can see the style of things. It also makes no sense as a Catholic insofar as important things go for the individual …believers or newsletters can think what they like…no biggy… So thats that with the whole area from this end. I’m also sure things will work out.
 
Debora123 said:
Thanks. This is what it says:

I see what he’s saying. Priests/bishops are supposed to represent the apostles (men), and since since Mary (a woman) is more important than they were, that means women are more important than priests/bishops in the Church.

It does make sense actually.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense. Women can’t say say mass, consecrate a host, or hear confessions. No priests = no church. Granted, no women = no priests (here’s a shout-out for the moms of the world) but while women can be equal and complementary, they can’t be “better than”.

I already spent what seems like a lifetime arguing this over in the non-Catholic section. Since the charism of infallibility doesn’t apply to impromptu press conferences, you guys don’t have to bend over backwards to square the circle. You can say he just misspoke. 🙂
 
Debora123 said:
Thanks. This is what it says:

I see what he’s saying. Priests/bishops are supposed to represent the apostles (men), and since since Mary (a woman) is more important than they were, that means women are more important than priests/bishops in the Church.

It does make sense actually.
Click to expand...
It literally makes no sense, and there isn’t any theological teaching that defends it that way, that’s the problem.

Plus, you put a spin on it to attempt to explain the nonsensical, which is fine, but if we take the Pope at his word without applying our own interpretation, what he said is not correct.

As I stated before,

*You can argue all you want that Mary was more important than the Apostles. I don’t take issue with any honors bestowed on the Blessed Mother, because she deserves all of them and more, and was the holiest person in existence. But I simply don’t see the point in ranking central figures in the Church in terms of importance. The Church could not have existed with Mary. It could not have existed without the Apostles. It is as simple as that. In terms of importance as defined by “a necessity for the existence of the Catholic church,” they were both needed. *

If you have two ingredients for a recipe, and both are irreplaceable, which one is more important? Seeing as how you cannot make the recipe without either one?

Also, even if we decide to rank theological figures in terms of importance (which seems less useful that ranking in terms of holiness and obedience, in which Mary is clearly numero uno), to link Mary’s importance to the Church in relation to the Apostles to lay women and today’s Priests is simply contrived and arbitrary. He didn’t say that anywhere, and it isn’t found in scripture. Does that also mean that because Mary was more obedient and the Apostles were chosen to lead, that we can say “women are more obedient than Priests, but men make better leaders than nuns.” That’s a stretch…

The fact is, the Church has taught about the vitality of men and women, their equality of worth in God eyes, and the concept of being different but complimentary. To toss that all aside in one off the cuff remark and then tell us Priests and Bishops, the only people alive who can confect the Eucharist (which means they are the only way to truly reach the living God on Earth) are less important than women has left a number of people scratching their head.

Unless he is changing Catholic teaching in one comment, what he is saying isn’t found Genesis (Adam the man versus Eve the woman), the Gospel accounts (Mary the woman versus Christ the man, Apostles (men) versus Mary Magdalene (women)), or anywhere else in Catholic teaching, and is actually a bit of an insult to Priests and Bishops.

I need a Priest to say Mass. Without him, we are simply left in prayer. He doesn’t need anyone else to confect the Eucharist. It just appears that the Pope was trying placate women and assure them of their importance to our Church, and in doing so, went a bit far in saying that which simply isn’t true, and actually serves to confuse and denigrate rather than lift up.
 
Alizarin said:
It makes no sense. Women can’t say say mass, consecrate a host, or hear confessions. No priests = no church. Granted, no women = no priests (here’s a shout-out for the moms of the world) but while women can be equal and complementary, they can’t be “better than”.
Click to expand...
He didn’t say better than. He said more important in the Church specifically.
 
Julian_Bashir said:
It literally makes no sense, and there isn’t any theological teaching that defends it that way, that’s the problem.
Click to expand...
I personally don’t have a problem with what our Pope said. 🤷

I imagine he knows and understands way better than you or I do, so I trust his judgement on this one.
 
Least said:
Ya, I did.

And I’m sticking with my post. I did a 4 year stint at a Jesuit College, I have the street/and academic creds to back it up.

I know how to parlay Chivas and Courvoisier.
Click to expand...
Then I have no idea what point you are making or why you are talking about the Jesuits. :o
 
Debora123 said:
I personally don’t have a problem with what our Pope said. 🤷

I imagine he knows and understands way better than you or I do, so I trust his judgement on this one.
Click to expand...
Or he misspoke. He’s not perfect. He appointed Monsignor Ricca as a Prelate to the Vatican Bank for pete’s sake, before finding out the details of Monsignor Ricca’s somewhat sordid background (which he admits he was unaware of): google.com/search?q=vatican+bank+monsignor+ricca&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs

Since no scholar I have seen discuss the comment online, or in talks on the radio has been able to find where got that little tid bit, and you (nor anyone here) has actually been able to explain it (other than to say “He’s the Pope, he must be right!”, despite Francis himself admitting he is not a theologian (ironic for a Jesuit when you think about it)), we are left with two possibilities:
  1. Women are in fact more important in the Church than Priests or Bishops, which implies the roles they fulfill (nuns, lay ministers, care takers, administrative work, anything but the Priesthood because he already said that’ll never change) are more important to the Church than confecting the Eucharist. If a person wants believe that, by all means. Lots of protestants believe that too, so they’ll have plenty of company.
or
  1. He misspoke, when trying to emphasize the importance of women in society and the Church. If that is the case, doubling down on defending him (when you yourself admittedly were caught off guard when I mentioned he even said that (post 23) and asked “where did he said that?”)
Let’s not start to reinvent our faith and pretend glib statements to reporters about personnel now represent ex cathedra statements, since that isn’t Church teaching.

I believe I understand the Pope’s intentions, and love his willingness to give esteem to the value of all members of our faith, but if we can’t at the same time swallow our hubris and admit statements were not accurate, we will become victims of our own pride, IMO, and end up spreading an unture theology that will only serve to hurt those we are trying to attract. We don’t spread the faith through falksehoods, no matter how appealing they sound.

There was great discussion when our beloved JPII kissed the Koran, and rightly so. But that wasn’t an act of faith and morals. Popes have had children, started wars, and had mistresses - all bad things at the time. Francis, Benedict, and JPII would all admit they are prone to mistakes, but hopefully their relative closeness to Christ himself minimizes them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top