M
- Status
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Indeed there have. Well established history of the Church, Catholic/Christianity 101. Call these strains of thought progressive, traditionalist, whatever you prefer. I am talking about how the Church interprets the (unchanging) deposit of faith, and I acknowledge that different factions have different approaches, which is common knowledge. Some posit development where others still see revealed unchanging truth, doctrine. And mixing a Catholic’s political and religious standpoints is dangerous indeed, but there are parallels. To deny any of this is to take leave of reality IMHO. Aka truth. But that could be the whole point.Poppycock!
I’m sorry Follow but you are wrong. There has never been “liberal” and “conservative” Catholicism.
These are importations from secular politics that are utterly foreign to the tradition of the Church.
Different approaches to adapting the timeless deposit of Faith to the vagaries of succeeding eras as doctrinal understanding develops - oh yes, that’s Catholic.
But “liberal” and “conservative”? 18th-19th century enlightenment terms?
Give me a break.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Oh yes, I think we can certainly agree on that
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
V
Vouthon
Guest
S
Son_of_Niall
Guest
It certainly reached a crescendo today.
Defending the Church, Pope Francis, and the clergy will not only get you pounced on by followers of personality cult of Donald Trump, it will also lead to death threats.
The threat in question was part of a thread now deleted, meaning not in public view.
On the internet nothing is really ‘deleted’, it can found easily by people in authority.
On that I must bid adieu. I fought the good fight. People can enjoy their Pope bashing while defending the Glorious Leader. This forum has already lost a sainted priest, Don Ruggero and several others who defend the Pope and his bishops.
So enjoy yourselves.
You won’t have Son of Niall to kick around anymore.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Dialogue. 
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Saw a satellite photo taken over Saudi Arabia … something like 4 million tents, air conditioned, which could easily accommodate refugees … and close to their original homes … in accordance with UN policy on refugees.
Yet, so far, Saudi Arabia has taken exactly ZERO refugees.
[Supposedly Trump is talking with the Saudi’s to take in refugees.]
Yet, so far, Saudi Arabia has taken exactly ZERO refugees.
[Supposedly Trump is talking with the Saudi’s to take in refugees.]
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Quite possibly because the great majority of bishops have not addressed the specifics of the temporary Trump delay on admitting immigrants from six ungoverned war zones and one state sponsor of terror.
If the Pope defers to the individual bishops as to what they will say to their flocks about it, he’s essentially saying it could vary and is not an absolute, but that individual bishops will likely address it generally.
M
Michael68
Guest
L
liturgyluver
Guest
Possibly because it’s simply not true. The Saudis have, in fact issued 100,000 residence permits to fleeing Syrians. They are not signed up to the UN convention so not allowed to call them refugees. Putting this aside, two wrongs do not make a right!
theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/12/saudi-arabia-says-reports-of-its-syrian-refugee-response-false-and-misleading
This link shows how the neighborhing countries have resettled those classed as refugees
amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/
J
JustaServant
Guest
It certainly reached a crescendo today.
Defending the Church, Pope Francis, and the clergy will not only get you pounced on by followers of personality cult of Donald Trump, it will also lead to death threats.
The threat in question was part of a thread now deleted, meaning not in public view.
On the internet nothing is really ‘deleted’, it can found easily by people in authority.
On that I must bid adieu. I fought the good fight. People can enjoy their Pope bashing while defending the Glorious Leader. This forum has already lost a sainted priest, Don Ruggero and several others who defend the Pope and his bishops.
So enjoy yourselves.
You won’t have Son of Niall to kick around anymore.
T
TMC
Guest
The US bishops have directly condemned the recent EO, as you know.
My comments are not directed exclusively at you. I don’t know what all your positions are, but to the extent you are saying the Church is not speaking on US immigration policy you are mistaken. The Church is speaking against current US immigration policy.
You find the Church’s statements to be “general” which allows you to claim that you are not disagreeing with the Church. But the Church’s statements have not been general. Cardinal Cupich called the executive order a “dark day in American history,” which is not vague or general.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The residency permits are for WORKERS. Not for refugees.
J
James248
Guest
He “opposed him to his face.” Doesn’t sound very polite to me.
J
James248
Guest
If you mean in that context, those in heaven, then no. But St. Paul at that time was not in heaven when he criticized his boss.
P
pnewton
Guest
There is nothing impolite about opposing one to their face. What we do here, on an anonymous website, is the opposite of opposing one to their face. His opposition did not occur through intermediaries or long distance, but at a counsel called to consider the situation, when all views were to be held and presented by those with authority to address the issue. That is the charitable way.
G
gracepoole
Guest
Wait, you’re doubling down on this? You believe you’ll be canonized after death?
J
James248
Guest
“How can you expect Gentiles to be Jews when you are living like a Gentile?”
Apparently you confuse charity with “niceness.”
J
James248
Guest
No. But as a Christian I am a prophet as well as a king and priest. And as a prophet I have a duty to speak truth.
- Status