Pope Francis Smacks Trickle Down

[FCS PATRIOTS]

Who cares? the Papal institution is the antichrist run amok. You would be surprised at the early church fathers who
1) rejected Mary's perpetual virginity and her "sinlessness"
2) rejected transubstantiation

Even Pope Gregory declared that no one bishop is to usurp the entire church. Oh well....

PROUD LCMS LUTHERAN!!!

[CitadelGrad]

Here is the bottom line on the Jesus character in the Bible:

The Jesus character in the Bible wasn't about telling people to worry about the prevalent economic system and how that impacted the poor. He was about saying if YOU want to enter my Father's Kingdom YOU take care of the poor. YOU personally. He wasn't about telling people to worry about whether or not the rich guy down the street did stuff to help the poor. He wasn't about saying there was some problem with the economic system. He wasn't about saying there was some kind of big pile of wealth out there that you had to make sure was distributed equitably.

He was about what YOU personally do.

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb here and suggest the pope understands Jesus a little better than you .

Why would you believe that? Jesus has been interpreted in countless ways over the many centuries since his death. There is considerable disagreement about Jesus, his life, his message even among biblical scholars and princes of the Church. Francis' opinion is just one among many ostensibly informed opinions about the nature of Jesus.

[kalm]

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb here and suggest the pope understands Jesus a little better than you .

Why would you believe that? Jesus has been interpreted in countless ways over the many centuries since his death. There is considerable disagreement about Jesus, his life, his message even among biblical scholars and princes of the Church. Francis' opinion is just one among many ostensibly informed opinions about the nature of Jesus.

It's his job, Jesuits are good edumacators, and he has more research support and materials at his disposal. Francis might be an avid fisherman/amateur biologist in his spare time but I'm guessing JSO is more knowledgeable in those subjects.

[CitadelGrad]

Why would you believe that? Jesus has been interpreted in countless ways over the many centuries since his death. There is considerable disagreement about Jesus, his life, his message even among biblical scholars and princes of the Church. Francis' opinion is just one among many ostensibly informed opinions about the nature of Jesus.

It's his job, Jesuits are good edumacators, and he has more research support and materials at his disposal. Francis might be an avid fisherman/amateur biologist in his spare time but I'm guessing JSO is more knowledgeable in those subjects.

Even among Jesuits there is considerable disagreement on matters of doctrine.

It's all superstition anyway.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb here and suggest the pope understands Jesus a little better than you.

I think it's a mistake to just assume someone is correct because "they're the expert." You have to at least try to think for yourself. Me, I've been like that all my life and I think it's been the best way to be. I can think of many instances in which I did not just accept the opinions of experts such as medical doctors and educational professionals with respect to things going on with my kids and I'm confident that I was correct to do so. If you have any doubt about the fact that doctors can be wrong, for example, just start getting second and third opinions on things and see how frequently you get differing opinions so that you know that at least one of them has to be wrong.

One example is having my daughter fracture her nose as a small child then having one Doctor tell us she had to have surgery right away and another Doctor tell us that if we did that it might stunt the growth of her nose. If I remember correctly we consulted a third and got a second "don't do it now" recommendation and went with that. But the point is that when you face important decisions you can't just assume that an expert you consult is correct. And that one example is not even close to the only instance in which we had experiences like that because we were the type of parent set that always checked opinions when an important decision had to be made. If you and I ever sat down and had a few drinks together I could probably spend at least an hour talking about instances in which there is no doubt that what we were told by Medical Doctors was incorrect.

In the case of this Pope and the Poor thing just read the Gospels. I think when you see Jesus quoted as saying things about helping the poor he's referring to what individuals do and don't do. I don't think you are going to find anything in there that can be construed as saying to go out and get other people to do it. There was that thing outside of the Gospel in Acts where a guy and his wife got struck dead but that was not because they did not give all of the money from the land sale to the community. That was because they lied to the Holy Spirit about it.

Pretty harsh regardless. But there's nothing to indicate that people in the Christian community were being told to go out and get all the heathens to give money to the poor.

[kalm]

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb here and suggest the pope understands Jesus a little better than you.

I think it's a mistake to just assume someone is correct because "they're the expert." You have to at least try to think for yourself. Me, I've been like that all my life and I think it's been the best way to be. I can think of many instances in which I did not just accept the opinions of experts such as medical doctors and educational professionals with respect to things going on with my kids and I'm confident that I was correct to do so. If you have any doubt about the fact that doctors can be wrong, for example, just start getting second and third opinions on things and see how frequently you get differing opinions so that you know that at least one of them has to be wrong.

One example is having my daughter fracture her nose as a small child then having one Doctor tell us she had to have surgery right away and another Doctor tell us that if we did that it might stunt the growth of her nose. If I remember correctly we consulted a third and got a second "don't do it now" recommendation and went with that. But the point is that when you face important decisions you can't just assume that an expert you consult is correct. And that one example is not even close to the only instance in which we had experiences like that because we were the type of parent set that always checked opinions when an important decision had to be made. If you and I ever sat down and had a few drinks together I could probably spend at least an hour talking about instances in which there is no doubt that what we were told by Medical Doctors was incorrect.

In the case of this Pope and the Poor thing just read the Gospels. I think when you see Jesus quoted as saying things about helping the poor he's referring to what individuals do and don't do. I don't think you are going to find anything in there that can be construed as saying to go out and get other people to do it. There was that thing outside of the Gospel in Acts where a guy and his wife got struck dead but that was not because they did not give all of the money from the land sale to the community. That was because they lied to the Holy Spirit about it.

Pretty harsh regardless. But there's nothing to indicate that people in the Christian community were being told to go out and get all the heathens to give money to the poor.

But aren't we all suppose to be doing God's work? If everyone is on board than the state would be on board as well.

From the article:

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

Do the gospels say anything that would suggest the caveat that this book is for individuals only and does not apply to groups of people?

[JoltinJoe]

Here is the bottom line on the Jesus character in the Bible:

The Jesus character in the Bible wasn't about telling people to worry about the prevalent economic system and how that impacted the poor. He was about saying if YOU want to enter my Father's Kingdom YOU take care of the poor. YOU personally. He wasn't about telling people to worry about whether or not the rich guy down the street did stuff to help the poor. He wasn't about saying there was some problem with the economic system. He wasn't about saying there was some kind of big pile of wealth out there that you had to make sure was distributed equitably.

He was about what YOU personally do.

There was certainly a prevalent personal Gospel in Christ's teachings, but to hold that his message was purely a personal one reads the Gospels too narrowly.

The odd thing about many of those (I'm not sure if you would fall into this group) who argue the Gospel is "purely personal" is that they advance this position when discussing economic justice, but then they will be among the first to justify military action as a "just war" (even in cases where the "justness" of the war is debatable). And they will even justify civil law as extension of the Gospel.

So in the end, they are contradicting themselves and not really holding to the position that the Gospel message is "purely personal."

If you believe that the Gospel message has both social and political implications, and commands both social and political justice (and I do), then you are just being arbitrary if you refuse to accept that the Gospel includes a message of economic justice too.

[JoltinJoe]

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb here and suggest the pope understands Jesus a little better than you .

Why would you believe that? Jesus has been interpreted in countless ways over the many centuries since his death. There is considerable disagreement about Jesus, his life, his message even among biblical scholars and princes of the Church. Francis' opinion is just one among many ostensibly informed opinions about the nature of Jesus.

Francis is the pope; the successor to St. Peter, and thus the Vicar of Christ. He is the head of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church founded by Christ. As pope, and the successor to Peter, he is honored by every church founded by an apostle during the first century. Even the Greek Orthodox Church accepts the concept of the primacy of the bishop of Rome (although they perceive the pope's role as primate of the universal (or catholic) church as one of interpretation, and do not believe he has the right to govern other catholic churches too).

There are over 1 billion members of the Roman Catholic Church; and over 1.2 billion of faithful who belong to other traditions of the Catholic Church. Christianity has no claim to being a major world religion without including the Catholic Church (the only Christian church which is found throughout the world, as Christ predicted that his Church would be).

The only Christian churches which do not recognize the pope as head of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" are churches founded by men centuries after Christ lived.

So Francis is not "just one among many ostensibly informed opinions about the nature of Jesus." Others may have opinions, but Francis can speak ex cathedra (when he chooses to).

[FCS PATRIOTS]

Gee, reading 1 and 2 Peter one does not get the impression that Peter was ever Universal Pope of the church. In fact, more than numerous church fathers writings deny Peter's primacy. Christ sent 12 out as equals not with `1 to stand above the others. John 21 simply reversed Peter's 3 denials. Paul openly rebuked Peter during the first century. The writings are out there. Research and study, "to show thyself approved."

[D1B]

Here is the bottom line on the Jesus character in the Bible:

The Jesus character in the Bible wasn't about telling people to worry about the prevalent economic system and how that impacted the poor. He was about saying if YOU want to enter my Father's Kingdom YOU take care of the poor. YOU personally. He wasn't about telling people to worry about whether or not the rich guy down the street did stuff to help the poor. He wasn't about saying there was some problem with the economic system. He wasn't about saying there was some kind of big pile of wealth out there that you had to make sure was distributed equitably.

He was about what YOU personally do.

Wronge again. This is YOUR selective interpretation. One of the most well know quotes regarding the evils of greed and accumulation of wealth is attributed to Jesus.

I'll leave it to you to find it.

[JoltinJoe]

Gee, reading 1 and 2 Peter one does not get the impression that Peter was ever Universal Pope of the church. In fact, more than numerous church fathers writings deny Peter's primacy. Christ sent 12 out as equals not with `1 to stand above the others. John 21 simply reversed Peter's 3 denials. Paul openly rebuked Peter during the first century. The writings are out there. Research and study, "to show thyself approved."

I guarantee you I've done more research and study than you have. Those of you in churches founded by men centuries who lived 15 centuries or more after Christ are highly selective in their readings concerning the First Century Church.

Why does every Church founded by an apostle accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome?

You are aware that the Roman Catholic Church is only one tradition of the Catholic Church; that there are now about 20 Catholic traditions, each of them in direct and uninterrupted apostolic succession to a Church founded by an apostle, and they ALL accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

The only Christians who deny the primacy of the bishop of Rome belong to man-made churches created in the 1500s or later.

[D1B]

Why would you believe that? Jesus has been interpreted in countless ways over the many centuries since his death. There is considerable disagreement about Jesus, his life, his message even among biblical scholars and princes of the Church. Francis' opinion is just one among many ostensibly informed opinions about the nature of Jesus.

Francis is the pope; the successor to St. Peter, and thus the Vicar of Christ. He is the head of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church founded by Christ. As pope, and the successor to Peter, he is honored by every church founded by an apostle during the first century. Even the Greek Orthodox Church accepts the concept of the primacy of the bishop of Rome (although they perceive the pope's role as primate of the universal (or catholic) church as one of interpretation, and do not believe he has the right to govern other catholic churches too).

There are over 1 billion members of the Roman Catholic Church; and over 1.2 billion of faithful who belong to other traditions of the Catholic Church. Christianity has no claim to being a major world religion without including the Catholic Church (the only Christian church which is found throughout the world, as Christ predicted that his Church would be).

The only Christian churches which do not recognize the pope as head of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" are churches founded by men centuries after Christ lived.

So Francis is not "just one among many ostensibly informed opinions about the nature of Jesus." Others may have opinions, but Francis can speak ex cathedra (when he chooses to).

Cult bullshit.

The pope is not objective and therefore is a biased and not to be trusted.

He's also a man. He jacks off (probably to little boys) and shits his pants. He farts and savors the aroma. He lies and deceives millions of people. He betrays friends. He's no different than any other asshole.

[JoltinJoe]

The pope is not objective and therefore is a biased and not to be trusted.

He's also a man. He jacks off (probably to little boys) and shits his pants. He farts and savors the aroma. He lies and deceives millions of people. He betrays friends. He's no different than any other asshole.

Cool. So you're the pope!

[D1B]

The pope is not objective and therefore is a biased and not to be trusted.

He's also a man. He jacks off (probably to little boys) and shits his pants. He farts and savors the aroma. He lies and deceives millions of people. He betrays friends. He's no different than any other asshole.

Cool. So you're the pope!

I'd do a better job than that entrenched oligarch. I've also lived a life that more closely resembles that of St. Francis.

Happy Thanksgiving, Joe!

[JoltinJoe]

Cool. So you're the pope!

I'd do a better job than that entrenched oligarch. I've also lived a life that more closely resembles that of St. Francis.

Happy Thanksgiving, Joe!

You too.

[FCS PATRIOTS]

http://www.remnantofgod.org/homo27.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Vicar of Christ" or closeted homosexuals? Vicar of Christ wasn't even a title these guys used until the 800s. Before that simply known as Vicar of Peter.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/4fathers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JoltinJoe]

Nice link. Quality stuff, Patriots. Real brain food.

[D1B]

Nice link. Quality stuff, Patriots. Real brain food.

It's as valid, perhaps more so, than your sources.

[FCS PATRIOTS]

http://cat.xula.edu/tpr/works/Waldenses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://www.gty.org/Blog/B130227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My fallout with the RCC began when a deacon at one of the local parishes flat out told a group of us that the only way to pray to Jesus is through Mary his mother?! Seriously!

[JoltinJoe]

D, those links are just stupid stuff.

These websites try to make the case the pope is the anti-Christ.

The anti-Christ is the story of Revelation was Nero. The cipher of his name, Neron Caesar, calculates to 666 in the Hebrew gematria. Moreover, his name in Latin, Nero Caesar, calculates to 616, and there are early Latin versions of Revelation which refers to the number of the Beast as "616."

Today, you have a lot of the man-made Christian sects which try to interpret Revelation as some end-time prophesy, or some condemnation of the Catholic Church. While there are some prophesy of end times in the book, its chief purpose was to convey a message, in Biblical code, to the first-century churches oppressed by the "whore of Babylon" (the Roman Empire) that the Catholic Church would prevail against and survive long past the Roman Empire. The purpose of the book was to give hope and strengthen the faith of the violently oppressed Catholic Church. And the prophesy of the book was fulfilled when Constantine legalized Catholicism in the early fourth century.

Every symbol in Revelation had some Old Testament significance which would have been readily understood by the first-century Catholics, but would have had no meaning to those in the empire. Thus, if a copy of the book fell into the hands of the empire, those in the empire would have no idea what the book was about.

[JoltinJoe]

http://cat.xula.edu/tpr/works/Waldenses/


http://www.gty.org/Blog/B130227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My fallout with the RCC began when a deacon at one of the local parishes flat out told a group of us that the only way to pray to Jesus is through Mary his mother?! Seriously!

No priest said that. You are making that up.

[FCS PATRIOTS]

http://cat.xula.edu/tpr/works/Waldenses/


http://www.gty.org/Blog/B130227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My fallout with the RCC began when a deacon at one of the local parishes flat out told a group of us that the only way to pray to Jesus is through Mary his mother?! Seriously!

No priest said that. You are making that up.

It was said to me and a group of us at a weekend Christ Renews His Parish retreat here in South Carolina. The deacon of this parish was going to lead us in a recitation of the Rosary and PLAINLY IN ENGLISH said "Remember, the only way to pray to Jesus is through Mary!" so I know what I plainly heard thank you just the same. The years I was RC I never felt comfortable praying to Mary, the saints, etc.

Jesus sent the 12 out as equals to proclaim his life to all nations with nobody above the other. The whole issue with Mary's "sinless" life was a thorn to many early church fathers.

[FCS PATRIOTS]

D, those links are just stupid stuff.

These websites try to make the case the pope is the anti-Christ.

The anti-Christ is the story of Revelation was Nero. The cipher of his name, Neron Caesar, calculates to 666 in the Hebrew gematria. Moreover, his name in Latin, Nero Caesar, calculates to 616, and there are early Latin versions of Revelation which refers to the number of the Beast as "616."

Today, you have a lot of the man-made Christian sects which try to interpret Revelation as some end-time prophesy, or some condemnation of the Catholic Church. While there are some prophesy of end times in the book, its chief purpose was to convey a message, in Biblical code, to the first-century churches oppressed by the "whore of Babylon" (the Roman Empire) that the Catholic Church would prevail against and survive long past the Roman Empire. The purpose of the book was to give hope and strengthen the faith of the violently oppressed Catholic Church. And the prophesy of the book was fulfilled when Constantine legalized Catholicism in the early fourth century.

Every symbol in Revelation had some Old Testament significance which would have been readily understood by the first-century Catholics, but would have had no meaning to those in the empire. Thus, if a copy of the book fell into the hands of the empire, those in the empire would have no idea what the book was about.

Nero died in 67 AD and John wrote REVELATION in 96. Your interpretation doesn't add up. The word ANTI can also mean to take the place of. No mortal man is Christ on Earth. No one pope has ever been accused of being the antichrist, the INSTITUTION of the Papacy itself, however, is what scripture was pointing to. Are Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, etc ALL WRONG?! If Christ's church was to be headed by one single man, born in original sin, the Word of God would've stated so. Apostolic succession has been broken so many times, who knows where the line begins and ends. Think of multiple popes, priests having children and leaving them the priesthood and the church. It was destroyed centuries ago.

[FCS PATRIOTS]

http://www.northforest.org/CatholicCont ... roken.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.wels.net/about-wels/doctrina ... t?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JoltinJoe]

D, those links are just stupid stuff.

These websites try to make the case the pope is the anti-Christ.

The anti-Christ is the story of Revelation was Nero. The cipher of his name, Neron Caesar, calculates to 666 in the Hebrew gematria. Moreover, his name in Latin, Nero Caesar, calculates to 616, and there are early Latin versions of Revelation which refers to the number of the Beast as "616."

Today, you have a lot of the man-made Christian sects which try to interpret Revelation as some end-time prophesy, or some condemnation of the Catholic Church. While there are some prophesy of end times in the book, its chief purpose was to convey a message, in Biblical code, to the first-century churches oppressed by the "whore of Babylon" (the Roman Empire) that the Catholic Church would prevail against and survive long past the Roman Empire. The purpose of the book was to give hope and strengthen the faith of the violently oppressed Catholic Church. And the prophesy of the book was fulfilled when Constantine legalized Catholicism in the early fourth century.

Every symbol in Revelation had some Old Testament significance which would have been readily understood by the first-century Catholics, but would have had no meaning to those in the empire. Thus, if a copy of the book fell into the hands of the empire, those in the empire would have no idea what the book was about.

Nero died in 67 AD and John wrote REVELATION in 96. Your interpretation doesn't add up. The word ANTI can also mean to take the place of. No mortal man is Christ on Earth. No one pope has ever been accused of being the antichrist, the INSTITUTION of the Papacy itself, however, is what scripture was pointing to. Are Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, etc ALL WRONG?! If Christ's church was to be headed by one single man, born in original sin, the Word of God would've stated so. Apostolic succession has been broken so many times, who knows where the line begins and ends. Think of multiple popes, priests having children and leaving them the priesthood and the church. It was destroyed centuries ago.

No, it's you who don't get it.

The Revelation story is part history; part prophesy. It has to be understood in the context it which it was written. It was written to a violently oppressed Church to offer strength and hope. Nero is the anti-Christ in the story; he had declared himself a god; thus, he was "the man taking the place of God," i.e., the anti-Christ. Nero was the first emperor who started the violent oppression of the Catholic Church. In the story, the two great prophets martyred in the streets of the Great City were Peter and Paul. This too is a historical aspect of the account (and further documents the fact that Peter was in Rome, martyred there, and the first-century Catholics knew this).

In any event, Revelation says that it is not difficult to decipher who the anti-Christ is for a person of wisdom, because his number adds to 666. The first-century Catholics, completely familiar with the Hebrew gematria, would have readily understood the reference, been able to perform the calculation, and understand the reference was to Nero as the first of the emperors who persecuted the Church.