Skip to comments.Pope Francis's Economics: Yes, He Has A Leftist View Of Free Markets
Posted on 05/26/2013 7:28:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
RE: which is NO admission that he had defrauded anyone,
I was not the one who used the word “defraud”, I was simply quoting the English Standard Version. Here it is:
“Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.”
The NASB also used the word “defraud”, so does the New Revised Standard Version, so does the RSV Catholic edition.
Here is the NIV translation:
“And if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount”
The Living Translation also used the word “cheated”, so does the Amplified Bible.
Papal infallibility (or speaking ex cathedra) does NOT mean the Pope is never in error regardless of subject matter.
Inerrancy as it refers to the Pope states that by virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
As I stated before, my statement The Pope is never in error, regardless of subject matter wasn't a statement about ex cathedra.
A personal opinion by a Pope about economics does not apply and therefore is not necessarily infallible.
Maybe you'd like to explain why so many Catholics are not only compelled to support his socialistic "opinion", but support that socialistic opinion on a conservative website?
Maybe you'd like to explain why so many conservatives are so at odds with living the Gospel with respect to Charity and Human Dignity, instead if just giving it lip service. No one can bluff their way into heaven.
" When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?
The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.
They also will answer, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?
He will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. - Matthew 25:31-46
Peace be with you
I get the impression with some that it’s okay for them to criticize their Pope, but woe to the non-Catholic Christians (A.K.A. anti-Catholics) if any of them dare to do so. It borders on hyper-defensiveness.
Pope Francis supports tyranny and the suppression of human liberty by leftist tyrants. He thus supports those who would enslave humanity, and thereby surrenders his claim to any moral authority whatsoever.
God. Damn. Him.
Were the cardinals led by the Holy Spirit when they elected Rodrigo Borgia (Alexander VI) - the majority of whom he bribed to get their votes and to wink at his debauchery? Alexander VI was not even the worst Pope but there were several that came before and after him. Maybe it's not an issue of thinking the Holy Spirit is wrong, but that the Roman Catholic Church is.
We can't have that. If you mean that God dmans Pope Francis, I would suggest that you are wrong. Else, I would suggest that you take a long hard look in the mirror and see what the ruler of this world has wrought in his image.
Suppose that the elected Popes were SUPPOSED to be in the place that they were. That is a rather interesting supposition, is it not?
Sorry (not). What the world doesn't need now is s moral leader who actively supports the evil doctrine of central economic planning. It is wrong on so many levels, and against God's natural laws.
It is disgusting. I am not perfect by any means. but I do not advocate evil while claiming infallibility and masquerading as a force for good. What Francis advocates has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with Satan. He is a disgrace.
Central economic planning? Sonny boy, you are wrong on at least three different levels.
The Pope rightly views that the love of money is root of much evil. God is good. All other things are lesser and/or evil. The use of money as a tool in order to accomplish something is laudable and fits well within the Pope’s vision. The pursuit of money as an end in itself is a sin and abomination, to be publicly condemned,
"Not to share one's goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life," he said, quoting St. John Chrysostom. "It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs."
It's the behavior of an insular ethnic group, right down to the government-approved, politically charged pejorative for the "other" that doesn't roll out the red carpet for all they say and do.
But, then again, I suppose if I had been taught that, oh I don't know, flip a coin and choose some compromised church with heavy leftist leanings... the Archbishop of Canterbury was the Vicar of Christ on Earth, that the Anglican Church was the One, True Church, that there was no salvation outside of it, I'd more than a little neurotic and defensive too, on a conservative forum.
Seeing as their election proved that fallible men - acting upon their own faults of greed and debauchery - were unreliable to be able to discern what is the leading of the Holy Spirit, I can agree that the purpose can indeed be interesting. ;o)
Perhaps this is one of the ways the Lord demonstrated the fallacy of the Roman Catholic Church's declarations of infallible Popes whose apostolic authority can be traced back to St. Peter and who demand all of Christendom's fealty because of it.
Don't bother with dolts who talk about how bad a given Pope was.
If some Pope had a different personal interpretation of what “Christian Liberty” covers, so what?
The people blathering on about this or that bad Pope all live by Self Alone and the worship of their own, Most High and Holy Self anyway so what they point to as bad behavior today they may say is completely acceptable behavior next week.
After all, nearly all non-Catholics now preach that murdering your own children with contraceptives is no big deal after four hundred plus years of preaching that such murder was sin. Their "Christian Liberty" permits infanticide and whatever else they feel like doing.
The fact is, the worst thing you can say about the Popes they point to is that they behaved like a bunch of Protestants when they knew better than to do so. And even the worst Pope didn't throw out part of the Scripture the way Protestants and Protestant derived folks have.
The same people blathering about the liberties and abuses of papal infallibility have it completely backwards. Infallibility is extremely restricting on a pope because it means he is not free to contradict anything already established ex cathedra. Even in the most flawed individuals who have been popes there is no single example of error in their proclamations. The reason for that is that it is not the pope, but the Paraclete speaking through them. The absolute jealousy of that, like their jealousy of Mary, is what fuels the continued attacks. Pray for them.
Peace be with you
“”The Pope rightly views that the love of money is root of much evil. God is good. All other things are lesser and/or evil. The use of money as a tool in order to accomplish something is laudable and fits well within the Popes vision. The pursuit of money as an end in itself is a sin and abomination, to be publicly condemned,””
Right on target, Mark!
As Hilaire Belloc points out the true Liberal (calvinstic) system that people have been brainwashed into thinking is conservative. This system is destructive and the foundation of american economics
Though the iron Calvinist affirmations (the core of which was an admission of evil into the Divine nature by the permission of but One Will in the universe) have rusted away, yet his vision of a Moloch God remains; and the coincident Calvinist devotion to material success, the Calvinist antagonism to poverty and humility, survive in full strength. Usury would not be eating up the modern world but for Calvin nor, but for Calvin, would men debase themselves to accept inevitable doom; nor, but for Calvin, would Communism be with us as it is today, nor, but for Calvin, would Scientific Monism dominate as it (till recently) did the modern world, killing the doctrine of miracle and paralysing Free Will.
This man was a Frenchman, Jean Cauvin (or Calvin), the son of an ecclesiastical official, steward and lawyer to the See of Noyon. After the excommunication of his father for embezzlement and the confiscation by his Bishop of much of the income which he, Jean Calvin, himself enjoyed, he, John, set to work - and a mighty work it was.
He was already on the revolutionary side in religion; he would perhaps have been in any case a chief figure among those who were for the destruction of the old religion. But whatever his motive, he was certainly the founder of a new religion. For John Calvin it was who set up a counter-Church.
He proved, if ever any man did, the power of logic the triumph of reason, even when abused, and the victory of intelligence over mere instinct and feeling. He framed a complete new theology, strict and consistent, wherein there was no room for priesthood or sacraments; he launched an attack not anti-clerical, not of a negative kind, but positive, just as Mohammed had done nine hundred years before. He was a true heresiarch, and though his effect in the actual imposition of dogma has not had a much longer life than that of Arianism yet the spiritual mood he created has lasted on into our day.
Pope Francis understands the destructive forces
“loaning sharking, extortion, theft perhaps. The point is, the love of money consumed him, and he likely cared little what he had to do to acquire it”
Like the new Pope, you take literary license with scripture and instead of accepting the plain text of the scripture you feel free to speculate on the ways Zacchaeus the tax collector made money, though evidence in scripture or elsewhere is lacking.
“The point is, the love of money consumed him, and he likely cared little what he had to do to acquire it”
No evidence that “the love of money CONSUMED him”. His job was collecting taxes imposed by Herod and Rome. Your slander is no different than the “dirty Jew” libel leveled at the Jews that the feudal lords in Europe appointed to collect their taxes because the Jew was a non-citizen with zero social or legal standing and could not, unlike many local citizens, convert a position of privilege into a position of power.
That is the same kind of libel against mere wealth that arrives in a misunderstanding of the problem a “rich person” has, in getting to the kingdom of heaven.
It is NOT his wealth, it is NOT how much wealth he has, it is NOT being successful and becoming wealthy by that success.
The problem for the “rich person” is the temptations it provides, the tempation to give into lusts, because he can afford it; the temptation to try to buy love, because he can afford it; the temptation to try to buy his way out of a crime, because he can bribe the officials; the temptation to use his wealth as a form of power to deny someone what is rightfully theirs; and many other temptations that become easier to give into, with enough wealth.
The “rich person” has the moral danger of thinking he can afford to “sin” in many ways and get away with it, because wealth, just like any form of power comes with the temptation to abuse what it can do.
That, not the “rich persons” wealth is the “rich persons” delimna, what makes life morally perilous for them, why it is, with all the temptation they have available, navigating life on the straight and narrow moral path is harder.
“Mr. Bowyer, our Forbes “Contributor”, like many, seem to have a difficult time separating wheat from tares, so to speak. His God and savior appears to be accumulation of wealth, and he seems to resent teaching that God expects us to help those less fortunate”
a position/argument without evidence
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.