Posted on 06/29/2014 3:20:21 PM PDT by ebb tide
The pope isn't impeccable and it wouldn't be the first time one misspoke or was flat-out wrong. He isn't speaking infallibly nor establishing new doctrine. He is just spouting off at the mouth, in other words.
Excuses, excuses.....
The damage control Catholics here on FR are engaged in in trying to defend the indefensible would be amusing if it weren’t so sad.
You know, if he misspoke once in a while, or was misquoted once in a while, that would be one thing.
This is a daily occurrence.
Does it ever occur to y’all Catholics that maybe it ISN’T the MSM that is *mistranslating* everything he said?
Good point, Salvation. It is not uncommon that one place in the Bible states what seems to be the same thing but worded slightly differently than another place. In this case:
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Luke
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Luke
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Matthew
I should admit my inclination toward Matthew’s version, being a Messianic Jew. Matthew’s is generally considered the Gospel to the Jews (Luke’s the Gospel to the Greeks; Mark’s to the Romans; and, John’s to the Christians). This is why I went straight away to Matthew’s Gospel.
But, as you have brought the matter to my attention, I will consider it further. The beatitudes tell us that those who suffer in this life will have their reward in heaven. Luke in editing out “in spirit,” from “poor in spirit,” and in editing out “for righteousness,” from “hunger for righteousness,” if that is what he did, is telling us that this is true also those whose suffering in this life is abject poverty. Luke, writing for the Greeks, would be concerned about this.
Jesus himself said, man does not live by bread alone but by every word from the mouth of God. This affirms both that we live by bread and that we live by righteousness. This BOTH bread AND righteousness parallels BOTH the Matthew version of the beatitudes (that affirms the blessedness of our hunger for righteousness) AND the Luke version (that affirms our hunger for bread).
Good points on the parallels.
Remembering that Luke was a physician, makes me wonder if he saw more poor people and hungry or thirsty people???? Possibly.
A couple months ago I read the book “Call of the Midwife”. I don’t have a working TV so I hadn’t watched the series at all.
The authors descriptions of the poor living in the tenements of London were vivid and in many cases, almost heartbreaking.
Another “Blessed are the lowly.”
Doesn't say those things in my bible...Are you making that up???
Thanks Salvation. Might I add that the Gospels that are sometimes characterized as written to the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans and the Christians, are actually all written to each of us. Within each of us is a concern for the consistency of all of revelation, Old Testament as well as New Testament (Hebrew Mind); each of us is concerned with the scientific evidence and with the real world (Greek Mind); each of us is concerned with the bottom line, so what does it boil down to (Roman Mind); and, each of us is concerned with God’s Love and Mercy (Christian Mind).
“...whereas it is not so easy to live up to what Matthew 25 demands of us.”
The Pope’s Matt 25 quote, via Google:
“ake Matthew 25, the protocol over which we shall be judged:...”
I take what follows as a command, but it will not be the basis for my judgment. That will be this:
“Those who believe in the Son are not judged; but those who do not believe have already been judged, because they have not believed in God’s only Son.”
How we then live REVEALS if we believed, or not. Matt 25 gives an example of what we will do when we believe, but it will not be the basis for our judgment. We canot earn our salvation by feeding poor people, but must do the one work God requires of us:
28 So they asked him, “What can we do in order to do what God wants us to do?”
29 Jesus answered, “What God wants you to do is to believe in the one he sent.” - John 6
This guy is a fool and nuts.
That's for dang sure.
He is promoting the cause of socialism which is the antithesis of love...it enables bondage not freedom.
Bad leader.
Well - if it was an attempt at a joke .... Not funny.
It almost seems like a strange attempt to change the subject.
The Pope was being asked to clarify his positions on capitalism & communism.
It really would be nice to hear him condemn communism with similar enthusiasm as he had while condemning capitalism.
And it’s high time for Christians everywhere to figure out the difference between genuine charity vs socialism/communism.
“I recall John Paul II and Benedict did not need people interpreting their comments.”
Both of them were misinterpreted by the demonstream media on numerous occasions.
Really bizarre that you address that to me. I'm one of the few who HASN'T used that excuse.
Where in my post #101 does it produce any excuse at all. It says he's running his mouth off, which is true.
You evidently don't bother to read or comprehend.
If Leo XIII also said and did a lot of the other things that Francis has done in just over a year (which I tend to think are much more of an issue), perhaps.
But to equate Leo XIII with Francis is pathetic at best.
Father, you are correct that he has not, but you also know that ex cathedra is not the only way the Pope speaks/teaches infallibly. I see this sort of comment often from lay Catholics and I think it is important to reiterate/reinforce that infallibility doesn’t require ex cathedra.
This is true metmom. Steve86 is one of the handful here who can see the forest for the trees.
You understood that translation?
Although I have seen steve’s posts on FR occasionally on some of the threads I’ve been on, since I haven’t engaged with him all that much, I don’t usually remember where he is on most issues. There’s just too many to keep track of everyone.
I went back and re-read the post a few times with that in mind and I can see that. Initially, thinking he was defending the pope, it came across differently. Sorry about that. I will remember now.
I understand. Most here offer the same defensive mantra.
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.