Posted on 07/05/2014 5:53:22 AM PDT by Kolokotronis
"I say only that the Communists have stolen the flag,” Francis responded. “The flag of the poor is Christian. Poverty is at the heart of the Gospel. The poor are at the heart of the Gospel. Take Matthew 25, the protocol over which we shall be judged: ‘I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was in prison, I was sick, naked.’ Or look at the Beatitudes, another flag. The communists say that this is communist. Yeah, right, 20 centuries later.”
The Holy Father concluded with a joke: “So you could say when you speak to them: ‘But you are Christians.’”
Some precincts of the American hard right went predictably bonkers. “NUTS,” was Jim Hoft’s headline at Gateway Pundit. Rush Limbaugh wondered if the pope was claiming Jesus as a communist. The comboxes at Free Republic, the Washington Times, Newsmax and The American Catholic swelled with insults aimed at the Holy Father. There will be more where this came from, but the week is young."
(Excerpt) Read more at aleteia.org ...
>>The Book of Discipline still hasn’t changed on either of those issues you cite.
True, but it is only because of the Africans. At AC, all the talk was on Hamilton’s “Way Forward” (I wonder why he left off the traditional exclamation mark for the Progressive “Forward!”?). The emotionally-charged vote on abortion (a resolution to merely encourage an ultrasound) was my tipping point. We heard arguments on politics, social sciences, and junk science (i.e. “only 1 out of 10 women who see an ultrasound will choose to not abort.” Fine. What about the liberal mantra of “if it only saves one child”??). At one point, my pastor (a rare conservative Elder) leaned over and said, “Do you feel the Holy Spirit in this room?” I said “No”. He replied, “Me neither.”
>>I was actually at the IN Annual Conference back at the tail-end of April. We have a thriving Confessing Movement presence. INAC is probably the most evangelical/conservative AC outside of the Southeastern Jurisdiction and I’m not really concerned about whether my clergy are political liberals/moderates. God doesn’t endorse one political brand, after all.
We have a growing Confessing Movement in Florida. When the church splits, I may return to the newly-formed Evangelical Methodist Church (or whatever they call it).
>>Sorry to hear you left the fight.
I’m tired of fighting Progressives (until the actual shooting war starts). I just want to be away from them. Most of them don’t even know the entirety of what they are fighting for. They just pick one cause and make that their emotional hot button without understanding the full implications of what they want.
“Given the insults to the present pope appearing of late on these pages, especially those accusing him of being some sort of socialist,”
The Church has had good Popes and it has had BAD Popes. This one is NOT a good pope. The Church will survive
In the end, does any of the stuff at FL AC noticeably impact what's going on in your local congregation? You might find my friend Chad Holtz's reasoning for why he stays in the UMC insightful.
Thank you for that link, made my day.
Sorry but I saw very little in all those words that distinguishes him from a Communist or socialist. In saying to the Communists “”you are Christian “ he’s equating the two or that “we were Communists before you were”.
He makes no effort to walk back his statement that it is up to governments to redistribute wealth - steal from Paul to give to Peter - which is the essence of communism.
If he were president he would govern very much like our current socialist in the white house - do you doubt that?
>>I’m confused. You left a Methodist congregation, not because you disagree with the pastor, who is a conservative/evangelical, but because of stuff that happened outside of your home church at Annual Conference?
A pastor is just a person passing through the life of a church. The five pastors prior to him were fully-involved Progressives. They would preach the “Jesus was the first Socialist” sermons from our pulpit. I accepted that because the Progressive movement was not winning in America then. Today, things are different. The Progs are winning and I am not supporting them at any level anymore. Our next pastor could easily be a rainbow stole wearing Progressive who hints at denying the supernatural power of God and the deity of Christ (like our previous pastor).
>>In the end, does any of the stuff at FL AC noticeably impact what’s going on in your local congregation? You might find my friend Chad Holtz’s reasoning for why he stays in the UMC insightful.
There are conservative Wesleyan denominations. There are non-denoms with Wesleyan theology. God does not live exclusively in the UMC.
But, I’m actually coming to realize that the things that made Wesleyanism so wonderful in a Christian nation are the things that make it too weak to survive a post-Christian nation. I find it hard to believe that many Progressives have received Prevenient Grace. Perhaps Calvin was right when speaking of a post-Christian nation.
I’ll read Holtz’ article and comment later on that.
“and I’m not really concerned about whether my clergy are political liberals/moderates. God doesn’t endorse one political brand, after all.”
We humans seem to like an Aristotelian model with a sensible center and wings stretching away in two directions, an assumption being that the further away you get from the “sensible center” in either direction, the whackier you are.
I don’t buy it.
It’s one continuum leading from Satan on the left to God on the right. It’s not possible for a human to get far enough to the right, and God does disapprove of the left.
It’s verifiable, if you choose to observe.
The UMC just reinstated a heretic priest after defrocking him for solemnizing a same-sex “wedding.”
If that is not full blown apostasy, then nothing can be.
Sorry to here you are so blind to open heresy.
I agree the Church will survive whoever is Pope. I am 48 and remember Paul VI as a kid, he died when I was 12. Obviously, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and now Pope Francis. Benedict was my kind of guy, Great Theologian, loved the Church Fathers and Patristic Theology, and Liturgy. Pope Francis, I will not call a Bad pope, I will not say he is a good pope, I am sort of neutral.
I think we need to see his papacy and evaluate it when it is over. My criticism of him is he seems to have the Italian temperament of saying things off the cuff, rather than just measuring himself. I liked Benedict’s measured and thoughtful style. However, I do respect his ability to connect with people in large settings, which is something that Pope John Paul II could do very well.
On what I think is the most important ecumenical issue, relations with the Eastern Orthodox, he has seemed to really find common ground with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and also the Patriarch of the Armenian Orthodox Church, which broke communion with Rome and the East at the time of the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD. So he has done some good things as well.
Keep praying for the Pope, he seems to gradually be hitting his stride in being Pope.
“Sorry but I saw very little in all those words that distinguishes him from a Communist or socialist.”
Really? Did you see my note 15?
“In saying to the Communists “”you are Christian “ he’s equating the two or that “we were Communists before you were”.
No, no, no. No. No.
He is saying, “You profess to hate the Church, but your rhetoric is a pale-pink rip-off of what we’ve had for 2000 years. You hate us? You act like you wish you *were* us.”
“He makes no effort to walk back his statement that it is up to governments to redistribute wealth - steal from Paul to give to Peter - which is the essence of communism.”
He didn’t say that. At all. If you want to know what he said, you need to click on some links and read some original documents. There’s a link to distributism on this thread that leads to a very good article.
“If he were president he would govern very much like our current socialist in the white house - do you doubt that?”
It’s not even remotely plausible.
It's happened before, and our Judicial Council struck down that prior instance of 'reinstatement' too. To be sick is not to be dead.
As John Stott put it, the faithful remnant was always in the Church, never outside it. When they force me to participate in their sins, then I'll leave.
If only he - like so many prior popes - hadn't said so many other things that also made him sound like a political liberal.
I don't assume that. In fact, I hate the concept of a 'center'. But I'm not going to demonize people who are otherwise orthodox Christians simply because they believe that socialism is a better system than capitalism, or because they vote Democratic. Theology is not politics, and politics is not theology.
As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong!!) is that according to Papal teaching since Rerum Novarum (and even before) it is a natural good to own property ("things" that are proper to a man) and that this "good" is best when proprietorship is widely common: in other words, when all or most people have some stake in the way they make a living, some "skin in the game," some degree of ownership.
The way Chesterton explained it (but in words better than mine): we believe in the natural right to own property and the natural right to marry. But this rightful ownership isn't best seen as one man owning all the land in the county, any more than that one man marries all the women in the county.
In other words, there should be widespread proprietorship. Not by the govt. confiscating land or capital from one group and giving it to another group, but by a decided preference of all elements of society towards wide ownership or wide participation in ownership.
So what I would call it, is not a "distributist society" but "a proprietorship society."
I wouldn't want it done by confiscation. It must be done by purchase or donation. Not unreasonable. There was a movement in India in the 1950's led by Vinoba Bhave called "Bhoodan" (land-gift) where I think they got 5 million acres donated from private landowners. Not a WHOLE lot in a huge country like India. but it was a start. Now fire away!
I understand exactly what you're saying. I was definitely a JP II admirer. His witness to the faith was decisive in my conversion to the Catholic Church.
I also admired Benedict while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger. I read the Ratzinger Report and Saltz der Erde while living in Germany. These two books also aided me in my conversion. JP II and "Ratzo" were my cup of tea, and I always saw them as men who were deeply sympathetic to my conservative outlook on everything.
With Pope Francis, I feel a bit alienated. I have accepted that I am simply not in the primary audience he addresses. That's not a tragedy or anything, and it seems that the Holy Spirit has chosen a new voice for a new time. I respect Francis as the Holy Father, but am also aware that he views secular affairs from a very different perspective than his predecessors. I fear that his off-the-cuff comments about economics, immigration, et al., come off as flippant, and are easily twisted into dangerous social tendencies in the contemporary world.
Although he has taught nothing heretical when his comments are read in context, one could wish that he were more prudent in his public utterances. In a world that will always bend a Pope's words to its own ends, one could wish that the Holy Father were more measured in his public comments, eg, his "Who am I to judge" comment regarding homosexuals, his "An atheist can go to Heaven" comment, etc.. I personally don't see how they help us evangelize, but then I now realize that I'm not in the primary audience anymore. I still wish he would make his comments less easy to misinterpret.
The first kind have a chance of digging themselves out of poverty. The second kind will never stop being "poor" until you stop subsidizing them.
Under Juan Peron, the Catholic bishops of Argentina praised the Perons for their "generosity" to the poor, never understanding that it was Peronist policies that caused so many people to be poor.
Catholic clergy should stay away from economic issues. Once they have said "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet," anything more means they're out of their depth. Nothing in their priestly training qualifies them to make statements on economic policy.
Sounds like a license to excuse or tolerate any sin. And John Stott is not Scripture, which never endorses unity over error.
When they force me to participate in their sins, then I'll leave.
Then you'll have to define "participate." I think a strong case can be made that mere association with a sinning body is participation. Where do you think a portion of your offering goes?
ishmac:
Even those comments were not fully cited. With regards to Homosexuals, he actually stated, if those seek Christ with good will, then who am I too judge.
With respect to atheist, I think in many ways, Francis realizes that in many Western Countries, we are now in a post-Christian culture, so those atheist that have never had family members expose or model Christ for them, we have to recognize the potential for “invincible ignorance” is a real possibility today.
I agree his off the cuff remarks can be misinterpreted and used by secular sources for their own means but the article linked actually shows the entire statements and in that context, there is nothing wrong with what he stated. In the future, I think we are going to need the Catholic press and blogs to give us the full measure of Pope Francis’s statements, secular sources twist everything Pope’s say to fit their agendas. When they want to misquote or not accurately quote a Pope to go after the Catholic Church, they do so, when they want to use the Pope to try to show that he supports something they want, they do so.
Whenever I see a secular source quoting Pope Francis, I attach a discount factor to it that would rival what I would for “junk bonds” and I go to Catholic sources that I trust to get the entire quote and context.
Sounds like a call to stay in and reform rather than cut and run. Here is one evangelical Methodist theologian's response to calls for further schism: Do Not Rashly Tear Asunder.
Then you'll have to define "participate." I think a strong case can be made that mere association with a sinning body is participation. Where do you think a portion of your offering goes?
Cast that net too broadly and every American citizen who pays taxes is guilty of all sorts of sins.
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.