A verbis ad verbera
Posted on 07/07/2009 10:30:02 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
Because the world is looking, really looking for either the 12th Imam or the Rapture. I've rolled much of this behavior over and over in my mind, in scriptures, and ancient texts of most religions.
0bama won on Hope & Change, yet we're specifically told to "hope in the Lord," Psalms 16:8-9 NKJV,1 Peter 1:13 NKJV. Many will be deceived and 'fall away from faith,'1 Timothy 4:1.
World culture today places little hope or faith in the church. Even those who claim Christian, look elsewhere instead of to the Lord. All these things must come to pass.
How can you not know what I meant?
Well, if he knows so much about the Bible, then how come he can’t even get salvation right? An honest question.
You need to read better. Read this in light of subsidiarity. Do you even know that that is?
You wrote:
“You ignorantly assume that just because I/we currently pay taxes to go to entitlement programs, somehow that makes it ok or moral? BZZ! Try again.”
You’re being extremely ignorant. Are taxes inherently against morality? No.
And that Free Republic will place that attack at the top of Breaking News, inviting a Catholic-bash-fest.
You wrote:
“I just did. You are beyond stretching the truth.”
Nope. Read the book “Jesus, Peter and the Keys” if you want it in more detail.
“You don’t like the question, so you pose another and fail to answer both. Pathetic.”
No, you’re pathetic. Only someone pathetic would think that a Church must be named in the Bible to prove it is from Christ. Last time I checked the Bible was from God and it was still just called the Bible - and not by God either.
“There is no precedent for this anywhere in Jewish practice.”
Doesn’t have to be. There’s no precedent in Jewish practice for God becoming a man either.
“You can’t find in the Tanakh anything presaging this conclusion. His statement was metaphorical and symbolic, just as was the passover lamb was a symbol of Him.”
No, Psalm 27:2 shows it was not a metaphor. Do you know why?
“Somehow I’ve missed the RCC keeping that Sabbath thingy. This is pure spin on your part.”
Nope. No spin ever. We keep the sabbath - we just keep it in the New Covenant.
Re-reading the paragraph in question, I can see your point. I don’t have any response at this time, at least none that could be a cogent reply. Perhaps later.
I’m mainly posting this to say thanks for your input, and also as a placemarker in the thread. This discussion should be interesting.
I would also like to encourage my fellow Catholics to consider this point carefully. While I have read a good number of articles offered on FR explaining the meaning behind the Encyclical, and how it shouldn’t be taken as a call for a “one world government with enforcement powers”, I must admit, in the interests of intellectual honesty and “poverty of spirit” on my part that paragraph 67 seems quite clear on this, at least at this time. And none of the articles I’ve read in “defense” of the Encyclical have addressed that paragraph point blank.
I’m looking forward to the discussion this should generate, hopefully not the usual anti-Catholic diatribe but actual discussion on this point. Ultimately of course, Catholics are not bound to agree with the Pope when he proposes specific economic and political structures, but I do not like to rely on this “fall-back position” too often, as it seems to be a bit of a cop out when abused.
After all, he is the Pope, and as Catholics, we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss his thoughts on any subject, regardless of whether or not we “have to” agree with them, just because they might at times be inconvenient to our own personal philosophies that do not directly speak towards “faith and morals”, such as politics and economics.
However, again, as of right now I may have to leave it at that, that I disagree with his proposal for a world government “with teeth”, and I am free to do so, as the term “with teeth” is a purely political suggestion, and not a teaching of “faith and morals”.
The Constitution is not the primary source of freedom, wealth or prosperity.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution properly highlight the source of freedom, wealth and prosperity, Who is the Lord God Almighty, and seek to set the proper constraints on man so that all men may enjoy freedom, wealth and prosperity.
If God is the Lord of all men, and if His truth applies to all men, then it would seem that at some point all men could be organized to work toward his furthering His will.
It is laughable to claim that in an era when the world is linked by internet so intimately and by so many other international ties that seeking some orderliness in such a structure would be better than the chaos that now exists.
Certainly Benedict has highlighted as necessary to any such institution all the qualities that the UN lacks.
Of course, it is more fun - and much easier - to simply throw irrlevant canards at a caricature than to address what he actually has written.
How can you not express what you meant?
So true.
Before you go all amill on us, think about it. The call for a one world order with the power to enforce it's redistributive plans does give this Christian pause.
evil.
What's next a Vatican world currency to replace the dollar? Pope Bucks
anything not infallible= any proclamation made by the Pope in which he’s not speaking “ex cathedra”
For further explanation on what that means, do some research.
It's always been a political operation.
That's a shocking new turn. It's headline news no matter how you spin it, how you interpret it, or how much you deny it. And it's a sharp departure from the Encyclicals of John Paul II.
George Weigel is trying to blame the whole thing on some shady group call "The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace." That's nuts. Since when don't Popes have ultimate authority and ultimate responsibility for each and every word in an Encyclical?
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.