The Catholics sure elected a nut case this time.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ng-trouble-for-gop-catholics-118234.html

No, he's just an intelligent and compassionate human being.

Best pope ever.

He wouldn't fit in here.....would he?

I thought all Jesuits were commies.

First Pope to take over by a coup.If you look closely behind his left ear there is a 666 tattoo.

That's pretty much it. They've co-opted and high-jacked the term "social justice" which is basically code for communist ideology.

Read Codeword Barbelon: Danger in The Vatican- The Sons of Loyola and Their Plans for World Domination... by P.D. Stuart.

You'll be ready to shoot a Jesuit just a fast as a Muzz and for the same reasons.

Amazon.com

Sadly, I have to agree. This Pope is a nutcase.

I love Christians eating their own.

Nice . . .

Hey, not all of us can snap pics of women with toilet paper stuck in their pants and proclaim we couldn't say anything but we could immediately think to take a picture and post it on the Forum.

Maybe one day I'll be that kind of Christan.

Catholics elected?

Don't confuse Sam with facts, he's old, has a heart condition and lost his prostate in the late 90's.

After all that Pat Robertson is the only one to keep him going.

Popes are elected by the College of Cardinals, secret ballot. When you consider how the college of cardinals has been stacked with right wing bishops for the last 30+ years, the election of this Pope truly was a miracle. I like him, much needed breath of fresh air. I am not a communist or a liberal.

old, yeah, heart condition, yeah, but under control. The junk works fine though.

You are such an azzhole Scott. What happened to you?

Just learned it from watching your posts, which are generally ALWAYS negative.

The Pope is infallible with regards to matters of Church doctrine. But when it comes to social issues, I believe he is out of his element. Whether someone believes the Pope has strayed into other areas, it doesn't diminish Church doctrine.

He is a man, therefore he is fallible.

'


Unless you are a Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Sam, etc etc.

The notion of the Pope is rooted in Scripture: Matt 16:18-9

Pat Robertson prayed him a new prostate and a bunch of Viagra so all is well with him.

Pah-RAISE GAWD!!

So I can just mumble a few words in Latin over my pancakes and they will turn into Elvis?

Yep THEY bleed and fall over when shot. And, they dont arise on thr third day.

Was Jesus out of his element when he said this?



LOL! The good Christians are always in a state of constant religious and moral flip-flop.

Social issues indeed. All issues are social.

The Pope is the first good Pope since John (who was only fairly good).

Enjoy him. Enjoy being a rich Republican. Hell is waiting.

Sorry to say, well said.

I don't see it that way. Jesus was asking Simon Peter who people thought He (Jesus) was..., and then He asked Simon Peter who 'he' though Jesus was, and Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And THAT statement, THAT declaration, is the rock upon which Jesus built His church. It wasn't Peter himself...rather, it was the declarative statement that Simon Peter made that was the 'rock' that Jesus was referring to.

Your analysis stopped with verse 18. Verse 19 is just as important.

You may not see it that way, but history disagrees with you. Simon Peter was the first Pope. And there is a historical record from him in direct succession through every Pope to the current Pope. It is a matter of recorded history.

If the rich man sold all his stuff and gave it to a poor guy, would not he then be rich and in the same fix as he was? I did not see Jesus give him any commie instructions about wealth redistribution he just said sell it and give it away. Was he only to spread it around thin?

More to this scripture than meets the eye me thinks. Check out the con job the rich young man tried to lay on Jesus earlier in the dialogue? Anyone see it?

When Jesus says "I will give you the keys to the kingdom" in verse 19, He was speaking of His church, not just Peter. All of those who belong to His church have the keys to which He is referring to...not just Peter and not just the Pope. The historical record to which you are referring to is the Catholic Church's historical record, and the succession to which you are referring to is a matter of the Catholic Church's recorded history.

Is there any historical record that disputes this record?

In the original Greek, Jesus called Peter Petros but said that on this petra I will build my church. They're completely different words. Petros is masculine and is a piece of rock that's unstable and can be moved. Petra, feminine, is a huge, solid, unmovable rock. Jesus said that Peter was a piece of rock, hard but a man, temporary and movable. He would build his church on Peter's testimony, a petra, which was eternal and unmoving.

Amen. Though shalt eat fish on Friday.

Catholic girls

Yeah, the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture did Peter claim supremacy over the other apostles. And nowhere in his writings did Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over Jesus' church. And nowhere in Scripture did Peter state that his apostolic authority would be passed on to successors (other Pope's). Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel, but nothing in Scripture supports the concept that Peter was the first Pope...or that he had more authority than the other apostles, or that his 'authority' would be passed on to the others in Rome who would be called 'Pope'. Peter himself points to Jesus as the Shepherd and Overseer of His church.

You're wrong in a couple of ways.

First off, Jesus didn't say to give all your wealth to ONE POOR GUY. You're changing the meaning of the Bible. Typical Christian maneuver.

Second, there was no "con job" laid on Jesus and you have no point......just obfuscation.

Again, you are conveniently ignoring Matt 16:19.

Also, the early history of the church is widely recognized among protestants as well, except American evangelicals.

Hardly. I just see it differently than the Catholic church does.
And the "early history of the church" is very different from Catholic doctrine that isn't scriptural...like Peter being the first Pope, or the Immaculate Conception and Ascension of Mary, or the Canonization of Saints. If you wanna believe that stuff that's your prerogative...but don't try and pass it off as 'church history'....because it ain't.

Since those words were crafted by the crafty GENTILE followers of the false Apostle Saul/Paul to solidify the hold of the ROMAN Church on the gullible followers of the myth.....they are worth not a dried up fig.

You have to be Sherp.

Nope, but you might get waffles.

So, he's a redistributionist and now he has a bully pulpit. Whodathunk?

Are'nt you ingnoring the context of the passage? The context begins in vs. 13.

It starts with a question: "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" An answer is given.

A second, more pointed question is asked: But whom say ye (the deciples) say that I am?"

It is then in vs. 16 that Jesus acknowledges that Simon Peter gave the correct answer to the question.

The correct answer was: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

In vs. 17, Christ explains how Simon Peter got the correct answer: "...flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which in in heaven."

Taken in context, "...and upon this rock I will buid my church" must refer to:
1. The confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
2. The fact that this knowledge is by revelation.

The Church is built on Christ alone, and it is on those two principles upon which is rests. vs. 17"...I will build my church;"

Was it written in Greek originally? Or Aramaic?

It makes no difference. The context is clear. You can contrast part of the two principles with John 6:64-66.

The language makes no difference? The whole point of that post was that the specific language absolutely made all the difference

I appreciate your point. However, the light of context shines more than enough light on the subject to extrapalate the meaning.

I understand context. And it is very important. But specific words can make a huge difference, and without knowing them for sure, the context we're given can be misleading.

For the record, I'm not arguing one way or the other. I have no clue if Aramaic is the original language of that part of the bible. It really was a question. Nor would I know how to translate either Aramaic or Greek correctly

this has gotten a wee bit off the track. Of course that has never happened with a tread at the 'fire.

this is the sort of crap I am talking about. Using the church to push a communist/anti Western social agenda.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/...o-promote-pope-s-climate-change-message-


I don't care anything about what the Pope says about St Peter, or anything about Catholic doctrin. I am not Catholic, I am a Baptist.

Quite the opposite actually. Socialism is the most impoverishing, least compassionate political ideology in existence---next to its close cousin Communism.

Another obama voter for sure . . .

Everybody seems to overlook the most important part of this paragraph. The word give, not be taken by the church or the government, but given freely by the owner. miles

Jesus is Lord, The rest of us, me included are a bunch of podumps. As far as I'm concerned though the pope is a man leading the blind. Everybody should have their own relationship with God and not through some dude in a stupid hat that is no better than the rest of us. People have made him an idol, sickening... I don't put stock in anyone I don't know personally and only about 5% of the pastors I know personally.

Baptists, methodists, penticostals every denomination is off a little, all of them hold on to a big bag of $hit and call it doctrine. Argueing of stupid stuff like foot washing. Jesus said to do as I do, but he ment be a servant, if you want to do it in church as a way to show humility fine, if not don't, but no reason to have 50 branches of baptists. No wonder people don't want a thing to do with it. All of it has become about doctrine, rules and regs. I can't stand church and many christians. People and religion are flawed, God is not.

Oh yeah he tried to lay a massive con job on Jesus. He asked "Good Teacher, what must I do to be saved"?

Jesus answers, 'DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.'" 21And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth."…

Therein lies the con. Much of Jesus teachings revolved around the "you still lack one thing" principle. Jesus taught that to even look at a woman with lust was to commit adultery and to get angry with someone was to commit murder. No one has ever kept the law....there is "none righteous, no not one. "Therefore this clown was lying to Jesus to make himself look good, get a pat on the head, whatever. So Jesus said in a sense, "fantastic, since you are so great, sell all your stuff and follow me". Jesus smacked him right in his weak area as he tended to do because he knew that his possessions owned him.

This was in no way a universal command for all time for all people but an interaction with one man. What about the expensive oil that Mary used to anoint Jesus with before his death? Judas, also a con man, said they could have sold the oil and "given the money to the poor", and Jesus rebuked him...."the poor you will always have with you". Perhaps Judas was the first Commie.

The story of the Rich young man or ruler and his interaction with Jesus has been cherry picked by Commies and Atheists to bash Christians forever. They don't know what the hell they are talking about and neither do you.

Yeah, like my SIL who told me that *her* God is a god of love who loves her and doesn't care what vows she breaks or how she treats her family.



He is only an idol if you expect him to be perfect. Catholics only expect him to be "good enough" to carry out the mission of the Holy Spirit. That is, to keep the Church going and keep the infallible teachings of Christ. That is something the Church has done quite well for 2,000 years, even in spite of several anti-popes along the way.

I agree, this man sure ain't no Benedict. He talks before he thinks, but luckily he is too small to confound the mission of the Holy Spirit.

He's a socialist with communist leanings. Those aren't Church teachings, but rather cultural constructs. He is a man of his times, unfortunately.

Truth is, it is YOU who doesn't know what he's talking about.

What you demonstrate is that people tend to twist "Holy Books" in a cynical attempt to validate their own politics.

Truth is, to attempt to use the supposed sayings of Jesus to justify hateful Fascist political goals and oppression of the poor is ludicrous because the heart of Jesus's teachings are clear and totally lacking in hate and greed.

There is no need to "cherry pick" anything. The words of Jesus are filled with compassion for the poor....NOT the harsh and hateful neglect of the poor espoused by the right-wing Christians of today.



So you rich Republicans and Fascists enjoy your fat life here on earth......you better, because according to your own book--hell awaits you.

And the Pope?

He's exactly correct.

(And heaven awaits him.)

Yowsah!!!!!!

I'll take my chances Pagan, as I reckon you will.

The Vatican is sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth. Seems the pope should sell it and give it to the poor to be "exactly correct"?

Unfortunately for your theory.......Pope Francis does not own or control that wealth.

However, he himself owns nothing.....thereby fulfilling his spiritual obligation according to his "Holy Book."

Okay Pagan, who controls it? I'm just trying to figure out who my hell mates are going to be.

Wrong.

It's those who believe in the "Holy Books" and disobey their own books that are taking their chances.

Myself, I know that religion is just a bunch of owl droppings.

I believe in a loving God and I know God will take care of me....and.......if perchance there is no God?

No big deal.....I'll help the grass grow.

Who controls the wealth of the Roman Church?

Good question. That church is a monster hierarchy.

Ask a Catholic.

Pagan, given how full of schit you are, I don't doubt the grass around your final resting place will be lush. I reckon we are done then?

Yes, you've been soundly trounced in honest debate and I think you should go start the grill, cook some fat red meat and try to forget it.

Don't forget to say grace, though.

It is the oldest, and largest, bureaucracy in the world.

Oh crap, I missed the vote!


In defense of Jesuits, they are all over the board. Reasoned diversity of thought is encouraged. The liberal social justice nut jobs are the loudest and get the most press, i.e. Daniel Berrigan.

I'll consult with the pope on political matters right after I get done consulting with Obama on theology and with Clinton on morality.

He owns nothing.. Interesting. So he sleeps in the Papal suite at the Vatican every night surrounded by guards, walls, every kind of security system imaginable, handmaidens, altar boys, personal chefs, waiters, and all manor of lackies to do his bidding at whatever fancies he whimsies.
Poor guy.

The Tea Party Movement is pretty much the same as a bowel movement except that it smells worse and has far less in the way of intelligent content.
--DancesWithGuns



DancesWithGuns - so if the Tea Party is as bad as you say, what party or ideology do you think is best, and which person do you feel best suited to lead America towards that goal?

To you Sam, almost everybody is a commie, a liberal, a nut case, or ....

He is a troll.

Himself...of course.

Wow! You are not a man of abundant clue.

Francis refused the papal apartments as being far too luxurious and lives in a simple guesthouse in the Vatican and takes his simple meals in a common room there with some other residents.

As I said, he owns nothing and lives a very simple life.

He is guarded, yes......because there are terrorists who would like to kill him. He faces that courageously with light security.

Bernie Sanders would be a good one to try.

I don't have much hope for improvement, though.

We live in a nation firmly in control of the Plutocrats and I truly don't see that changing.....because they're too powerful.

You sir, are the one of not an abundant clue.

Have you ever been to the Vatican? How many times? How much have you read about the protection of the Pope.. Over hundreds of years? Are you aware of any of the security measures you don't see? Do you have any foggiest idea of what a "simple guesthouse" entails in the Vatican? or how foreign exiles from justice have stayed there, kept from harm's way.. for years?

Terrorists? Which terrorists? The ones as in our country living amongst us who wish to dissolve us all, including you?
Or only the ones dedicated to the Pope?

You are the one without a clue, sir. Get one. Remember that when the toilet ultimately flushes, you falseflag waving libbers go down into the same [bleep] with the rest of us..
Exceptin' some of us dumb hillbillies are already prepared for that.

Vote for Hildabeast when the time comes and make yourself happy. You have a fine day, sir.

Yes, your information was all wrong, but I'M the one without a clue.

Have a glass of warm milk and take your meds.

Just for the record, Sanders has some pretty strong ties to Communists. Though he is not technically a member of the Communist Party in America, they really like him a lot.

Bernie Sander - a self-proclaimed socialists . . . I understand.

You are 100% correct! The Pope IS fallible.

However, God is real and is infallible!

I don't question the Pope's faith, but his position as final arbiter of all matters pertaining to faith I do reject. I also think that, despite the humble persona he projects, he, like most liberals, loves the adulation that comes with his leftist pronouncements. Being a liberal, especially one of position and power, is easy. Being a conservative, like most things that are worthwhile, can be difficult.

Being a conservative, far from being honorable or worthwhile, is simply being ruled by fear, greed and hate.

That's basic, primitive human behavior.....instinctive for those at the very bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Nothing less than pathetic.

So you say. I say that of being a liberal. We will have to agree to disagree. I just have never seen liberalism work, in economics or in governance.

It works fine in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and a lot of other nations.

Socialism works fine if you enjoy paying 30% to 50% income tax every year. They also have extra special property tax rates and so on. But you already knew that didn't ya.

Socialism has never worked - only know nothing dolts like you keep mouthing about it but still live in the USA.

GFY

You're wrong in a couple of ways.

First off, Jesus didn't say to give all your wealth to ONE POOR GUY. You're changing the meaning of the Bible. Typical Christian maneuver.

Second, there was no "con job" laid on Jesus and you have no point......just obfuscation. [/quote]


You are wrong in many ways not the least being portions of The 10 Commandments as it regards goods in common and personal property. Maybe even you can figure those few out all by yourself? Then, again, maybe not.

The Pope is a pure socialist/liberal wanting YOU to give your money but his and the Churches' is a different matter as in "do as I say, not as I do".

Now there's a list of world powerhouses, ain't it? Movers and shakers, all, that set the course of world events cause they are so,,,,,?

You are welcome to go there, and stay.

Many of the advances that enable these nations to function came from the U.S. We are probably an important market for the comparatively meager output from them, and I would bet that we supply a lot of their food. And, oh yes, we did save their bacon in WWII, and they are counting on us to protect them now.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. I have seen numerous posts by you, I understand what you are, and I'm done with you, so you can go ahead and do your "victory" dance.

Please prove this.

Easy. He created a wonderful human being such as yourself and gave you the self will to question His very existence. Then, again, maybe He was just joking.

White Obama........

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de1_1394099792http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de1_1394099792

Yeah, socialism works well there, as long as we protect them from the bear.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de1_1394099792

The Pope reminds me of this Dwight Eisenhower speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech

So how many billions did Ike stash in banks, gold, stocks and real estate?

Im thinking some bombs on ISIS could save some kids.

Sorry to interupt, but Sweden was neutral in WWII, didn’t fight. Finland fought our “ally” the USSR, for most of the war, with the Germans, then fought the Germans, with the Soviets. Norway was occupied the entire war by the Germans, the Soviets fought some German units in northern Norway, some British raids maybe? Denmark liberated (partially) by the Brits near war’s end, I believe. Not much US action to speak of in those places, maybe some in Denmark.

You may be technically right, but while we may not have had "boots on the ground" in those countries, our role elsewhere freed up others to do the work that needed to be done there. Without us, then and now, they would probably be under German and Russian rule. No way to say for sure, of course, but the point is that when you don't spend much for national defense, you can better afford the government goodies.

Do you have any clue what it costs and what you give up to live in those countries? Because I work with several folks FROM 3 out of 4 of those countries, I do.

Sweeden has a 60% individual, plus an additional 22% corporate tax rate.