I’m not arguing for the Catholic position here, although I believe it myself. But I realize that some very smart, very well-read, very holy people have not followed this line of logic and faith. And a great many have.

aengus, I concur with your assessment of the Pope not being a socialist/communist liberal. Reagan himself credited the fall of the Soviet empire to the Catholic Church. Every Pope from the 19th century on has been stridently anti-communist. The feast of St. Joseph the Worker is specifically on May Day to accentuate the difference between free Christian people and communist slavery.

As for the rewording of the Pope’s remarks: It seems the WaPo is making a distinction without difference. So what if they dropped the “Yes”.

And if they made the text more general than before that seems to be more of a problem for pro-abortion politicians in the US (not just Giuliani). Remember that the original question had to do with the Mexican Bishops’ authority to levy excommunication. The answer was, “Yes.” Now the Vatican is clarifying that it’s not just their authority, but also under the purview of all Bishops. I fail to see how anybody gets a pass.

Last point: the Pope usually speaks in Italian or German. That means that all these English quotes are translated. If the Vatican is unhappy with the way that Maureen Dowd’s editor translated the Pope, they have the right to issue a clarification, so long as it really is a translation and not a cover-up. Why does everybody rely on the infallibility of the MSM?

The Pope is just another socialist/communist liberal. He stepped on some toes that allow him his power; that is most liberal socialist/communists have no problem with abortion. Hence he had to backtrack.

This is without a doubt the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life.

Fair enough?

:-)

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Sounds good to me ;)

Fair enough?

:-)

right2bright on May 11, 2007 at 4:49 PM

I don’t even know why I bother…

Surely, we have the whole Muslim world to convert before we have these arguments, don’t we?

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Not if we don’t agree on justification, right?

I also do not doubt that if you gathered the Twelve Apostles in an Ecumencial council, their pronouncements would loose and bind. That’s why the church has them. But I would argue that Peter has been granted that privilege also.

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 3:49 PM

I would agree that Peter was mentioned more than the other Apostles. I would disagree that he would say that he had any more authority than the other 11.

Surely, we have the whole Muslim world to convert before we have these arguments, don’t we?

That being said, I disagree with both him and Calvin. I think Calvin is forgetting Luke 22:31-2 “confirm thy brethren” (although the KJV has that as “strengthen thy brethren” so that may not be helpful), and the role given to Peter (sometimes along with James and John, but always including Peter) in Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5. Calvin is, I think, somewhat ungenerous in his assessment of Peter’s importance — there are many places where the Bible makes a specific point of mentioning him.

If you go to drbo.org and search the New Testament for Peter, you get 151 hits. John gets 130. James gets 37. Of the three, just by sheer volume of mentions, Peter is the most important. I don’t imagine the results would be much different in the KJV, as the New Testament canon is the same (I believe — I’m not certain of that). John is certainly also highly important, especially from a Catholic view, in that Christ gives care of his mother to him from the Cross. But for Calvin to argue that he is simply one of the twelve doesn’t seem correct. A simple reading of the text argues for Peter’s importance.

I also do not doubt that if you gathered the Twelve Apostles in an Ecumencial council, their pronouncements would loose and bind. That’s why the church has them. But I would argue that Peter has been granted that privilege also.

No one here is bashing Catholics? You told Catholics that they need to ABOLISH the papacy. honora said that the Catholic Church was worse than the Mafia. Valiant said that the Church was just doing this for money. If you don’t understand that this is classic Catholic-bashing…

Well, I certainly believe that it is, but I don’t take it personally. I know that I won’t convince anyone here that mine is The One True Faith. I mean, if people here can’t take Michelle’s word for it…

I’m gonna have ME a great weekend, that’s for sure. Everybody, be sure and remember your mothers this Sunday.

Here the Pope said something and now there’s backtracking. Seems kinda weird for somebody who’s supposedly infallible.

That’s because you have an embarassing preschool-level understanding of Papal Infallability. Do you seriously think that you have a better understanding of something like Papal infallability than the Catholics who are asked to believe it? All you are doing is exposing how much of an idiot you are on these things.

That doesn’t follow. No one here is bashing catholics. AP puts posts up here all the time with Atheists saying something about Christianity and vice versa. Get over it.

No one here is bashing Catholics? You told Catholics that they need to ABOLISH the papacy. honora said that the Catholic Church was worse than the Mafia. Valiant said that the Church was just doing this for money. If you don’t understand that this is classic Catholic-bashing, you’re either dumber than I thought or just a massive jerkoff.

Can’t you at least offer the same level of respect to Catholics here?

The mission of this blog is not to respect or disrespect anyone, nor to make a group welcome or not.

I don’t think this blog is anti-Catholic. This is simply one topic of discussion, among many others, many of which are more controversial than this one. The more variety, the better.

You take this way too personally, for no reason.

Take it easier. It’s Friday. Have a great weekend,

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here.

I am.

The authority “to bind” and “to loose” to which Christ was referring, was the rabbinical authority. This can be determined in the original languages for that text. Being the observant Jews they were, the Apostles would have understood that.

Also, do you realize that Hot Air is increasingly gaining a reputation as an anti-Catholic blog to people who otherwise would like to comment here but feel unwelcome?

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 3:09 PM

That doesn’t follow. No one here is bashing catholics. AP puts posts up here all the time with Atheists saying something about Christianity and vice versa. Get over it.

Here the Pope said something and now there’s backtracking. Seems kinda weird for somebody who’s supposedly infallible.

Christ didn’t establish a papacy.

To be a Catholic, is to believe that he did.

Why can’t you merely accept the fact that Catholics have a Pope and leave it at that? If you don’t like it, you don’t have to be Catholic. Why do Protestants always have to attack Catholicism as if their lives depended on it? I don’t give a crap if you are a pre-millenalist, post-millenialist, or whatever believer. I don’t go around on Michelle Malkin’s blog and have arguments about THAT. Can’t you at least offer the same level of respect to Catholics here? As I said, if you’re really curious, there are other places to explore your questions. However, you don’t seek answers or understanding at all, but are merely bludgeoning people with sterotypical assaults. To what end?

Also, do you realize that Hot Air is increasingly gaining a reputation as an anti-Catholic blog to people who otherwise would like to comment here but feel unwelcome?

Yeah, I suppose you would. I let the Church that Christ founded on Earth speak for me, as opposed to some guy who ended up starting his own.

Calvin was quoting the relevant Scriptures that Catholics use to establish the authority of the Pope. Christ didn’t establish a papacy.

Benedict’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters that such edits are common. “Every time the pope speaks off the cuff, the Secretariat of State reviews and cleans up his remarks,” he said.

Being Pope has its prerogatives…

- why not us?
- why not the President? Maybe he’d like a banner “Mission Not Accomplished”
- why not those who were banned on HA?
- why not John Kerry? Maybe he’d like to say “Our Soldiers are smart”.
- why not Cynthia McKinney? Maybe she’d say “I love the Jews”
- why not Howard Dean? Maybe he’d like to undo his shout.
- why not Gov. Sebelius? Maybe she’d like to say “Nature caused the twister”
- why not Hillary? Maybe she’d declare “Our country is ripe for a President who can speak English well”
- why not Imus?
- why not Bill Clinton? I don’t even know what to say to this…

What would the Senate be without “macaca”? But then, we wouldn’t have Reaper Reid, and it would be half as boring.

First, the Earth is round after all, now Limbo…I can’t rely on the Vatican for steadiness any more.

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. I never said ‘Catholics are bad people because of thus and such.’ I was disputing the authority of the papacy.

Study your greek Manwithblackhat. All I’m sayin’

Those who do, would remind me that the Greek word for “Peter” and “rock” is the same — Cephas. (“kepha” in Aramaic.) Oh, and what DrM2B said.

So far I like this guy, but it seams like those under him are acting like handlers.

This has been a lament of Popes and priests for centuries. The ones who were the subject of Catherine of Siena’s letters to the exiled Pope in Avignon, were much worse. “Wolves and sellers of the Divine Grace,” she called them.

These guys today are pretty tame by comparison.