Live Video: The new Pope is … Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis I

posted at 2:45 pm on March 13, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

someone, that much is certain.  NBC News is carrying it live, and here’s the embed.  I’ll update as we find the answer.  I happened to be on a local Salem affiliate doing a taped radio hit when the smoke appeared; I have the audio and I’m clipping it into some video I just shot in St. Peter’s Square.  I’ll have that up in a few minutes.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update: A large cheer just went up from the crowd, but so far, no action at the window. The crowd has filled the square, and are shouting, “Viva il Papa!” I’m working on my video from the initial moments in the crowd, but I’m back in the media center now so that I can update readers as soon as possible.

Update: Don’t forget, we knew ahead of time that there would be 45 minutes to an hour between the white smoke and the announcement.  The process now includes time in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, which adds to the length.

Update: The new Pope is a South American, the first non-European in centuries — but not one anyone saw coming.  Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, Argentina has become Pope Francis I.  This name has a lot of meaning for Catholics — Francis of Assisi was credited with reforming the Catholic Church in the 13th century through humility, simplicity, and works of charity.  However, Bergoglio is 76 years old, an interesting choice.

Update: More background on Pope Francis from the Vatican biography.  He was born in Buenos Aires in December 1936, which makes him 75 at the moment, ordained as a Jesuit, and was made Bishop of Buenos Aires in 1992.  He was elevated to Cardinal by John Paul II in 2001.  He has been considered a theological conservative, probably not a surprise considering John Paul II’s intervention.

Update: Bergoglio is also the son of Italian immigrants to Argentina, so Italy has a connection to the new Pope.

Update: Here’s my latest video.  I was speaking with Paul Ridgeway on Salem Radio’s KKMS in the Twin Cities when the white smoke appeared, and I had to end the call quickly.  I then ran out to St. Peter’s Square to capture the moment, and even ran into a couple from Indiana.

To say I was surprised would be to engage in overwhelming understatement.  I didn’t think we’d get an answer until perhaps the weekend.  Bergoglio, it should be noted, is also a surprise.  Although he came in second to Benedict XVI in the last conclave, few considered him on the short papabili list, which goes to show just how effective that speculation really was.  Now the Catholic Church has its first South American Pope, and I can tell you that the South American contingent in the media center were not shy about sharing their pride in that election.

Update: The Washington Post profile of Pope Francis includes this look into his approach:

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who was chosen as pope Wednesday and will be known as Pope Francis, was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is best known as a champion of the poor. This is often reflected in his very humble lifestyle, despite his position. One much-cited example of his personal (and very Franciscan) commitment is that he takes the bus.

They link to another profile in the National Catholic Register:

Back in 2005, Bergoglio drew high marks as an accomplished intellectual, having studied theology in Germany. His leading role during the Argentine economic crisis burnished his reputation as a voice of conscience, and made him a potent symbol of the costs globalization can impose on the world’s poor.

Bergoglio’s reputation for personal simplicity also exercised an undeniable appeal – a Prince of the Church who chose to live in a simple apartment rather than the archbishop’s palace, who gave up his chauffeured limousine in favor of taking the bus to work, and who cooked his own meals.

Update: Here is the video of Pope Francis’ first address, via NRO:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

Will the new Pope follow this following command which got a U.S. Military Chaplain a bronze star?

“We will hold sacred the beliefs held sacred by others”.

What will the new Pope tell his Priests to tell their flock if they ask whether to follow this? If a member of the U.S. Military about to deploy to Afcrapistan asks his Priest whether he should hold the beliefs of Muslims sacred, what should the Priest say? What if a member of the flock sees an “honor” killing about to take place, here in America, should he say “What you are doing is sacred?”

VorDaj on March 14, 2013 at 1:54 AM

I like what I’m finding out about this Pope. Strongly pro-life, against gay marriage and believes that social justice is primarily a spiritual rather than political concern. In other words, a Christian. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

tommyboy on March 14, 2013 at 4:36 AM

It was the Protestant reforms which took advantage of the printing press to distribute the word of god in various languages to various people. Martin Luther stressed that the key to salvation was in the Bible, not from the Pope. Protestants promoted literacy and allowed the masses, for lack of a better term, to question the established ecclesiastical order. This is bottom up thinking.

Daemonocracy on March 14, 2013 at 12:05 AM

Questioning the established ecclesiastical order is not bottom-up thinking. It is part of the Protestant view on one’s relationship with God to be sure and challenges the structure of the RCC. But to be bottom-up thinking it would encourage man to also question God’s actions and that is a kind of heresy.

Happy Nomad on March 14, 2013 at 7:37 AM

There were 115 cardinals in the conclave, with various different agendas. There’s no reason to believe that their main goal was to elect someone from a particular continent or race or ethnicity.

J.S.K. on March 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM

it played a big a part in their thinking, i’m sure.

sesquipedalian on March 13, 2013 at 5:47 PM

As always, the people who are obsessed with race and color – such as sesquipedalian, assume that everyone else is just as obsessed with it and also assume that they know the hearts and minds of people they don’t know, never met and know nothing about.

Typical liberal. Believes he knows everything. Believes that his obsessions (race/color) are everyone’s obsessions. Just because you as a leftist make decisions based on race and color doesn’t mean that everyone else does.

Stop pretending to know the motives of everyone else and worry about your own racist attitude.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 7:38 AM

tommyboy on March 14, 2013 at 4:36 AM

Amen. That’s why our Trolls are having an epic meltdown. I’m loving it. God Bless him.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 7:48 AM

To me it is no surprise that Catholics are more likely to support big government, because their church resembles big government.

Daemonocracy on March 13, 2013 at 7:11 PM

You’ve said this several times, and I’m sure you think it clever, but it doesn’t make much sense.

First, the vast majority of Catholics go to Church once per week and have no real contact with any of the Church outside of their particular parish/priest. Most parishioners never encounter their Bishop or the hierarchy/bureaucracy of the church.

regardless, the idea that because one part of your life is a top down / hierarchical entity you will therefore support big gov’t is, to the say the least, silly.

By your reasoning, every member of the military is more likely to support a big government because they belong to a top-down, hierarchical organization. Every person with a job (all employers – unless you are self employed or work for a very, very small shop, are top-down hierarchical entities). Every person who went to school must be for big gov’t – after all every school is a top-down, hierarchical organization. Same thing for every person who belongs to any national organization – Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc. Belong to the NRA? Must be in favor of big gov’t because the NRA is a top-down hierarchical organization.

Heck, just by virtue of living in the U.S., you must be a big gov’t supporter. After all, your gov’t is a top-down hierarchical organization.

You obviously have problems with the Catholic Church, like many non-Catholics do. Which is fine. But silly arguments like because you are a Catholic you must like big gov’t are just that – silly. There are just as many liberal protestants/evangelicals/Lutherans/etc. as there are liberal Catholics. After all, we are, by far, a majority Christian country and a majority voted for Obama. Catholics are not a majority of the Christians in America, so I’m not sure who you think all of those other liberal voters are. Hint – they are protestants, evangelicals, etc.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 7:52 AM

I won my office pope pool. WTG Argentina!

alwaysfiredup on March 13, 2013 at 10:23 PM

You and your mom do office pools? Is that legal?

Nutstuyu on March 14, 2013 at 8:26 AM

It was the Protestant reforms which took advantage of the printing press to distribute the word of god in various languages to various people. Martin Luther stressed that the key to salvation was in the Bible, not from the Pope. Protestants promoted literacy and allowed the masses, for lack of a better term, to question the established ecclesiastical order. This is bottom up thinking.

Daemonocracy on March 14, 2013 at 12:05 AM

Questioning the established ecclesiastical order is not bottom-up thinking. It is part of the Protestant view on one’s relationship with God to be sure and challenges the structure of the RCC. But to be bottom-up thinking it would encourage man to also question God’s actions and that is a kind of heresy.

Happy Nomad on March 14, 2013 at 7:37 AM

Maybe I’ve missed something in what you’re discussing, but usually top-down means direction and instruction come from a unified power source at the top (ie central govt., a pope); whereas with bottom-up, power and direction are more localized. Protestantism doesn’t have the same centralized power structure as Catholicism..

Nutstuyu on March 14, 2013 at 8:29 AM

http://www.france24.com/en/20130314-maduro-claims-chavez-swung-race-argentine-pope

Viva the new CRACKPIPE of Venna-suh-way-lah!

AFP – Venezuela’s acting president Nicolas Maduro joked on Wednesday that late leftist president Hugo Chavez’s recent death must have played into the selection of the first Latin American pope.

“We know that our commander has risen up there and is face to face with Christ,” Maduro said, to an outburst of laughter at a political event, just over a week after Chavez died following 14 years in charge of Venezuela.

“Something must have influenced things so that a South American pope was chosen. Some new hand arrived and got to Christ and said: It is South America’s time. That’s what I think,” Maduro, Chavez’ handpicked successor, declared.

“One of these days he is going to call a constitutional congress in heaven to change the church in the world, so that the people, only Christ’s pure people rule in this world,” he predicted.

PappyD61 on March 14, 2013 at 8:55 AM

AFP – Venezuela’s acting president Nicolas Maduro joked on Wednesday that late leftist president Hugo Chavez’s recent death must have played into the selection of the first Latin American pope.

Chavez – “Whaddaya mean my name’s not in the book, I distinctly ordered reservations. And what’s with that great white throne?”

tommyboy on March 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM

tommyboy on March 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM

“And, what’s that sulphur smell?”

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 9:34 AM

We know that our commander has risen up there and is face to face with Christ,” Maduro said, to an outburst of laughter at a political event

Laughter, because they know it’s not true.

steebo77 on March 14, 2013 at 9:38 AM

I like what I’m finding out about this Pope. Strongly pro-life, against gay marriage and believes that social justice is primarily a spiritual rather than political concern. In other words, a Christian. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

tommyboy on March 14, 2013 at 4:36 AM

You had some doubt that anyone elected by the conclave would hold different views? Seriously? C’mon. The last is perhaps a tad surprising, but the first two are not at all.

I am curious to know more about what he did (or did not do) during Argentina’s “Dirty War” of the late 1970s and early 1980s, as well as if he participated in any cover-up for a child abused scandal in his country. I’ve heard some rumblings in the press about the first but will give him the benefit of the doubt given the MSM’s track record of misreporting. Still, I’d like to hear more.

JohnAGJ on March 14, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Protestantism is a bottom up approach to worship while Catholicism is top down (Vatican 2 liberalized the faith somewhat, they no longer see Protestants as heretics, just lost brothers, and did away with most of the Latin mass). To me it is no surprise that Catholics are more likely to support big government, because their church resembles big government.

Daemonocracy on March 13, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Just to be clear: Protestantism is still heresy. And Protestants are separated brothers and sisters. The two are not mutually exclusive. We are all members of Christ through our baptisms.

Protestantism may teach a lot of things that sound reasonable, but I was making the analogy (from the typical American Jesuit) to the reasons why Protestantism was invented, which was in more or less every case, to tell the people it was okay to commit their favorite sins without repentance or penance. Martin Luther wanted to break his vows and molest a nun. Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and marry his mistresses. “You shall know them by their fruits.”

joe_doufu on March 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM

joe_doufu on March 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Being a Protestant is not commiting heresy. Man does not need an intercessory between him and the Triune God.

A example of a heretic was Al Capone, who killed people, but gave mightily to his church, and was considered a “good Catholic”.

Churches are brick and steel. Liturgy is liturgy. The Bible is GOd’s Word and a personal relationship with Christ is forever.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Correction: He is NOT Francis I. He is currently Francis. He becomes Francis I only after his death or abdication and a new Francis becoming II.

Mr. Joe on March 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM

A example of a heretic was Al Capone, who killed people, but gave mightily to his church, and was considered a “good Catholic”.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM

a) that isn’t heresy, it’s sin. Heresy is holding a religious opinion that is denounced by religious authority. For instance, claiming that “Christ was merely a man who lived righteously and therefore was given his own world to be the god of – something we can all aspire to” – would be heresy.

b) Not sure the point. There are plenty of bad people who are considered good protestants as well – look no further than televangelists making millions off other peoples’ faith. Doesn’t prove anything. there are bad people in all religions.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Churches are brick and steel.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Some are wood and plaster too. I’ve been to an outdoor church also. I think some might even be marble and stone.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Correction: He is NOT Francis I. He is currently Francis. He becomes Francis I only after his death or abdication and a new Francis becoming II.

Mr. Joe on March 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM

He goes by Frank though. Pope Frank.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 11:20 AM

To make the blanket statement that “Protestants are heretics” is attacking fellow Christians. My point that churches are usually housed in buildings was made simply to pointout that the tenets that are propreitary to the denomination housed in that building can be argued back and forth all day.

What is important is your relationship to the Triune God.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Churches are brick and steel. Liturgy is liturgy. The Bible is GOd’s Word and a personal relationship with Christ is forever.

No, the Catholic view is that the Bible is a work of man inspired by God. Fundamentalist Christians view the Bible as the literal word of God, just like Islam views the Koran as the literal word of God.

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Comparing Protestants to Muslims. How…ecumenical.

Yeah, boy. You’ve got to watch out for us Protestants. We go around beheading folks right and left.

And Southern baptists…oh, man…they slaughter people with their fried chicken.

Gimme a break.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 11:43 AM

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. The truth hurts. Not all Protestants are fundamentalists and Catholics aren’t either.
You’re the one bringing in beheadings not me.

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM

So, you’re saying that Evangelical Christians are on the same level as murderous Islamacists?

Wow.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM

To make the blanket statement that “Protestants are heretics” is attacking fellow Christians.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 11:28 AM

No, it’s not. And what I said was “Protestantism is heresy”. The definition of heresy is basically, when baptized Christians teach doctrines contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you’re happily in rebellion against the Church, then why wouldn’t you wear the term ‘heretic’ happily?

Words have meanings. I used the term not as an attack, but because I was responding to someone who mistakenly claimed that the Church in the 1960s ruled that Protestantism was no longer heretical. Which is untrue.

The full article on heresy from the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

joe_doufu on March 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM

joe_doufu on March 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Oh. Heresy against the tenets and precepts of Catholic Church. Not heresy against the Creator.

Two different things entirely.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM

No you are. I’m saying that fundamentalism is an incorrect way to interpret works written by man.

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 12:11 PM

No you are. I’m saying that fundamentalism is an incorrect way to interpret works written by man.

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 12:11 PM

If you do not believe that the sciptures are of God, then you believe as the atheists do, that they are fairy tales, written by man.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Correction: He is NOT Francis I. He is currently Francis. He becomes Francis I only after his death or abdication and a new Francis becoming II.

Mr. Joe on March 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Juan Carlos I of Spain says hi.

Though here I do think you are right, different traditions have different numbering conventions. I remember hearing that John Paul I did use the number, though I haven’t sought out any contemporary sources from his brief time as Pope to confirm this. In this case I’m indeed seeing simply “Francis” much more than I am “Francis I,” so I assume the former is correct.

Gingotts on March 14, 2013 at 12:21 PM

So there are white hispanics. Who knew?

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 12:26 PM

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM

the Catholic view is that the Bible is a work of man inspired by God.

You can lead a horse to water….

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

If you do not believe that the sciptures are of God, then you believe as the atheists do, that they are fairy tales, written by man.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM

In ‘scripture’ do you include the Upanishads?

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

“inspired?”

Is that what lead to a lot of Catholics not reading the Bible for themselves, and relying on someone to interpret what God said, for them?

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM

In ‘scripture’ do you include the Upanishads?

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM

In sccripture, I am talking about the Old and New Testamentsof the Holy Bible.

You can go read Mao’s Little Red Book, and call it scripture, if you want to. That won’t make it so, but, you could try.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:35 PM

In sccripture, I am talking about the Old and New Testamentsof the Holy Bible.

You can go read Mao’s Little Red Book, and call it scripture, if you want to. That won’t make it so, but, you could try.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:35 PM

So your definition of “scripture” is just what you were familiar with as a little babe.

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM

To make the blanket statement that “Protestants are heretics” is attacking fellow Christians. My point that churches are usually housed in buildings was made simply to pointout that the tenets that are propreitary to the denomination housed in that building can be argued back and forth all day.

What is important is your relationship to the Triune God.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I did not disagree. I was joking about the makeup of buildings – just thought it was funny that you chose brick and steel. As to heresy, I was simply pointing out that your definition of heresy was wrong, Al Capone wasn’t a heretic, he was a sinner.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM

No. It is God’s Word, which I have read since I was a child, and have read completely through 6 times.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:49 PM

complex question, dismiss it.

tom daschle concerned on March 14, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM

You’re right, my friend. We all are.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:50 PM

No. It is God’s Word, which I have read since I was a child, and have read completely through 6 times.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Right. Must be God’s Holy Word since you’ve read it since you were a little bugger.

If you were born a Muslim you would have sucked that crap up without thinking just as quickly.

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Is that what lead to a lot of Catholics not reading the Bible for themselves, and relying on someone to interpret what God said, for them?

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Are you claiming that every single person can interpret the bible however they want and still be a good christian?

What do Protestants do when an idiot is reading his own bible and coming to some really bad interpretations?

This idea that Protestants don’t have the same basic interpretation of the bible as Catholics is ridiculous. Protestants aren’t out there willy-nilly coming to their own conclusions. that is why they have churches and ministers and councils.

This belief that Protestants all have their own individual interpretation of the bible that wasn’t poured down their gullets by their parents and their ministers and church is pure fantasy.

And, nobody in the Catholic Church instructs Catholics not to read the bible. I’m guessing that Catholics on the whole read the bible about as much as protestants. I doubt every (or even most) protestant has read the bible cover-to-cover.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 1:02 PM

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Yep. Because we know it was written by committee. We know it was translated back and forth between hebrew, Aramaic, and greek and that translations can be imprecise. We know that the leaders of the early church had to deal with numerous “gospels” and try to discern what was the truth (hence inspired). The Bible is the result of their efforts. To deny that is dumb. God didn’t dictate the Bible. Its an eye-witness account of his works.

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 1:02 PM

No, I’m not. However, as Christians, we are gifted with a “Sprit of Descernment”, though which we use the “two-edged Sword” as the BIble is known,”for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”.

Your right, there are a lot of Christians, Catholic and Protestant, who have never read the Bible, cover to cover.

They should, though. I was amazed at what I had never heard before, having sang in choirs and having lead services in Protest Churches for 25 years at the time I first read it all the way through.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM

They should, though. I was amazed at what I had never heard before, having sang in choirs and having lead services in Protest Churches for 25 years at the time I first read it all the way through.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM

I think you should read the Upanishads.

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM

However, as Christians, we are gifted with a “Spirit of Discernment”,

Unfortunately, I have known many Christians who don’t have that gift, or if they have it, apparently don’t use it.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM

I think you should read the Upanishads.

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM

And, I think you should love America more than where you are presently living. But, you dont.:)

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM

You are so right. That’s one of the reasons we wound up with the Manchurian President.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM

And, I think you should love America more than where you are presently living. But, you dont.:)

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM

You’d have me love the first thing I saw just because I saw it first :)

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

So your definition of “scripture” is just what you were familiar with as a little babe.
DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM

No, he is referring to God’s special revelation as revealed in the divine logos. That doesn’t include pantheistic philosopical tracts.

tommyboy on March 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

No. I would have you be thankful to your Creator for the privilege of being born in the greatest country on His green Earth.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM

No. I would have you be thankful to your Creator for the privilege of being born in the greatest country on His green Earth.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Jingoistic babble.

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Chavez is still burning in Hell.

DarkCurrent is still a propagandist for China.

The world is still turning and is not flat.

Water is still mostly wet.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Tyrants still stand with tyrants, no matter what DK spews.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 2:06 PM

DarkCurrent is still a propagandist for China.

The world is still turning and is not flat.

Water is still mostly wet.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 2:04 PM

schadenfreude wilts

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Never, not in the face of such weasels.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Yep. Because we know it was written by committee. We know it was translated back and forth between hebrew, Aramaic, and greek and that translations can be imprecise. We know that the leaders of the early church had to deal with numerous “gospels” and try to discern what was the truth (hence inspired). The Bible is the result of their efforts. To deny that is dumb. God didn’t dictate the Bible. Its an eye-witness account of his works.

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM

This is why I’m always amazed how the fundamentalists can be such literalists. Especially considering the RCC that they seem to disdain so much was the group who decided which books were included and which weren’t.

katiejane on March 14, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Never, not in the face of such weasels.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Heh. So that’s not piss running down your leg?

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 2:29 PM

This is why I’m always amazed how the fundamentalists can be such literalists. Especially considering the RCC that they seem to disdain so much was the group who decided which books were included and which weren’t.
katiejane on March 14, 2013 at 2:27 PM

What is a fundamentalist? Further, 90% of the NT canon was acknowledged as scripture by the early 2nd centure as scripture and no group was necessary. The Holy Spirit identified the contents of the Bible.

tommyboy on March 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM

What is a fundamentalist? Further, 90% of the NT canon was acknowledged as scripture by the early 2nd centure as scripture and no group was necessary. The Holy Spirit identified the contents of the Bible.

tommyboy on March 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM

From my perspective its a person who believes that the Bible is the literal word of God and is absolute fact, not subject to interpretation.

Iblis on March 14, 2013 at 2:54 PM

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 2:29 PM

You make vulgar creep appear decent.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 2:59 PM

creeps

Never fails with weasels…you used to pretend to be decent.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Filth is always filth.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Further, 90% of the NT canon was acknowledged as scripture by the early 2nd century as scripture and no group was necessary.

tommyboy on March 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Most historical evidence disputes that. And, there were many councils set up to determine which books were to be included in the NT and which were not, that is not historically disputed. So, you can say that the holy spirit guided the men at those councils as to which books to include, but you cannot accurately say that no committees engaged in deciding which books were to be included. Same with much of the OT. The Torah and the OT are not exactly the same and there are other books, etc. within Jewish tradition that we do not include in the OT.

One can certainly argue that all exclusions and inclusions, as well as keeping the stories 100% correct when they were passed down orally rather than written, as well as making the multiple translations from various languages 100% correct were all guided by the holy spirit and thus the version of the bible we have today (which one? there are multiple versions out there) is 100% exactly as it was 1,800 years ago when it was first written down (according to your time-line).

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 2:04 PM

LOL…

lovingmyUSA on March 14, 2013 at 3:25 PM

You make vulgar creep appear decent.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 2:59 PM

akaname

DarkCurrent on March 14, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Most historical evidence disputes that.

No, historical evidence does not dispute this at all. Every one of the 2nd century Church fathers acknowledged Pauls epistles, the Gospels and the Book of Acts as scripture. That’s 90% of the NT.(see: Origin, Ignatius, Tertullian, Clement and Irenaus Even Peter himself acknowledged Pauls epistles as scripture – that itself is almost 45% of the NT and we are talking about 65 AD there. The only Church counsel to directly deal with the formal canon was the Cousel of Carthage and that was primarily to deal with spurrius texts that apostates were trying to call scripture but which clearly was not – ie. they were keeping things out. Like I said, 90% of the NT was universally regarded as scripture from the early 2nd century.

tommyboy on March 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM

The anti-Catholic “Know Nothing” party.

Not much has changed.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 3:31 PM

You’ve said this several times, and I’m sure you think it clever, but it doesn’t make much sense.

I say it because I suspect it’s true, not because I think it’s “clever”.

First, the vast majority of Catholics go to Church once per week and have no real contact with any of the Church outside of their particular parish/priest. Most parishioners never encounter their Bishop or the hierarchy/bureaucracy of the church.

Practicing Catholics know full well how their church works, how it is structured, and view the pope as the authority figure in their church and faith. Are you suggesting ignorance on their part?

regardless, the idea that because one part of your life is a top down / hierarchical entity you will therefore support big gov’t is, to the say the least, silly.

Faith is more than simply “one part” of a believer’s life. It is all encompassing.

By your reasoning, every member of the military is more likely to support a big government because they belong to a top-down, hierarchical organization. Every person with a job (all employers – unless you are self employed or work for a very, very small shop, are top-down hierarchical entities). Every person who went to school must be for big gov’t – after all every school is a top-down, hierarchical organization. Same thing for every person who belongs to any national organization – Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc. Belong to the NRA? Must be in favor of big gov’t because the NRA is a top-down hierarchical organization.

You bring up fair points. The military is a top down organization, but it teaches self discipline, self reliance, self determination, and self sacrifice. Soldiers swear allegiance to the constitution and can resist unconstitutional and illegal orders that violate the uniform code of military justice. The majority of people who join the military are religious and conservative. The military is that “one part” of a soldier’s life, but their faith goes far deeper. The boy scouts teach similar values to the military but are far more expressly Christian.

As for your other examples:

Being employed is a means of survival, yet every worker technically owns his own labor and skills and contracts them out as if he were his own businessman; private sector employment rewards performance results unlike public sector government employment; the more time one spends in educational institutions, the more liberal they are, and no I do not belong to the NRA, but it is a lobbyist group which represents the voice of its paying members while the Catholic hierarchy dictates its doctrine to its members. The paying members of the NRA determine what it stands for, catholic congregations do not determine what Catholicism stands for.

My main point is an observed correlation between the ascent of big government progressive politics and the rise of catholic voters. It is no secret that a majority of Catholics have and still do vote for the candidates of big government.

Heck, just by virtue of living in the U.S., you must be a big gov’t supporter. After all, your gov’t is a top-down hierarchical organization.

No it is not. Increasingly it is becoming so, but that is not what it was founded as or meant to be. Those who spend too much time in Washington seem to think otherwise.

What do you mean “your” government? Are you outside the USA? That might explain your misunderstanding of our system of government.

You obviously have problems with the Catholic Church, like many non-Catholics do. Which is fine. But silly arguments like because you are a Catholic you must like big gov’t are just that – silly. There are just as many liberal protestants/evangelicals/Lutherans/etc. as there are liberal Catholics. After all, we are, by far, a majority Christian country and a majority voted for Obama. Catholics are not a majority of the Christians in America, so I’m not sure who you think all of those other liberal voters are. Hint – they are protestants, evangelicals, etc.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 7:52 AM

I have no problems with the Catholic Church; on the contrary, I respect Catholicism as a fierce defender of Christians around the world. I merely observed that Catholics tend to vote for the big government candidates more than Protestants, and theorized that they are more comfortable with a top down government structure because this is how their church, easily the most powerful influence on ones thinking next to family and government, is structured. That may have offended you the same way gays are offended by not being included in the biblical definition in marriage, but your offense doesn’t mean I have “problems” with the Catholic Church – I don’t.

Just to be clear: Protestantism is still heresy. And Protestants are separated brothers and sisters. The two are not mutually exclusive. We are all members of Christ through our baptisms.

Protestantism may teach a lot of things that sound reasonable, but I was making the analogy (from the typical American Jesuit) to the reasons why Protestantism was invented, which was in more or less every case, to tell the people it was okay to commit their favorite sins without repentance or penance. Martin Luther wanted to break his vows and molest a nun. Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and marry his mistresses. “You shall know them by their fruits.”

joe_doufu on March 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Popes were fathering children with multiple mistresses and the Church was preaching that the more money you give to it, the higher your chances are of getting into heaven. Martin Luther’s main objection was to the corruption in the ranks of the church and this pay for salvation scheme. He argued that entrance to heaven is free as long as one follows the word of God.

Catholicism no longer considers Protestants as heretics, but I also clearly said they still see their church as the one true church.

Martin Luther had far more grievances than his wanting to “molest a nun”. Are ad hominem attacks against the man going to be your method from here on? I’m not interested in that level of discourse.

Daemonocracy on March 14, 2013 at 4:57 PM

However, as Christians, we are gifted with a “Sprit of Descernment”, though which we use the “two-edged Sword” as the BIble is known,”for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM

You do realize that this sounds an awful lot like a certain group’s belief in the “burning in the bosom“? I don’t see much to differentiate their belief with yours, other than I presume your assertion that your “Spirit of Discernment” more accurately deals with the text than theirs.

This of course raise the question that if Christians are given such power, why are their beliefs so contradictory on fundamental questions. Arminian or TULIP? Baptismal regeneration required or not? Etc. These are not mere theological disagreements but issues which cut to the heart of what each group would assert are essentials of the Gospel.

JohnAGJ on March 14, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Catholicism no longer considers Protestants as heretics,

Daemonocracy on March 14, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I am correcting you on this point. Again: the preaching of corrupted doctrines by baptized persons is heresy. Protestant doctrine is heresy. The Catholic Church has never taught otherwise. It may be that much of the 1960s-1970s generation of priests is too timid or worldly to say so, but the teaching has not changed.

joe_doufu on March 14, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Your new pope is a liberal disaster.

tom daschle concerned on March 14, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Popes were fathering children with multiple mistresses

Ah… but none of them ever taught that their favorite sins were OKAY. You can’t say the same about Martin Luther or Henry VIII.

the Church was preaching that the more money you give to it, the higher your chances are of getting into heaven.

Er…

And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting?

18 And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother.

20 But he answering, said to him: Master, all these things I have observed from my youth.

21 And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.

22 Who being struck sad at that saying, went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23 And Jesus looking round about, saith to his disciples: How hardly shall they that have riches, enter into the kingdom of God!

joe_doufu on March 14, 2013 at 5:45 PM

JohnAGJ on March 14, 2013 at 5:19 PM

From your past postings, I realize that you are a Troll.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 6:33 PM

From your past postings, I realize that you are a Troll.

kingsjester on March 14, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Meh. How “original” of you. Typical response from those unable to defend the positions they assert. I asked a serious question which you’ve now dodged. Goodonya, I suppose.

JohnAGJ on March 14, 2013 at 7:00 PM

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

tom daschle concerned on March 14, 2013 at 7:06 PM

joe_doufu on March 14, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Jesus was not suggesting people fork over their wealth to the Catholic Church because there was no Catholic church in his day. I doubt gold crosses, fancy jewelry on clergy, and purchased tickets to heaven was what he wanted to replace the money changers with when he chased them out of the temple.

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
—Matthew 21:12-13

Daemonocracy on March 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Jesus was not suggesting people fork over their wealth to the Catholic Church because there was no Catholic church in his day. I doubt gold crosses, fancy jewelry on clergy, and purchased tickets to heaven was what he wanted to replace the money changers with when he chased them out of the temple.

Daemonocracy on March 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM

There was a Catholic Church in His day. He created it. It was one of His last acts before His Ascension. If you read scripture, Jesus did not say He was creating Churches (plural), He said He was creating “my Church”. His Church started with the Apostles, with Peter as their head, and it grew from there.

As for all those fancy things, they are gifts. Does not your church have a collection, and doesn’t it pay for the nice clothes your pastor wears every Sunday, and the neat banners with uplifting sayings hung from the rafters, and the instruments played, and even your church buildings?

Those are your gifts, freely given, and nobody is going to call you or your pastor a money changer for having exchanged them or having used them… Nobody will call your church a bunch of money changers for accepting money or any other gifts you might care to offer…

Jesus didn’t call the widow who offered her mite a money changer, nor did he call those who received the widow’s mite money changers.

You really need to stop trying to self-interpret scripture. Maybe you ought to talk to someone whose Church goes back to the time of Jesus, and who doesn’t act like Christianity is 500 or less years old.

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 AM

You’ve said this several times, and I’m sure you think it clever, but it doesn’t make much sense.

I say it because I suspect it’s true, not because I think it’s “clever”.

No. You think you are being clever. You are not.

First, the vast majority of Catholics go to Church once per week and have no real contact with any of the Church outside of their particular parish/priest. Most parishioners never encounter their Bishop or the hierarchy/bureaucracy of the church.

Practicing Catholics know full well how their church works, how it is structured, and view the pope as the authority figure in their church and faith. Are you suggesting ignorance on their part?

Knowing how something is structured and internalizing it to the degree you are asserting are not the same thing. Most Catholics, myself included, don’t go around thinking “what is the Pope going to tell me to do today”.

Yes, I know the Pope is the leader of the Church – it doesn’t make me want a “top down, large gov’t”. In the same way that my going to school for 8 hours a day between 6 years old and 18 – very formative years that do a lot to shape a person’s views – did not make me want a large gov’t.

Your argument is just silly. Catholics all want big gov’t because the church is hierarchical?

regardless, the idea that because one part of your life is a top down / hierarchical entity you will therefore support big gov’t is, to the say the least, silly.

Faith is more than simply “one part” of a believer’s life. It is all encompassing.

Most people don’t see the structure of their church as their “faith”. You really don’t understand a thing about Catholics or Catholicism.

My main point is an observed correlation between the ascent of big government progressive politics and the rise of catholic voters. It is no secret that a majority of Catholics have and still do vote for the candidates of big government.

As do a majority of Protestants. Again, there are far more protestants than Catholics in America. How do you think is voting for the liberals? the Catholic vote is pretty evenly split among the GOP and Dems. thus, that means that for the dems to win, a majority of Protestants voted for the dems. What is it about being a protestant that makes you want big gov’t? Blaming Catholics for big gov’t and claiming Catholocism makes people want big gov’t is silly.

Also, what is the “rise of catholic voters” that you speak of? You do realize that Catholics are only about 22% of the U.S. population. Are you saying that this minority controls the Gov’t? Your argument is not supported by numbers.

Heck, just by virtue of living in the U.S., you must be a big gov’t supporter. After all, your gov’t is a top-down hierarchical organization.

No it is not. Increasingly it is becoming so, but that is not what it was founded as or meant to be. Those who spend too much time in Washington seem to think otherwise.

Semantics. Yes, despite what you say, it is meant to be top-down. We vote for it, but once the votes are in the President is the executive, the legislature makes the laws, and judges interpret and apply the laws. Not sure what you think happens. We all gather around the water cooler and come to a consensus on where to send the troops? Is that the way it was meant to work?

And that is only speaking of the Federal gov’t – we are all also living in local, county and state gov’ts – which are each top down. Again, we vote, but then the elected people are in charge of the gov’t. We can lobby them and petition for things, but they get to make the decisions. We have protected rights that we can seek to enforce through the courts, but outside of that – the elected representatives are in charge of the gov’t.

What do you mean “your” government? Are you outside the USA? That might explain your misunderstanding of our system of government.

“your gov’t” is just a phrase. It is you who is not clear on our system of gov’t. I’m not sure what you think is supposed to happen to make it not a “top down” hierarchical system. Just because it is a representative democracy doesn’t make it less top-down or hierarchical. Sure, it is less so than a dictatorship, but it isn’t and can’t be a pure democracy where we gather in the agora and make all decisions communally.

I have no problems with the Catholic Church; on the contrary, I respect Catholicism as a fierce defender of Christians around the world. I merely observed that Catholics tend to vote for the big government candidates more than Protestants,

in 2012, 50% of Catholics voted for Obama and 43% of Protestants voted for Obama. Catholics are only 25% of the U.S. population as of 2008. Protestants are 50%. So, many millions more protestants voted for Obama than Catholics did. Of course there were less Catholics as a percentage in previous years – meaning that Protestants, not Catholics, are responsible for electing FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Carter.

Ultimately, your argument is that the 7% difference in voting between protestants and Catholics is based on Catholics pining for big gov’t because they have a hierarchical church?

and theorized that they are more comfortable with a top down government structure because this is how their church, easily the most powerful influence on ones thinking next to family and government, is structured.

that is a silly conclusion to draw from that whopping 7% difference between protestant and Catholic votes in the 2012 election. What makes 43% of protestants want a big gov’t?

That may have offended you the same way gays are offended by not being included in the biblical definition in marriage, but your offense doesn’t mean I have “problems” with the Catholic Church – I don’t.

Like your other reasoning – this makes no sense. How am I offended in the same way that the biblical definition offends gays? You are equating your theory with the word of god? Or that your theory is so absolute that if I am offended by it I am somehow on the wrong side of god? What is your point here?

You through out what you thought was a clever little claim (Catholics love big gov’t because they have a hierarchical church). You liked is to much you repeated it several times. When challenged on it you doubled down. But, when you look at the facts, you see it was a silly little claim. Or at least you should. I think you are now probably too invested in it to admit you were wrong.

Monkeytoe on March 15, 2013 at 8:24 AM

Jesus was not suggesting people fork over their wealth to the Catholic Church because there was no Catholic church in his day. I doubt gold crosses, fancy jewelry on clergy, and purchased tickets to heaven was what he wanted to replace the money changers with when he chased them out of the temple.

Daemonocracy on March 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM

That is true to an extant. But the same problem happens with protestants. Look at all those rich televangelists with enormous churches, etc.

Monkeytoe on March 15, 2013 at 8:31 AM

Also, what is the “rise of catholic voters” that you speak of? You do realize that Catholics are only about 22% of the U.S. population. Are you saying that this minority controls the Gov’t? Your argument is not supported by numbers.

Monkeytoe on March 15, 2013 at 8:24 AM

Seems like we Catholics are the new Jews!

joe_doufu on March 15, 2013 at 9:39 AM

As for all those fancy things, they are gifts. Does not your church have a collection, and doesn’t it pay for the nice clothes your pastor wears every Sunday, and the neat banners with uplifting sayings hung from the rafters, and the instruments played, and even your church buildings?

Those are your gifts, freely given, and nobody is going to call you or your pastor a money changer for having exchanged them or having used them… Nobody will call your church a bunch of money changers for accepting money or any other gifts you might care to offer…

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 AM

I understand what you are saying here and am not advocating the Church to completely strip itself bare of all material possessions, but I was struck by reports of how the new pope has surprised cardinals and others with simple acts. Whether it was insisting on paying his room bill after being elected, riding on the bus with the cardinals after the Conclave instead of using the papal limo, etc. Why is it remarkable to us that he lived in a small apartment and cooked his own meals in Buenos Aires? Or rode their metro? There are others who live like Pope Francis has done, which I’m not disputing, but it does say something when folks are so surprised by the man’s apparent humble lifestyle compared to many other clerical leaders. It sounds like a lot of Catholic AND Protestant leaders should take Pope Francis as an example of how to live while sharing the Gospel. This is nothing new really, recall these words by St. John Chrysostom:

Do you want to honor Christ’s body? Then do not scorn him in his nakedness, nor honor him here in the church with silken garments while neglecting him outside where he is cold and naked. For he who said: This is my body, and made it so by his words, also said: “You saw me hungry and did not feed me, and inasmuch as you did not do it for one of these, the least of my brothers, you did not do it for me.” (Mat 25:34ff) What we do here in the church requires a pure heart, not special garments; what we do outside requires great dedication.

Let us learn, therefore, to be men of wisdom and to honor Christ as he desires. For a person being honoured finds greatest pleasure in the honor he desires, not in the honor we think best. Peter thought he was honoring Christ when he refused to let him wash his feet; but what Peter wanted was not truly an honour, quite the opposite! Give him the honour prescribed in his law by giving your riches to the poor. For God does not want golden vessels but golden hearts.

Now, in saying this I am not forbidding you to make such gifts; I am only demanding that along with such gifts and before them you give alms. He accepts the former, but he is much more pleased with the latter. In the former, only the giver profits; in the latter, the recipient does too. A gift to the church may be taken as a form of ostentation, but an alms is pure kindness. Of what use is it to weigh down Christ’s table with golden cups, when he himself is dying of hunger? First, fill him when he is hungry; then use the means you have left to adorn his table. Will you have a golden cup made but not give a cup of water? What is the use of providing the table with cloths woven of gold thread, and not providing Christ himself with the clothes he needs? What profit is there in that? Tell me: If you were to see him lacking the necessary food but were to leave him in that state and merely surround his table with gold would he be grateful to you or rather would he not be angry? What if you were to see him clad in worn-out rags and stiff from the cold, and were to forget about clothing him and instead were to set up golden columns for him, saying that you were doing it in his honour? Would he not think he was being mocked and greatly insulted?

Apply this also to Christ when he comes along the roads as a pilgrim, looking for shelter. You do not take him in as your guest, but you decorate floor and walls and the capitals of the pillars. You provide silver chains for the lamps, but you cannot bear even to look at him as he lies chained in prison. Once again, I am not forbidding you to supply these adornments; I am urging you to provide these other things as well, and indeed to provide them first. No one has ever been accused for not providing ornaments, but for those who neglect their neighbour a hell awaits with an inextinguishable fire and torment in the company of the demons. Do not, therefore, adorn the church and ignore your afflicted brother, for he is the most precious temple of all.

JohnAGJ on March 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM

I understand what you are saying here and am not advocating the Church to completely strip itself bare of all material possessions, but I was struck by reports of how the new pope has surprised cardinals and others with simple acts. Whether it was insisting on paying his room bill after being elected, riding on the bus with the cardinals after the Conclave instead of using the papal limo, etc. Why is it remarkable to us that he lived in a small apartment and cooked his own meals in Buenos Aires? Or rode their metro? There are others who live like Pope Francis has done, which I’m not disputing, but it does say something when folks are so surprised by the man’s apparent humble lifestyle compared to many other clerical leaders. It sounds like a lot of Catholic AND Protestant leaders should take Pope Francis as an example of how to live while sharing the Gospel.

JohnAGJ on March 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM

A security detail, driver, and secretary to pay the bills is not an ostentation or luxury for the Pope, who is an old man with great responsibilities. Catholics are not pleased by his actions because they are saving us money, or surprised because we poor, beknighted Papists have never seen a cleric acting the way he “should”. These signs and actions from Pope Francis are delightful because they are things he need not do, but by doing them he inspires us all to greater humility and missionary boldness.

The quote from John Chrysostom is a wonderful one. He was a Catholic!

joe_doufu on March 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM

A security detail, driver, and secretary to pay the bills is not an ostentation or luxury for the Pope, who is an old man with great responsibilities. Catholics are not pleased by his actions because they are saving us money, or surprised because we poor, beknighted Papists have never seen a cleric acting the way he “should”. These signs and actions from Pope Francis are delightful because they are things he need not do, but by doing them he inspires us all to greater humility and missionary boldness.

Of course. Yet by his example he is showing that the papacy nor bishops need many of the trappings that have accumulated over the centuries. One other thing Pope Francis did that was remarked on was receiving his brother cardinals not on the golden papal throne, but standing up and shaking their hands. The point is not to poke a finger in the eye of the Church over these things but to recall from Whom it came, how He lived and what kind of life we are called to in His Name – especially those supposed to be His Vicars. So for this example, a golden papal throne is understandable how it came about and popes do need a place to sit now and then, but he doesn’t need the trappings of monarchy to actually be pope and chief among Christ’s vicars. “Servant of the Servants of God” is something that isn’t just a nice catch-phrase but instead should be a maxim in how the bishops and popes carry out their functions as vicars of Christ.

The quote from John Chrysostom is a wonderful one. He was a Catholic!

Methinks the Orthodox would vehemently dispute the second part of this. ;-) Nevertheless, while a bit bombastic (Emily Post in comparison to that lovable curmudgeon St. Jerome of course) and more than a bit anti-Semitic at times, he truly was “Golden-mouthed”.

joe_doufu on March 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM

JohnAGJ on March 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM

but I was struck by reports of how the new pope has surprised cardinals and others with simple acts.

Well, had any one of them been elected Pope, you would have seen the same simple acts. You don’t get to be a Cardinal by spurning the people — the starving sheep, as it were. Pope Francis will discover — has discovered — that not everything is simple.

It is simple to ride in the bus with the other cardinals, but it is not simple to walk through Rome without being surrounded by security.

It’s the same problem our President’s children have. They cannot just go out on the town anymore and get a pizza or a burger. Their mother won’t let them.

Now, for the Catholic, almsgiving and other corporal works (works of the body) are very important — as important as that inner faith which leads to prayer. It is the necessary outward manifestation of faith. St. John Chrysostom is merely stating Tradition firmly based in Scripture. It’s why we Catholics also do indulgences — they also are corporal acts of faith.

You will notice that he does not state anything that Jesus has not told us to do already….

Many rich things given to the Church have been given without the giver having made public his or her gift. They are things which might be melted down and the money given to the poor — but who would feel comfortable melting down an item whose craftsmanship is obvious to anyone viewing? Such items (stained glass, chalices, etc.) are there to be viewed and used by the Church, which is not just a few men in strangely colored garb…

As to whether Chrysostom is either an Orthodox or a Catholic — well, he certainly is well regarded by both as a Doctor of the Church. The more who claim him, the better.

unclesmrgol on March 17, 2013 at 2:45 AM

Oh, by the way — Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

unclesmrgol on March 17, 2013 at 2:47 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8