Did not Jesus tell you these things, in the New Testament? It took the Pope for that to sink in?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Nah… no slam there

Wow. Just… wow.

You slam Lily for daring to admit that she needs to continually evaluate her life and become less materialistic – precisely the point of the Scripture you mentioned – then you accuse me of materialism when I tell you that your critique was unfounded and ill-advised and commend Lily for doing exactly what you said she should do.

Again, just… wow.

psrch on March 16, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Wow, just … wow. I didn’t “slam” Lily for desiring to become less materialistic. I questioned her and, apparently, you concerning who she and, apparently, you choose to listen to. If the quotes of Jesus Christ, supra, weren’t enough for her and, apparently, you to understand that one can’t make money or material things the focus of one’s life … then I am at a loss as to why and how the enunciations of the Pope, or of any other man, are necessary to bridge the doctrinal gap between Jesus Christ and her and, apparently, you. Wasn’t Jesus Christ clear enough on this issue? If He wasn’t, then I can only assume that He wasn’t clear enough when He said:

John 14:6 … I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

so that she and, apparently, you need Buddha, Confucious, or Mohammed to explain to you your need for them, instead of Jesus Christ, in order to find God.

It’s pretty clear that the meaning of my posts have flown by you, like a freight train in the night.

Once again, who do you listen to? Mere men, or the clear, unequivocal teachings of Jesus Christ?

Wow, just … wow.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Wow. Just… wow.

You slam Lily for daring to admit that she needs to continually evaluate her life and become less materialistic – precisely the point of the Scripture you mentioned – then you accuse me of materialism when I tell you that your critique was unfounded and ill-advised and commend Lily for doing exactly what you said she should do.

Again, just… wow.

“He who doesn’t pray to God prays to the Devil,” the Pope added…

Two words.

Social Justice.

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Shaming language used to justify confiscatory taxation. The commies can ram it up their nether regions.

And shame on you, OhEssYouCowboys – I think you owe Lily a huge, heartfelt apology.

psrch on March 15, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Matthew 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

[15] Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

If you need mere men to explain to you the clear, unadulterated teachings of Jesus Christ, supra, concerning the fallacy of allowing possessions to rule your life, then you should take heed of the teachings of Paul, concerning those who will be easily duped by mere men, instead of the clear, unadulterated teachings of Jesus Christ. For you are ready-made for the disinformation and lies of men, regarding the truth of Jesus Christ.

It is people like you, who prefer the teachings of men, upon which the “ministers of righteousness” will prey. Because you seek the wisdom of men, instead of the easily discernable teachings of Jesus Christ.

You can choose to follow men, instead of Jesus Christ – it’s just that simple. But, if you do, you are choosing men over Him, and it is you who will owe Jesus Christ a “huge, heartfelt apology,” because you have been duped and have strayed.

Sheeesh…

I don’t say these things to upbraid you

I do… Contrary to the common belief that no one is to judge anyone over anything, the Bible is pretty clear that believers have the right – not to mention the responsibility – to judge other believers. (It’s those outside the church who we’re not supposed to judge.)

I completely agree that OhEssYouCowboys’ condemnation of Lily was uncalled for, unthoughtful, and offensive. Lily was just stating that the election of the new Pope caused her to reflect on how he works out her faith, and concluded that she could do more than she was. Shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone; this side of Heaven we all come short of what Jesus expects – that darn sin nature, y’know.

Good for you, Lily – I hope more of us – even Protestants like me – take a moment to evaluate how well we live out what we say we believe.

And shame on you, OhEssYouCowboys – I think you owe Lily a huge, heartfelt apology.

Who do you listen to?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM

I listen to God, OhEss, and I hear him speaking through many. I know my Scripture well enough to discern the spirits.

Romans 1:11-12
For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you — that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.

1 Corinthians 14:3
On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.

The Church could sell off everything, but that money would only last so long. Remember, Jesus said, “the poor you will always have with you”. And it’s not only about treasure, it’s about talent, and time.

That’s not ALL it’s about; it’s also about potential sacrilege — much of the ‘treasure’ of the Church has transcendent religious value. Should they sell off sacred objects to rich liberals to buy with money stolen from taxpayers just because they also happen to be worth money? Bullcrap. Let self-important liberals make their own da*n art if they’re so much better than everybody else.

But then, we’ve seen what they come up with when they do, haven’t we?

You mean, like Billy Graham?

Or Oswald Chambers?

Or, for that matter, Paul?

There’s a reason Christ sent harvesters into the field. Or Philip to explain things to the Ethiopian.

You’re straining at gnats.

DRPrice on March 15, 2013 at 1:17 PM

I mean that a clear and unequivocal message, taught by Jesus Christ, seems to fall on deaf ears, unless and until a mere man provides that same message.

That’s what I mean.

And if it takes Billy Graham, Oswald Chambers, or, for that matter, Paul, to ferret out what Jesus Christ made explicit, then maybe you should attempt to figure out who it is, that you listen to … Jesus Christ … or Billy Graham, Oswald Chambers or, for that matter, Paul?

In addition, those you mentioned are necessary to bring the message of Christ to those who haven’t heard it. That’s different than a mere man becoming the proponent of a message, that was clearly expressed by Jesus Christ, Himself.

Who do you listen to?

How they lost the fear of Hell:

At some point in the nineteen sixties, Hell disappeared. No one could say for certain when this happened, First it was there, then it wasn´t. Different people became aware of the disappearance of Hell at different times. Some realized that they had been living for years as though Hell did not exist,, without having consciously registered its disappearance, others realized that they had been behaving, out of habit, as though Hell was still there, though in fact they had ceased to believe in its existence long ago.

By Hell we mean, of course, the traditional Hell of Roman Catholics, a place where you would burn for all eternity if you were unlucky enough to die in a state of mortal sin. On the whole, the disappearance of Hell was a great relief though it brought new problems.

In 1968, the campuses of the world rose in chain reaction revolt, Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, Robert Kennedy was assassinated and the civil rights movement started campaigning in Ulster. For Roman Catholics, however, the event of the year was undoubtedly the publication, on July 29, of the Pope´s long awaited encyclical letter on birth control, Humanae Vitae.

The new pope did say that “the businesses of the world are those of the devil”.

Thus, the devil is back.

It will be fun to watch the left and far left reconcile this with their favored “social justice” mantra.

The new pope will likely give the left and the right a run for their money/’money’ and the devil.

p.s. The author could not include the biggest resurgence of Hell, the bringing/keeping of Obama, by the Catholics in great part.

p.p.s. Relax, I don’t accuse you, the Catholics, of it, exclusively. All who brung/kept him can go to Hell, with Obama. He might be el diablo, or close to it.

Catholic social justice, or the hijacking of it by progressive idiots?

It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79)

also, when addressing the poor, the Church if very much concerned about dignity. John Paul II addressed this: http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-4/principle-subsidiarity

“Pope John Paul II took the “social assistance state” to task in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. The Pontiff wrote that the Welfare State was contradicting the principle of subsidiarity by intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility. This “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

While Catholic doctrine teaches that public policy must offer preferential treatment of the poor

If this is true (and I assume “public policy” equates to governmental action) then it is truly at odds with Scripture, which demands that no preference be given to either the poor or the rich.

Did not Jesus tell you these things, in the New Testament? It took the Pope for that to sink in?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Know ye every jot and tittle? Do you live every day abiding by every nuance of Christ’s Word? It took the example of a man to remind her of Christ’s commands and to encourage her.

2 Corinthians 3:3
And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Actually, I don’t need to look to Jesus for these things, either. They are given in the commandments that came before Christ’s incarnation.

I don’t say these things to upbraid you, but to encourage you and remind you of the grace in which we live by virtue of God’s steadfast love for us.

signed,
an anti-papist
:)

Let’s all start off with a universal global definition of “poor”. Unable to find water. Unable to feed oneself. Unable to afford shoes and clothes. Unable to find shelter. Anything beyond that?

Fogpig on March 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Or we could go in reverse. How about a standard which says that if you have any item on the following list, you are not poor?

1. A car.
2. A cell phone.
3. Cable or satellite TV.
4. A computer.
5. A PlayStation 3 or X-Box 360.

…where capitalism is much more rife with cronyism and corporatism than in the US.

Not sure that’s possible.

oohhhhh I see what you mean. By that example Obama should be Pope!!!!Never mind…..

Let’s all start off with a universal global definition of “poor”. Unable to find water. Unable to feed oneself. Unable to afford shoes and clothes. Unable to find shelter. Anything beyond that?

Fogpig on March 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Oh! The left has a much more nuanced idea of poverty. You’ve got the traditional definition down which focuses on needs. But, of course, there also is relative poverty (and no I’m not talking about an uncle sleeping on a couch in the basement). The legions of “poor” in America also include those with but one car, window air conditioners in their Section 8 housing, and limited texting ability on their Obamaphones.

Not to be offensive to any Catholics on here, but I never got the feeling that the Pope was particularly influential in the public policy realm in the US. At worst, a left leaning pope might give some liberal politicians here a convenient soundbite or two.

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Nothing offensive about your statement.The Pope has the duty to explicate the social teaching of the RC Church. These teachings express a “preferential option for the poor”. Lay Catholics are required to implement these teachings in the world. However, the laity must use their prudential judgment. The pope’s preferences regarding state direction or free market public policy solutions are not binding on the lay person involved in public policy or economics. Similarly, lay Catholics are not required to credit the Pope’s weather forecasts.The “servile state” ignores wealth creation and assaults human dignity. The lay Catholic must use reason in concluding that the market system is the only vehicle for wealth creation. Socialism is a political ideology as free market capitalism is an economic and political system for analyzing social relations. One or the other cannot be proclaimed infallibly by the Pope. They are outside the realm of faith and morals.

If the Pope was a masterful public policy crusader the anti-Catholics would be correct that the moment of the Anti-Christ had arrived.

In Argentina, you don’t get ahead through being economically entrepreneurial; you get ahead through political power and as many privileges from the state as you can.

This is the disaster that Pope Francis’s limited commentary on economic matters has sought to address since he became Argentina’s leading churchman in 1998. And Francis has made it abundantly clear that liberation theology is not the solution. One of the reasons he’s not so popular with some of his fellow Jesuits is that he stopped the Jesuits in Argentina from going down that path in the 1970s and 80s. Liberation theology’s Marxist components, he knew, were plainly incompatible with Catholicism. Father Bergoglio also foresaw that it would turn much of the Church into nothing more than just another utopian-revolutionary movement, as occurred in other parts of Latin America.

Best, most hopeful part of the article.