ADVERTISEMENT

The New Pope Thread

Who said it then?
I am appalled that you would even contemplate that St. Augustine said such a thing. What kind of pastor are you? Read this and maybe you’ll learn something - it includes where that quote was fabricated and why it is so wrong.

 
So here's how I would put it. When the church - including Francis - criticize "capitalism," they aren't doing what you seem to think they are doing, which is attacking capitalism as a system. They are advocating for the people who get left behind. And that happens, in any economic system. Free markets might provide for a better overall result than other alternatives, but there are still winners and losers. No matter what economic system you have, there will be winners and losers. The church is understandably concerned with the plight of the losers.

And, of course, the church will set itself against greed, avarice, dishonesty, etc., that might be used to create losers. None of that should be taken as some sort of socialist manifesto. It's merely what we'd expect a religious movement that was concerned most with society's downtrodden from the very beginning to behave.
I agree with every bit of this post, but with prosperity gospel and evangelicals on the right being so prominent these days, I can see how a lot of people would consider Francis and others as socialists. And I am not in any way insinuating that crazed is in that camp. He’s not.
 
Ok are you cognizant that others also attributed it to Augustine?
The responsible way to attribute something to someone is to cite the piece of writing in which the person said it. Instead of just saying, "Augustine said..." you say, "In The City of God, Part I, Book V, Augustine said..."

Did you do that? Did the place you heard this from do that?
 
I agree with every bit of this post, but with prosperity gospel and evangelicals on the right being so prominent these days, I can see how a lot of people would consider Francis and others as socialists. And I am not in any way insinuating that crazed is in that camp. He’s not.
From what crazed has shared here about his own thoughts, I think it's safe to say, he's definitely not in that camp. But I do get the feeling that perhaps he is attributing to Francis, et al., an economic argument when they are really merely making a humanitarian argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morrison
I agree with every bit of this post, but with prosperity gospel and evangelicals on the right being so prominent these days, I can see how a lot of people would consider Francis and others as socialists. And I am not in any way insinuating that crazed is in that camp. He’s not.
Catholics don’t believe in the prosperity gospel so I’m not sure the relevance of your comment.

Evangelicals? wtf?

Lazy post.
 
Yes, the doctrines of mariology is one example. I would also point out the doctrine of Justification.
Did you bother to read the link I posted? It explains where the false attribution came from. As others have asked, do you have something else? Apparently not since you refuse to provide anything.

And again, it is utterly absurd to think that St. Augustine would have said such a thing. Absolutely unfathomable
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Milton
So you’re on board with the idea that resistance to Francis’ critiques of capitalism was driven by prosperity gospel loving Evangelicals?
Also, the Reformation is over. For centuries. In the real world today, large swaths of Protestants respect the Pope as one of the preeminent leaders of Christendom. One of the results of the ecumenical movement. So it's not exactly a surprise that more than just Catholics would have opinions on these topics.
 
I had heard it referred to Augustine.
A new successor to Peter was announced today and presented to the world following an historic election. Pope Leo XIV is, by all accounts, a good, humble, brilliant and accomplished servant of the church. The fact that your singular reaction to his election consists of a quote equating the church with a whore is disgraceful. You’re an embarrassment, and I’m being kind.
 
#15. Real deal. Community of religious scholars

If I were going to attend a Christian college, it would have to be St. Olaf. How could any reasonable person ever choose anything other than St. Olaf? Martyred in battle against the Norse pagans. That's a man's way out.
 
A new successor to Peter was announced today and presented to the world following an historic election. Pope Leo XIV is, by all accounts, a good, humble, brilliant and accomplished servant of the church. The fact that your singular reaction to his election consists of a quote equating the church with a whore is disgraceful. You’re an embarrassment, and I’m being kind.
Why am I an embarrassment? I preach the Gospel and treat people right. I heard the new Pipe was a Cubs fan and thought it was cool
 
  • Haha
Reactions: outside shooter
Did you bother to read the link I posted? It explains where the false attribution came from. As others have asked, do you have something else? Apparently not since you refuse to provide anything.

And again, it is utterly absurd to think that St. Augustine would have said such a thing. Absolutely unfathomable
I did not read it. Must have missed it
 
Ok ne thing is the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Mary in her Magnificat claimed God as her Savior. So Mary was not sinless. Also Paul in Romans 3:23 would disagree with that doctrine because all have sinned except Jesus who was the God Man.
That's fair. There are good theological reasons for the immaculate conception, but they certainly aren't backed specifically by scripture.
 
If I were going to attend a Christian college, it would have to be St. Olaf. How could any reasonable person ever choose anything other than St. Olaf? Martyred in battle against the Norse pagans. That's a man's way out.
12 years of catholic school and all I remember were the beatings.

Who was Jesus?
I don’t know!!
Whack.

Were you there when they crucified my Lord
I WAS THERE WHEN THEY CRUCIFIED MY LORD!!
OUT!!!!!!!! GET OUT!!!!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: larsIU
So here's how I would put it. When the church - including Francis - criticize "capitalism," they aren't doing what you seem to think they are doing, which is attacking capitalism as a system. They are advocating for the people who get left behind. And that happens, in any economic system. Free markets might provide for a better overall result than other alternatives, but there are still winners and losers. No matter what economic system you have, there will be winners and losers. The church is understandably concerned with the plight of the losers.

And, of course, the church will set itself against greed, avarice, dishonesty, etc., that might be used to create losers. None of that should be taken as some sort of socialist manifesto. It's merely how we'd expect a religious movement that was concerned most with society's downtrodden from the very beginning to behave.

OK. But he declares a causal relationship between globalization and people going into poverty.

In other words, it’s true there are winners and losers in a market economy. But the losers aren’t losing because the winners are winning. And the winners aren’t winning at the expense of those losing.

His solution to this was wealth redistribution.

On Friday, Francis called for the United Nations to promote a "worldwide ethical mobilization" of solidarity with the poor in a new spirit of generosity.​
He said a more equal form of economic progress can be had through "the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society."​

This is not a solution to poverty. It’s a recipe for extending and expanding it. We have known very well, for a long time, what things make a nation wealthier and what things make a nation poorer.

But thinking like his, which sounds appealing to many people, has nonetheless prevailed in many places and stood in the way of proper economic development.

Even Bono finally figured this out. China figured it out. Peter Bauer was explaining it decades ago - and got pilloried for it…because he denounced foreign aid.

But he was spot on correct.
 
OK. But he declares a causal relationship between globalization and people going into poverty.

In other words, it’s true there are winners and losers in a market economy. But the losers aren’t losing because the winners are winning. And the winners aren’t winning at the expense of those losing.

His solution to this was wealth redistribution.

On Friday, Francis called for the United Nations to promote a "worldwide ethical mobilization" of solidarity with the poor in a new spirit of generosity.​
He said a more equal form of economic progress can be had through "the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society."​

This is not a solution to poverty. It’s a recipe for extending and expanding it. We have known very well, for a long time, what things make a nation wealthier and what things make a nation poorer.

But thinking like his, which sounds appealing to many people, has nonetheless prevailed in many places and stood in the way of proper economic development.

Even Bono finally figured this out. China figured it out. Peter Bauer was explaining it decades ago - and got pilloried for it…because he denounced foreign aid.

But he was spot on correct.
But the thing is, the Pope isn't an economist. You're criticizing his economic theory; he doesn't have one. He's just saying, in the economic game of life, these people ended up on the bottom, so let's help them out.

I don't find it remotely surprising at all that the leader of a Christian denomination would say these things.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT