571–580 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not as spiritually fulfilling, but the stock market would be an example of that happening at sub-second latencies, every day, all day.
I don't think that counts as communicating to people at all, let alone to as many people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "progressiveness" isn't necessarily a good metric to judge an entity that believes itself to be a moral guide. It's very job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the crowd. That's not to say the teachings are right, and of course no one has to follow the teachings. But it'd be a bit like saying, dunno, dismissing a judge's verdict on the basis of it not reflecting popular opinion. It's not meant to…
Nobody said "progressiveness" except you. People can judge it on its moral grounds. If we dismiss criticism as being invalid because it happens to be another person's idea of "progressive," then that's surely the opposite of ignoring the crowd. That's using political labels to distract from the actual thing being discussed. Considering there were literal pedophiles given more grace than openly gay bishops, it's a dis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody said "progressiveness" except you. People can judge it on its moral grounds. If we dismiss criticism as being invalid because it happens to be another person's idea of "progressive," then that's surely the opposite of ignoring the crowd. That's using political labels to distract from the actual thing being discussed. Considering there were literal pedophiles given more grace than openly gay bishops, it's a dis…
If there's any labelling of "dirty words", it is by you. A key tenet of Christianity is that homosexuality is, in short, bad. I don't hold that view. But also I find it weird to turn around and tut-tut at a Christian bishop because he failed to express pro-gay views. And in turn, waiting for the Catholic Church to change its mind is like saying it should bend to popular, "progressive" views. Quotes because, simply ca…
I think you need to reread the discussion. That is something you wrote in response to someone else. Someone expressed they found the position immoral, and you said "why are we judging people based on how progressive they are." I am explaining why that's reductive.
> But also I find it weird to turn around and tut-tut at a Christian bishop because he failed to express pro-gay views
Saying "we don't turn away gay people" is only pro-gay in the way that allowing Black people to have bank loans is pro-black. As in, not at all. It's just not anti-gay.
> A key tenet of Christianity is that homosexuality is, in short, bad
That's a motivation for bigotry, yes. It doesn't make the consequences different.
> And in turn, waiting for the Catholic Church to change its mind is like saying it should bend to popular, "progressive" views
What is progressive today is an outburst of long-standing grievances, previously quelled with violence. Gay people were killed purely on religious demonization, and legally tried in court as recently as the 50's. Not framed for a crime because they were gay, but tried for the crime of being gay. So yes, there may be an uptick in open discussion on the matter as we move into a world where we don't kill people for their sexual orientation, something we are still not out of in many parts of the world.
Now if you refuse to accept it as a moral judgement because "it sounds like what those progressives would say," that's you using a "dirty word" to refuse engaging with the topic altogether.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it’s worth, I was just reading that Leo wasn’t seen as “completely” American due to his many years in Peru — he’s even a citizen. Take that as you will.
Americans will say they are Italian because their great grandma ate spaghetti once, but God forbid someone is American because he was born there
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it possible that this move is to reinstate Catholicism in the United States, given that Evangelicals appear to be gaining influence?
I think Catholicism has much bigger problems in the US then evangelicals gaining tracking. Like people which by the Wikipedia definition of fascist being fascist using Catholicism as a tool to push their believes which are not at all compatible with the current world view represented by the Church in Rome. A Pope which is able to say "I denounce ... as unchristian and un-american" which isn't some random person in Ro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he is the head of a foreign nation, and will hold that office till death. You cannot be head of multiple nations at once.
That's a republican idea (with a small r), or maybe a nationalist one. Monarchs on the other hand had a habit of collecting titles. If you only had one title as the head of one political entity, you were obviously a very insignificant leader. Conquered territories often continued to exist as separate entities that just happened to have the same monarch, rather than being annexed into the dominant country.
By the Grace of God Emperor of Austria; Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria; King of Jerusalem etc.; Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Bukowina; Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Silesia, Modena, Parma, Piacenza, Guastalla, Auschwitz and Zator, Teschen, Friuli, Dubrovnik and Zadar; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenburg etc.; Lord of Trieste, Kotor and the Windic March, Grand Voivod of the Voivodeship of Serbia etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neat thanks. Btw how do you know this?! Have you memorized stuff of all the passed popes?
The last Leo was a notable pope. His views are well known. You don’t need to memorise everything, a lot of what they’ve said over the years is available in books or online.
I was raised Catholic and couldn't have even told you there'd been a single Pope Leo, let alone 13 of them before today. The only Pope quote I could even give you is the term "Ex Cathedra".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Bible agrees with your musing as it says bishops are to be be married with kids. Peter (who the Catholics claim as the first Pope) was married as the Bible says Jesus healed his mother-in-law. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 [1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. [2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospital…
You are clearly taking it out of context (not your fault, translations and commentaries are often bad) because Paul wasn't married and had no kids.
You can look it up in the original Greek, but translation is extremely clear with the approved Catholic translations saying the same thing.
Thomas Aquinas in his Latin (and in the English translation of his writings) agrees with the translation and also agrees that priests fall under the Bishop, but then seems to completely ignore the obvious contradiction.
Finally, mandatory celibacy wasn’t mandatory until the second Lateran Council in 1139 with the admittance that it was ecclesiastical rather than dogma (with the ruling clearly going against the New Testament).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Estadounidense" is also a bit odd, since there are Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (the formal name for Mexico). I don't think it is likely to confuse very many people, but still odd.
If you say "Mexico" in Mexico, most people will think you're referring to Mexico City.
I think there are legal implications. Akin to "Washington District of Columbia"
Decades ago, Mexicans refered to the capital as "el DF" But I dont know about more recently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't hold your breath. My whole family are staunch Catholics and disliked Francis because of his more "liberal" leanings. Some Catholics believed he was the "anti-christ" and loved Trump. Seriously.
I'm pretty sure you cease to be a Catholic when you call the Pope the anti-Christ. Infallible, God's representative on Earth, etc. Though in USAmerica, we're pretty flexible on the meaning of "Christian" anyway. Certainly the loudest proclaimers have no resemblance whatsoever to the expected meaning. Those troublesome CINOs.. Gosh Darn them to Heck.
So even the Pope would say that you don't cease to be a Catholic if you call him an anti-Christ. Maybe excommunicated, but to be excommunicated you have to be Catholic.