[DELETED BY AUTHOR]
16 Apr
Pope Wows Washington!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Wednesday, April 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm | 21 views
- Share:
Advertisment
Stats
The Pope will make a point when he refuses to break bread with Bush
You read whether a meal is scheduled in the papal visit as a judgment call by the Pope?? Pathetic. It’s a particularly nasty snipe you make, John Ryan. You must be a real joy to be around.
Please explain your statement, John. You don’t just toss a grenade in the room and walk away.
Thats all he is and ever will be. He comes into a thread, snipes at it with an ignorant comment and like the coward he is crawls back under his rock never to be seen on the same thread again.
The comment is indeed ignorant. And inaccurate. From the USA Today story:
However one can’t expect either factual knowledge – nay, even taste or tact – from a likely card carrying member of the party of “tolerance”….
So the Pope didn’t break “bread.” So what? Looks like he had one hell of a cake!
How anybody would construe the Pope’s declining a dinner invitation as a snub after the mornings stupdendous events is beyond me.
The Pope has *not*, to any media reports, declined the WH dinner on the schedule, Mike. What I find particularly offensive is that John Ryan alludes to a belief that the Pope passes judgment on GWB, and would reflect his disapproval via not “breaking bread”.
I could be wrong, but my guess is the Pope views all men… bad guys included… as God’s creatures equally, And sinners all. So the “judgment” bit wouldn’t be part of his make up.
Honest question here…
How does the “all men are sinners” perspective accord with the notion of papal infallibility? Putting the two of those together would seem to give us something like, “All men are sinners, but THIS guy is perfect when he speaks on issues of the faith.” I must admit that this apparent conflict has puzzled me for some time in my (informal) studies of Catholicism.
Pope’s are neither infallible, nor perfect, Wes. They are also sinners in the eyes of god, as they too are human and not without sin. They go to confessions themselves. They are considered the father of the Catholic Church family – not a demi-God. The disciple Peter was the first Pope. Tho a disciple, still a man… still a sinner.
Pope’s are, however, revered for their theological knowledge and training. And they are at the top of the theology heap. I think Shia Islam has their marja. Ayatollah’s are also high ranking clerics in Islam. Pope’s, like Islam clerics, do have to work their way up the seminary training food chain. But on the whole, I do not think Islam is structured so that there is only one man at the top of the pyramid, as Catholic Christians hole the position of Pope. I could be wrong.
This is all going back to some old doctrine for me. So I’m pulling somewhat from memory. Perhaps others can give better insight. But it’s a very good question. Many tend to place the Pope on a pedestal equal to God. Not the intent… merely the father figure of the religious family. The one you go to for guidance, the one honored as the head of the family.
Love how when you first look at this post, you see the snipers/spotters on the WH roof, THEN pan down to see the Pope and President. Comparison/contrast. It’s interesting to see two guys ready to kill above a guy who stands for peace, and another for security.
Wes, Papal Infallibility is another way of saying he’s the boss. Just as there is no appeal higher than the US Supreme Court, as far as Catholic Doctrine goes, what the Pope says is final.
I was under the impression that, when the Pope spoke ex cathedra, that his voice as Vicar of Christ was unchallengeable. So, a Catholic might debate Benedict’s words delivered during this visit, but that same Catholic would/should not question the validity of a papal encyclical.
If that isn’t the case, thanks for clearing that up for me.