“But I think one of the issues here is that if you’re going to opine on matters of theology, you’ve got to be careful. You’ve got to make sure it’s anchored in the truth, and that’s one of the things that I try to do, and it’s certainly something I would expect from the clergy, whether they’re Catholic or Protestant,” he added.
The pope and Donald Trump have exchanged barbs over the past several days, with the pope denouncing the war in Iran and Trump responding by saying Leo was “WEAK on crime” and “terrible for Foreign Policy.”
If a core Catholic belief is the pope is infallible, especially in the domain of theology & religion, then why is Vance saying any of this? Sure seems like his “Catholicism” is name alone or perhaps his faith is more Protestant than he wants to admit. Or, he has values above his faith, and for a Catholic, that seems worse.
Whatever, Jan.
Edit: I’m ex-Catholic. I don’t need a theology lesson about the specifics. What the Pope is expressing here is within the domain of church doctrine.
Stop trying to defend fascists with pedantic details.
If a core Catholic belief is the pope is infallible
It isn’t. That’s only when the Pope is speaking “ex cathedra” meaning “from the chair” which Pius IX defined as
when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
My point. He is infallible, specifically in this matter.
And my point is that you’re wrong.
John 13:34, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 26:52, Luke 6:27
The Pope is right to bring Jesus’ word to light here, if Vance is truly faithful. I wish you peace, verily.
So just like a complete non-sequitur then?
Sure sounds to me like “opining on matters of theology”.
Oh it sounds to you like that does it? And you’re going to substitute your layman’s understanding of the topic for what Catholic scholars determine then? Go ahead and do an image search for “dunning kruger chart” and see if you can find where you fit on it.
I don’t know what I did to deserve being called stupid and I’d sure like to know so I can properly repent for my horrifying sin. Or maybe I’m beyond absolution. Who knows.
I didn’t call you stupid. But you are willing to take a very layman’s understanding of a technical subject’s jargon and think that you immediately understand it all. So use whatever adjective you feel applies there.
Then you should know that, generally, an invocation of Dunning-Kruger is understood as a veiled “you’re stupid”. Now you know.
What jargon am I not understanding?
Then you should know that, generally, an invocation of Dunning-Kruger is understood as a veiled “you’re stupid”. Now you know.
If you have people frequently referring you to Dunning Kruger you may want to rethink things a bit.
What jargon am I not understanding?
I render my former answer. You don’t care to learn, I don’t care to teach.
“Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated France from the Nazis? […] I certainly think the answer is yes."
So, if you assume God did not like fascists in the 1940s - what makes you think he has changed his mind to now support you and your ilk, couch boy? That’s a mighty big plank to pull from that eye of yours.
They don’t think they’re fascists, they think they’re the good guys
But I think one of the issues here is that if you’re going to opine on matters of theology, you’ve got to be careful. You’ve got to make sure it’s anchored in the truth
Oh dear, somebody has a lot of catching up to do. Start with Council of Nicea and go from there.
FUN FACT: Council of Nicea was formed to settle the age old debate of “should priests cut off their balls or not? On the one hand, Jesus said to do so… on the other hand, my balls.”
I think time and experience has proved Jesus right - priests should definitely cut off their bollocks.
