Topic: pope in Washington
started by: mrugly
Posted by mrugly on Sep. 23 2015,2:45 pm
The pope has landed on American soil in Washington. Will be interesting to find out what he will say to the politicians their in D.C. 
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 23 2015,5:41 pm
This guy?
Posted by mrugly on Sep. 24 2015,7:48 am
No. Pope Francis. It sounds like he is going to be addressing congress at 10 am eastern which would be 9 here. I will be at work when he addresses them but should be interesting to see what the news outlets have to say about his address. 
Posted by Glad I Left on Sep. 24 2015,8:30 am
And the who gives a sh!t award goes to...
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 24 2015,2:55 pm
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 24 2015,6:33 pm
So our gov fell all over themselves, Buster groveled, Bohner cried because a religious figure came to town. How much taxpayer money was spent on this I wonder.Hmmmm.
Posted by Botto 82 on Sep. 24 2015,9:31 pm
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 24 2015,6:33 pm)
QUOTE
Bohner cried
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 25 2015,2:46 am
I'm impressed with this Pope so far, it's been a long time coming that we have religious leaders who preach peace and compassion. Maybe he could stop by Liberty University if has time, there are some Jerry Falwell supporters I'd like to introduce him to.
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 24 2015,6:33 pm)
QUOTE
How much taxpayer money was spent on this I wonder.
Did you ask that question when Netanyahu came to do address Congress?
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 25 2015,4:59 am
Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel, a country.His Popeyness is a religious figure.
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 25 2015,6:57 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 25 2015,8:20 am
^^ though unlikely, one would be the elected leader of a country, the other an appointed religious leader.Pay attention or I'll stick the dunce hat on you again.
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 25 2015,9:47 am
^^Exactly, there’s a separation between Church and State, I’m glad you finally recognize that fact, please spread the word to the other teabaggers!
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 25 2015,9:57 am
^^what a piece of sh!t
Posted by Marneman on Sep. 26 2015,4:29 am
I'm happy for all my catholic friends out there that Pope Francis has come to America to visit us. I respect his and their right to worship as they please as guarunteed by our Constitution. I'm also interested to here his thoughts on some of our and the worlds problems. But I reserve the right to disagree with his thoughts and opinions. The major one being our "Immigrant" problem. Now don't get me wrong I have nothing against immigrants coming to our country, my own ancestors were immigrants. What I have a problem with is people coming here Illegally!, and before someone whips out the racist card, I don't care if they're from Mexico, Canada, Europe, Asia, Africa, The Middle East, Central America, South America, or the Planet Mars! if they're here illegally then they need to be sent back. Now I know there are a lot of problems that have to be overcome to solve this problem, but I have faith that we can do it if we really tried!PS. Please don't bring up that whole strawman argument about the Indians want all us other immigrants to go home! A lot of anthropologist with more letters after the name than me have shown that their ancestors immigrated here from Asia across the Bering land bridge millions of years ago. That just makes them the first immigrants!
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 27 2015,4:56 am
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 25 2015,4:59 am)
QUOTE
Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel, a country.
His Popeyness is a religious figure.
His Popeyness is a religious figure.
Exactly, when Netanyahu comes to tell us to go to war for Israel (again) there's not a single post where you ask how much the his visit or the war he's asking for will cost the taxpayer. The Pope coming to talk about peace and compassion is too expensive?
Thanks for clarifying, but I think we know what the difference is. There's always money for weapons for Isreal and war, but we're too broke for peace.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 27 2015,6:06 am
^^Drink some cranberry juice,
You'll feel better
Posted by mrugly on Sep. 27 2015,6:06 pm
Pope is now departing from philadelphia where he has said his last goodbye. Hope congress learned some things from his meeting with them.
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 27 2015,8:23 pm
Posted by Marneman on Sep. 27 2015,9:20 pm
Have to admit I agree with the Pope's statement about "Trickle Down" economic models not working. Thanks to the growing greed in this country this totally feasable economic model has been bastardized into something unworkable. Just like Marx and Engal's economic model was basterdized by the Soviets and the Chi-coms
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 28 2015,6:41 am
(irisheyes @ Sep. 27 2015,4:56 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 25 2015,4:59 am)
QUOTE
Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel, a country.
His Popeyness is a religious figure.
His Popeyness is a religious figure.
Exactly, when Netanyahu comes to tell us to go to war for Israel (again) there's not a single post where you ask how much the his visit or the war he's asking for will cost the taxpayer. The Pope coming to talk about peace and compassion is too expensive?
Thanks for clarifying, but I think we know what the difference is. There's always money for weapons for Isreal and war, but we're too broke for peace.
You seem to be under the assumption the Israel is some warmongering nation. Pretty sure they would rather have peace but when some of the surrounding nations have sworn to their destruction I think they have every right to be a bit proactive in their defense.
I don't think Netanyahu wanted us to go to war for Israel but warned that if allowed, Iran would gain nuclear weapons to use against them and possibly against the US.
I think Netanyahu has been extremely patient with Buster, what with the snubs and trying to influence the election in Israel and will most likely execute a preemptive strike against Iran.
So how will we treat our ally then?
It sounded as if you did need clarification between world and religious leaders and I just thought it was funny and hypocritical as to how Buster and the left treated The Pope like a rock star when he was here.
Posted by the breeze on Sep. 28 2015,8:08 am
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 25 2015,4:59 am)
QUOTE
Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel, a country.
His Popeyness is a religious figure.
His Popeyness is a religious figure.
What does it matter what the last antichrist pope says? His fall was prophesized long ago. If he would have said those things 400-500 years ago he would have been burned at the stake by his very own church. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just don't call him Holy Father. Infallible? no1
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matt 23:9
Posted by stardust14 on Sep. 28 2015,2:38 pm
(Marneman @ Sep. 27 2015,9:20 pm)
QUOTE
Have to admit I agree with the Pope's statement about "Trickle Down" economic models not working. Thanks to the growing greed in this country this totally feasable economic model has been bastardized into something unworkable. Just like Marx and Engal's economic model was basterdized by the Soviets and the Chi-coms
Posted by Botto 82 on Sep. 28 2015,3:26 pm
It's the Church of the Almighty God versus the Church of the Almighty Dollar, and the Teatards are in full damage control mode. You can sway public opinion, but Doctrine still stands: Y'all ain't Heaven-bound.
I'm no Catholic, but the Pope's right. Get with God, or get with the other guys.
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 28 2015,4:27 pm
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 28 2015,7:43 pm
I love it when the hillbilly comes out
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 30 2015,7:19 am
...
Posted by stardust14 on Oct. 01 2015,12:07 am
Thousands of US soldiers payed the price in the Middle East for compassionate conservatism. The ironies are endless.
Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 02 2015,2:57 am
(the breeze @ Sep. 28 2015,8:08 am)
QUOTE
If he would have said those things 400-500 years ago he would have been burned at the stake by his very own church.
A few centuries ago it didn't take much to be burned at the stake. The box I'm typing on right now could easily be confused with witchcraft not so long ago.
QUOTE
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matt 23:9
What about Father's Day, do we have to scribble out the "Father" on the card and write something else?
Posted by the breeze on Oct. 02 2015,7:07 am
(irisheyes @ Oct. 02 2015,2:57 am)
QUOTE
(the breeze @ Sep. 28 2015,8:08 am)
QUOTE
If he would have said those things 400-500 years ago he would have been burned at the stake by his very own church.
A few centuries ago it didn't take much to be burned at the stake. The box I'm typing on right now could easily be confused with witchcraft not so long ago.
QUOTE
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matt 23:9
What about Father's Day, do we have to scribble out the "Father" on the card and write something else?
We have one Father
< http://www.letusreason.org/RC6cont.htm >
The term Pope comes from the Latin word “Papa” which translates to daddy. The first time this term was used to address a Roman church official was the year 604 the man named Gregory 1 refused the title. His predecessor Boniface the 3rd in 607 accepted it and it has been the title of the Roman church until today.
The Scripture speaks of only one Holy Father, it is not a successive office. No one on earth is told this. Paul spoke of spiritual fathers as instructors but this is different than the title bestowed on the Pope. Call no man your father Jesus said. you have only one Father who is in heaven Mt.23:9. The Father of Rome is on earth! Mt. 23:7-9: “greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi. But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” We do not call another father in reference to a spiritual teacher. Jesus tells the Church to address God in prayer as Abba, father or daddy.
There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any title of Holy Father is applied to a man on earth. No apostle, not even Peter was called this. The term, “Holy Father” is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used only once in prayer by Jesus addressing God the Father, since God alone is holy in His perfect nature (John 17:11).
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 02 2015,10:53 am
QUOTE
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matt 23:9
Don't worry IE. Breeze taking a single verse from the bible is, in this case, taken a little out of context. I'm guessing you were brought up Catholic, and your catechism should have taught you this.In the passage, Jesus is calling out some the priests and rabbis as hypocrites. They talked the good talk, but didn't live by their talk. They wanted respect for them, not necessarily for the Father. They wanted to be honored and seen as great men, forgetting that the glory goes to God.
Go ahead and call your pops, father and your priest. You do just have one heavenly Father, but calling the others father is a show of respect both as a sire to you or someone who may be a leader or teacher of good things.
Posted by the breeze on Oct. 02 2015,12:39 pm
Don't worry IE. Breeze taking a single verse from the bible is, in this case, taken a little out of context. I'm guessing you were brought up Catholic, and your catechism should have taught you this.In the passage, Jesus is calling out some the priests and rabbis as hypocrites. They talked the good talk, but didn't live by their talk. They wanted respect for them, not necessarily for the Father. They wanted to be honored and seen as great men, forgetting that the glory goes to God.
Go ahead and call your pops, father and your priest. You do just have one heavenly Father, but calling the others father is a show of respect both as a sire to you or someone who may be a leader or teacher of good things. ///////according the that, we can just cross this verse out???
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 02 2015,12:48 pm
Nope, take the whole passage. < Matt. 23:1-12 >
Posted by the breeze on Oct. 02 2015,12:53 pm
(MADDOG @ Oct. 02 2015,12:48 pm)
QUOTE
Nope, take the whole passage. < Matt. 23:1-12 >
Posted by the breeze on Oct. 02 2015,12:55 pm
Roman Catholics call their priests “father” and the pope is called “the holy father.” This is clearly unbiblical. The priest as “father” is problematic. Catholic priests are doing precisely what Matthew 23:9 condemns by allowing the term “father” in a spiritual sense be applied to them. In no sense is a priest or pastor a “spiritual father” to a Christian. Only God can cause a person to receive “spiritual birth”; therefore, only God is worthy of the title of “Father” in a spiritual sense.< http://www.gotquestions.org/father-Matthew-23-9.html >
In the case of the “holy father,” there is no doubt this is unbiblical. No man can take on the title of “holy” anything, because only God is holy. This title gives the pope a status that is never intended for any man on earth. Even the apostle Paul referred to himself as the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15) and cried out, “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:14). Clearly, Paul made no claim to holiness. Although as Christians we have exchanged our sin for the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21), holiness will not be attained until we are in heaven and have left the last vestiges of our sin natures behind. Until then, the pope has no more holiness than the average Christian and is not entitled to be called “holy father.”
But there is no reason not to call our earthly parents “father” and “mother” because in doing so we are not giving them an elevated title or position that belongs to God. Our earthly parents are worthy of honor, not just on one special day of the year (Father’s Day, Mother’s Day), but we are to honor our parents daily in the spirit of Exodus 20:12, Matthew 15:4, and Ephesians 6:1-3.
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 02 2015,4:08 pm
I suppose it depends on how you wish to interpret the passage from a non-Catholic perspective. (I'm not Catholic) This article by Tim Staples may shed some understanding for you. One paragraph that stood out in the whole article is: QUOTE
The context of Matthew 23 emphasizes the sin of pride among the scribes and Pharisees. They loved to be called “teacher”, “father”, or “Rabbi," but their pride pointed men to themselves rather than to God the Father from whom they received true fatherhood and in whom their fatherhood subsisted. Outside of God the Father, there are no fathers at all in the true sense of the term. But in God, we have all sorts of true "fathers."
< full article >Sometimes understanding the text written is difficult for all of us.
QUOTE
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16,17
Posted by the breeze on Oct. 03 2015,6:42 am
i know if there were six people left on earth and they had a n.a.s. Bible they could start and establish a New Testament Church of Christ using that Bible only and it would be Scriptural. could six people with the same Bible start and establish a roman catholic church and would it be Scriptural.?? i ask this because we are planting a Church of Christ in the Dominican republic using The New Testament and i was wondering how would someone start a roman catholic church.? what would they use.?
Posted by the breeze on Oct. 03 2015,6:49 am
Why does The Apostle's Creed Referto the Holy 'Catholic' Church?
-by Tony Warren
The question is often asked, why did the early Church fathers refer to the Church as Catholic. Particularly, the Apostle's Creed which is truly an ecumenical symbol of faith and is dated to about a century after the New Testament was completed. It is important to understand that the term 'Catholic Church' simply refers to the universal Church of believers. It is in no way referring to Roman Catholicism.
To fully understand this, we need to look at the original languages. For example the word Creed is from the Latin [credo] meaning I believe, thus the apostles creed was a statement of Christian beliefs. Some people have the mistaken idea that the word 'catholic' belongs to the Roman Church. But simply because Rome claims to be the catholic church, doesn't make it so. In truth the word catholic is simply a form of the Greek word [katholikos] which means, "of the whole." Taken from two root words [kata], meaning pertaining to, or about, and the word [holos], meaning the whole. i.e., the it means the whole or Universal Church.
Before those grounded in sound Biblical Theology broke away from the dominant Roman Church in protest (thus they were called, protestants) of that Churches slipping into idolatry and unscriptural practices, they were of the one whole (universal) Church. They still are. Rome can claim ownership of the word, but that is mere semantics. For they are not holy, nor catholic, nor in the real sense, the Church. In the false sense, they are a church, but they have long ago left being under authority of God.
The name catholic in our day has come to denote a denomination rather than it's true meaning. But in the early Church it was the title denoting it's universal nature, and had nothing to do with a denomination in Rome. Denominations are an invention of man. There is only the universal Church, not a Roman Church and a Protestant Church, but one holy universal Church.
In the big picture, this hasn't really changed today. The true Church of God is the Universal (catholic, in Greek) Church, no matter what label man puts upon it by denominational edict. There is one Holy Universal Church fulfilling it's commission to go to the ends of the earth with the gospel. And it exists all over the world and has gone by many denominational names. It has nothing to do with what is the Roman Catholic Church today.
the truth is, since we don't speak Greek, we could just as easily translate it:
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Universal Church,
The communion of saints..
Every educated scholar of course knows this. But because Reformed Churches are steeped in tradition, and have a high regard for their creeds (nothing inherently wrong with that) it is still rendered (usually) the Holy Catholic Church. And really, there is no good reason to change it. Why should we? No denomination can usurp a word as exclusively their own. Just so long as we all understand that the word simply means universal.
We should also be aware that it is not called "The Apostles' Creed," because it was written or authored by any of the Apostles, it is called this because it is actually an excellent brief synopsis of what they taught. Moreover, it sets forth the Christian gospel in a concise, though pertinent fashion, with proper reverential and liturgical high regard.
Peace,
Copyright 2000 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! < http://www.mountainretreatorg.net >
-------------------------*---------------------------
Posted by Moparman on Oct. 03 2015,8:42 am
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 24 2015,6:33 pm)
QUOTE
So our gov fell all over themselves, Buster groveled, Bohner cried because a religious figure came to town. How much taxpayer money was spent on this I wonder.
Hmmmm.
Hmmmm.
I'm guessing it cost tens of millions. But, it also generated around half a billion in revenue. That's a pretty good return!!!
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 03 2015,9:30 am
(Moparman @ Oct. 03 2015,8:42 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 24 2015,6:33 pm)
QUOTE
So our gov fell all over themselves, Buster groveled, Bohner cried because a religious figure came to town. How much taxpayer money was spent on this I wonder.
Hmmmm.
Hmmmm.
I'm guessing it cost tens of millions. But, it also generated around half a billion in revenue. That's a pretty good return!!!
That was actually a pretty good point except for this, we all pay taxes(well at least some of us do) how did the pope benefit any other area outside that relatively small area in the east?
Posted by the breeze on Oct. 03 2015,12:05 pm
(Botto 82 @ Sep. 28 2015,3:26 pm)
QUOTE
It's the Church of the Almighty God versus the Church of the Almighty Dollar, and the Teatards are in full damage control mode.
You can sway public opinion, but Doctrine still stands: Y'all ain't Heaven-bound.
I'm no Catholic, but the Pope's right. Get with God, or get with the other guys.
You can sway public opinion, but Doctrine still stands: Y'all ain't Heaven-bound.
I'm no Catholic, but the Pope's right. Get with God, or get with the other guys.
""im no Catholic, but the Pope's right ""
????Pope Francis to America: not even a passing mention of our Savior Jesus Christ,
AuthorBy Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives September 28, 2015
What was so conspicuously missing during the historic visit of Pope Francis to America: not even a passing mention of our Savior Jesus Christ, in his address to Congress and the General Assembly of the United Nations; any sign of the Savior’s revered Cross.
President Barack Obama was criticized for ordering all religious symbols covered up when he delivered remarks on the economy at Georgetown University in 2009. But his arrogant demands were at least kept front and center by some quarters of the mainstream media.
On this his last day on American soil, the Jesuit Pope has skirted criticism from all but the less trafficked blogs for a logo that comes straight from a sort of Charlie Brown celebrity cult; in which the Vatican has allowed Francis to become a caricature of himself.
< http://canadafreepress.com/article/75599 >
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 05 2015,6:03 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 05 2015,8:51 am
^^oh wow, Bill what's-his-face.