Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Tarsonis]

You seem to be reading a lot into the Pope's words because he never said otherwise.

It's often what's unsaid, and the wider context of things that matters. That pro-choice politicians were communed in the Vatican, that Francis appointed a Bishop in D.C who strongly believes that pro-choice politicians shouldn't be denied communion, the lack of meaningful condemnation of Germany, and the constant condemnations of religion in politics shows a pattern. Francis wants to support the current liberal democratic world order, and believes the Church should support it as well. I'm not going to assume reasons or make a conspiracy about it, but that much is obvious.

Yeah, I expected this would be Trad Catholic hates the pope logic.

[Salus Maior]

It's often what's unsaid, and the wider context of things that matters. That pro-choice politicians were communed in the Vatican, that Francis appointed a Bishop in D.C who strongly believes that pro-choice politicians shouldn't be denied communion, the lack of meaningful condemnation of Germany, and the constant condemnations of religion in politics shows a pattern. Francis wants to support the current liberal democratic world order, and believes the Church should support it as well. I'm not going to assume reasons or make a conspiracy about it, but that much is obvious.

Yeah, I expected this would be Trad Catholic hates the pope logic.

That I am critical of the Pope does not mean I hate him. And that I can see a longrunning trend doesn't make me Taylor Marshall.

[Tarsonis]

Yeah, I expected this would be Trad Catholic hates the pope logic.

That I am critical of the Pope does not mean I hate him.

You littereally just accused accused the Pope of dogwhislting and being a slave to the liberal world order. You left the realm of "critical" behind.

[Salus Maior]

That I am critical of the Pope does not mean I hate him.

You littereally just accused accused the Pope of dogwhislting and being a slave to the liberal world order. You left the realm of "critical" behind.

To borrow the terms you just discussed, I'd say more servant of the liberal-democratic world order than slave.

[Tarsonis]

You littereally just accused accused the Pope of dogwhislting and being a slave to the liberal world order. You left the realm of "critical" behind.

To borrow the terms you just discussed, I'd say more servant of the liberal-democratic world order than slave.

Touche

[Salus Maior]

To borrow the terms you just discussed, I'd say more servant of the liberal-democratic world order than slave.

Touche

Ultimately, what I'm saying is that the Pope is more in your camp than previous Popes. You have argued that it's permissible to give pro-choice politicians communion, Francis supports that in deed if not by words. The rest is also just a lot of stuff you yourself have said on this thread at one time or another so I don't see how me pointing out the Pope believes that too is somehow me being Taylor Marshall. I imagine the Pope is doing these things because he believes it to be right, just like you.

[Tarsonis]

Touche

Ultimately, what I'm saying is that the Pope is more in your camp than previous Popes. You have argued that it's permissible to give pro-choice politicians communion, Francis supports that in deed if not by words. The rest is also just a lot of stuff you yourself have said on this thread at one time or another so I don't see how me pointing out the Pope believes that too is somehow me being Taylor Marshall. I imagine the Pope is doing these things because he believes it to be right, just like you.

The pro-choice one is complicated one. Pope Francis is merely trying to navigate the Church in a non theocratic age. Which would be easier without the conservative elements not crying bloody murder when he doesn't make overtures to restoring the Imperial Church

[Dreria]

Somehow I doubt we would call any person in Roman slavery a "servant" instead of a "slave". The intensity of the deference to God's will is what's being emphasized in St. Paul's writing, that is what is meant by "slave".

You think African slaves were "intensly" deferential to their masters will? As they were brutalized and treated like chattel for hundreds of years? Way to miss the point.

It wasn't a theocratic government that established the residential schools. The Church was being a "mature, responsible" set of citizens towards the government of Canada in taking up that work and adjusting their already existing schools to the genocidal ruleset being impressed by the government. The crimes of the schools were, again, of collaboration with secular society and not society being conformed to Christ.

Society will never be conformed to Christ. Only people can conform themselves to Christ which, in case you missed it, was what he said.

I don't think anyone would deny that some societies have been more and less conformed to Christ than others.

[Salus Maior]

Ultimately, what I'm saying is that the Pope is more in your camp than previous Popes. You have argued that it's permissible to give pro-choice politicians communion, Francis supports that in deed if not by words. The rest is also just a lot of stuff you yourself have said on this thread at one time or another so I don't see how me pointing out the Pope believes that too is somehow me being Taylor Marshall. I imagine the Pope is doing these things because he believes it to be right, just like you.

The pro-choice one is complicated one. Pope Francis is merely trying to navigate the Church in a non theocratic age. Which would be easier without the conservative elements not crying bloody murder when he doesn't make overtures to restoring the Imperial Church

It's not though. Those politicians have taken communion while in an unrepentant state of mortal sin, it's sacrilege and it's bringing condemnation on them (and considering their ages that's coming sooner rather than later). Politicians are not any different in the quality of their souls as anyone else; if I'm meant to confess and regret my sins, and repent of them so are they. The thing is, when it comes to society today it really doesn't matter if politicians are barred from communion or not. You think either Biden or Pelosi would really care if the Church as a whole denied them communion? They wouldn't change their minds on a thing, and it wouldn't effect their constituency at all.

[Tarsonis]

The pro-choice one is complicated one. Pope Francis is merely trying to navigate the Church in a non theocratic age. Which would be easier without the conservative elements not crying bloody murder when he doesn't make overtures to restoring the Imperial Church

It's not though. Those politicians have taken communion while in an unrepentant state of mortal sin, it's sacrilege and it's bringing condemnation on them (and considering their ages that's coming sooner rather than later). Politicians are not any different in the quality of their souls as anyone else; if I'm meant to confess and regret my sins, and repent of them so are they. The thing is, when it comes to society today it really doesn't matter if politicians are barred from communion or not. You think either Biden or Pelosi would really care if the Church as a whole denied them communion? They wouldn't change their minds on a thing, and it wouldn't effect their constituency at all.

It's a complicated issue, because pro-choice and pro-abortion are not inherently the same. A public servant has an obligation to not visit their faith unduly on the population, their resoonsbility is to uphold the Constitution of the The United States. The US is not a Christian nation, it is a liberal one. The laws that govern it are not predicated in subservience to God, but individual liberty and self determination. I know the Church's teachings and I respect it. But there are more epistemologies at work when it comes to governing. It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of law.

[Salus Maior]

It's not though. Those politicians have taken communion while in an unrepentant state of mortal sin, it's sacrilege and it's bringing condemnation on them (and considering their ages that's coming sooner rather than later). Politicians are not any different in the quality of their souls as anyone else; if I'm meant to confess and regret my sins, and repent of them so are they. The thing is, when it comes to society today it really doesn't matter if politicians are barred from communion or not. You think either Biden or Pelosi would really care if the Church as a whole denied them communion? They wouldn't change their minds on a thing, and it wouldn't effect their constituency at all.

It's a complicated issue, because pro-choice and pro-abortion are not inherently the same. A public servant has an obligation to not visit their faith unduly on the population, their resoonsbility is to uphold the Constitution of the The United States. The US is not a Christian nation, it is a liberal one. The laws that govern it are not predicated in subservience to God, but individual liberty and self determination. I know the Church's teachings and I respect it. But there are more epistemologies at work when it comes to governing. It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of law.

The sanctity of the Eucharist is more important than the constitution. That thing that has enabled a shitload of evil in history and continues to do so is going to be dust someday, the soul goes on. If a politician is forced in the position between remaining in power and committing themselves to evil, then they should resign for the sake of their own soul.

But regardless, I think it's obvious that Pelosi and Biden see abortion access as a moral good.

[Diopolis]

Ultimately, what I'm saying is that the Pope is more in your camp than previous Popes. You have argued that it's permissible to give pro-choice politicians communion, Francis supports that in deed if not by words. The rest is also just a lot of stuff you yourself have said on this thread at one time or another so I don't see how me pointing out the Pope believes that too is somehow me being Taylor Marshall. I imagine the Pope is doing these things because he believes it to be right, just like you.

The pro-choice one is complicated one. Pope Francis is merely trying to navigate the Church in a non theocratic age. Which would be easier without the conservative elements not crying bloody murder when he doesn't make overtures to restoring the Imperial Church

Is it difficult to understand why Catholics who prize the ancient teachings of the Church find this pope extremely frustrating? From the Amoris Laetitia footnote to Pachamama to the order of Malto to Traditiones Custodes to this current thing. To say nothing of his constant off the cuff remarks.
It's nothing to do with your strawman of "conservative Catholics think we're living in the Byzantine empire!!!" or whatever. And it doesn't take being Taylor Marshall to find his statements and actions difficult(some more so than others, to be sure).

[Diopolis]

It's not though. Those politicians have taken communion while in an unrepentant state of mortal sin, it's sacrilege and it's bringing condemnation on them (and considering their ages that's coming sooner rather than later). Politicians are not any different in the quality of their souls as anyone else; if I'm meant to confess and regret my sins, and repent of them so are they. The thing is, when it comes to society today it really doesn't matter if politicians are barred from communion or not. You think either Biden or Pelosi would really care if the Church as a whole denied them communion? They wouldn't change their minds on a thing, and it wouldn't effect their constituency at all.

It's a complicated issue, because pro-choice and pro-abortion are not inherently the same. A public servant has an obligation to not visit their faith unduly on the population, their resoonsbility is to uphold the Constitution of the The United States. The US is not a Christian nation, it is a liberal one. The laws that govern it are not predicated in subservience to God, but individual liberty and self determination. I know the Church's teachings and I respect it. But there are more epistemologies at work when it comes to governing. It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of law.

And that fig leaf went out the window with the Dobbs decision.
These politicians aren't grudgingly allowing abortions to take place. They're actively celebrating them and fighting tooth and nail to have abortion declared a right.

[Prima Scriptura]

It's a complicated issue, because pro-choice and pro-abortion are not inherently the same. A public servant has an obligation to not visit their faith unduly on the population, their resoonsbility is to uphold the Constitution of the The United States. The US is not a Christian nation, it is a liberal one. The laws that govern it are not predicated in subservience to God, but individual liberty and self determination. I know the Church's teachings and I respect it. But there are more epistemologies at work when it comes to governing. It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of law.

And that fig leaf went out the window with the Dobbs decision.
These politicians aren't grudgingly allowing abortions to take place. They're actively celebrating them and fighting tooth and nail to have abortion declared a right.

I find it extremely disturbing that pro abortion folks can’t come to answer the question if they support killing a baby born after a failed abortion.

[Tarsonis]

It's a complicated issue, because pro-choice and pro-abortion are not inherently the same. A public servant has an obligation to not visit their faith unduly on the population, their resoonsbility is to uphold the Constitution of the The United States. The US is not a Christian nation, it is a liberal one. The laws that govern it are not predicated in subservience to God, but individual liberty and self determination. I know the Church's teachings and I respect it. But there are more epistemologies at work when it comes to governing. It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of law.

The sanctity of the Eucharist is more important than the constitution. That thing that has enabled a shitload of evil in history and continues to do so is going to be dust someday, the soul goes on. If a politician is forced in the position between remaining in power and committing themselves to evil, then they should resign for the sake of their own soul.

But regardless, I think it's obvious that Pelosi and Biden see abortion access as a moral good.

I can't speak to the mind of Pelosi and Biden. The point is, upholding abortion as a right doesn't necessarily put the soul in mortal peril. One can acknowledge abortion as immoral and while also acknowledging the right to it.

[Diopolis]

And that fig leaf went out the window with the Dobbs decision.
These politicians aren't grudgingly allowing abortions to take place. They're actively celebrating them and fighting tooth and nail to have abortion declared a right.

I find it extremely disturbing that pro abortion folks can’t come to answer the question if they support killing a baby born after a failed abortion.

Their legislation answers the question for you in many cases- they support the right to kill a baby born alive after a previous attempt at an abortion.

The sanctity of the Eucharist is more important than the constitution. That thing that has enabled a shitload of evil in history and continues to do so is going to be dust someday, the soul goes on. If a politician is forced in the position between remaining in power and committing themselves to evil, then they should resign for the sake of their own soul.

But regardless, I think it's obvious that Pelosi and Biden see abortion access as a moral good.

I can't speak to the mind of Pelosi and Biden. The point is, upholding abortion as a right doesn't necessarily put the soul in mortal peril. One can acknowledge abortion as immoral and while also acknowledging the right to it.

Do you say the same about the infanticide bills progressive back benchers from safe seats occasionally file?

[Salus Maior]

The sanctity of the Eucharist is more important than the constitution. That thing that has enabled a shitload of evil in history and continues to do so is going to be dust someday, the soul goes on. If a politician is forced in the position between remaining in power and committing themselves to evil, then they should resign for the sake of their own soul.

But regardless, I think it's obvious that Pelosi and Biden see abortion access as a moral good.

I can't speak to the mind of Pelosi and Biden. The point is, upholding abortion as a right doesn't necessarily put the soul in mortal peril. One can acknowledge abortion as immoral and while also acknowledging the right to it.

People don't have a right to do evil. That certainly doesn't matter to God, what does God care about rights made up by a bunch of old white men in the 18th century? And off of a theory that's based on falsehoods?

[Tarsonis]

I can't speak to the mind of Pelosi and Biden. The point is, upholding abortion as a right doesn't necessarily put the soul in mortal peril. One can acknowledge abortion as immoral and while also acknowledging the right to it.

People don't have a right to do evil. That certainly doesn't matter to God, what does God care about rights made up by a bunch of old white men in the 18th century? And off of a theory that's based on falsehoods?

Once again, theocracy is bad.

[Salus Maior]

People don't have a right to do evil. That certainly doesn't matter to God, what does God care about rights made up by a bunch of old white men in the 18th century? And off of a theory that's based on falsehoods?

Once again, theocracy is bad.

It's not theocracy to deny people in mortal sin communion. It's literally pastoral care.

[Diopolis]

I can't speak to the mind of Pelosi and Biden. The point is, upholding abortion as a right doesn't necessarily put the soul in mortal peril. One can acknowledge abortion as immoral and while also acknowledging the right to it.

People don't have a right to do evil. That certainly doesn't matter to God, what does God care about rights made up by a bunch of old white men in the 18th century? And off of a theory that's based on falsehoods?

That is, of course, completely academic since Dobbs. Under the US constitution there is no right to abortion, although certain state laws do have rights to abortion.

[Tarsonis]

Once again, theocracy is bad.

It's not theocracy to deny people in mortal sin communion. It's literally pastoral care.

Being pro-choice doesn't inherently put people in mortal sin. We can go round and round all you want, but we keep coming back to you wanting the state to enforce God's law.

[Salus Maior]

People don't have a right to do evil. That certainly doesn't matter to God, what does God care about rights made up by a bunch of old white men in the 18th century? And off of a theory that's based on falsehoods?

That is, of course, completely academic since Dobbs. Under the US constitution there is no right to abortion, although certain state laws do have rights to abortion.

My point is that the Constitution, whether it supports abortion access or not, does not carry eternal significance or divine inspiration and thus does not matter an inkling to God or to access to communion.

[Diopolis]

That is, of course, completely academic since Dobbs. Under the US constitution there is no right to abortion, although certain state laws do have rights to abortion.

My point is that the Constitution, whether it supports abortion access or not, does not carry eternal significance or divine inspiration and thus does not matter an inkling to God or to access to communion.

Well sure, but the moral dilemma you're arguing about- are catholic politicians obligated to go against their national laws to attempt to ban abortion- does not apply to Biden and Pelosi.

It's not theocracy to deny people in mortal sin communion. It's literally pastoral care.

Being pro-choice doesn't inherently put people in mortal sin. We can go round and round all you want, but we keep coming back to you wanting the state to enforce God's law.

Do you believe the same about supporting the right to commit infanticide? There is no moral difference. One is simply easier to contemplate.

[Tarsonis]

That is, of course, completely academic since Dobbs. Under the US constitution there is no right to abortion, although certain state laws do have rights to abortion.

My point is that the Constitution, whether it supports abortion access or not, does not carry eternal significance or divine inspiration and thus does not matter an inkling to God or to access to communion.

No your point is that Catholic representatives should be coerced into violating their oath of office by being denied the Eucharist.

[Salus Maior]

It's not theocracy to deny people in mortal sin communion. It's literally pastoral care.

Being pro-choice doesn't inherently put people in mortal sin. We can go round and round all you want, but we keep coming back to you wanting the state to enforce God's law.

Being pro-choice and enforcing pro-choice policy kills unborn children, it enables it and it endorses the idea that the unborn are not worthy lives worth protecting. Whether grudgingly done or not.

And last I checked I was talking about access to communion rather than what the state should be.