The American Conservative Goes All-Out Crazy in Its Denunciation of Judge Napolitano

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

Article here (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/would-someone-just-shut-that-pope-up/?utm_source=feedly).

http://media2.wptv.com//photo/2013/12/02/WPTV-Pope-Francis-Rush-Limbaugh_20131202134927_320_240.JPG


Since the release of Evangelii Gaudium, there have been countless articles and commentary about the economic portions of Pope Francis's Apostolic Exhortation. Some of the commentary has been downright bizarre, such as Rush Limbaugh denouncing the Pope as a Marxist, or Stuart Varney accusing Francis of being a neo-socialist. American conservatives grumbled but dutifully denounced a distorting media when Pope Francis seemed to go wobbly on homosexuality, but his criticisms of capitalism have crossed the line, and we now see the Pope being criticized and even denounced from nearly every rightward-leaning media pulpit in the land.

Not far below the surface of many of these critiques one hears the following refrain: why can't the Pope just go back to talking about abortion? Why can't we return the good old days of Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI and talk 24/7/365 about sex? Why doesn't Francis have the decency to limit himself to talking about Jesus and gays, while avoiding the rudeness of discussing economics in mixed company, an issue about which he has no expertise or competence?

On the brash side there is Larry Kudlow, who nearly hyperventilates when it comes to his disagreement with Pope Francis, accusing him of harboring sympathies with Communist Russia and not sufficiently appreciating Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. Revealingly, Kudlow counsels the Pope to concentrate on "moral and religious reform," and that he should "harp" instead on "morality, spiritualism and religiosity," while ceasing to speak about matters economic. Similarly, Judge Napolitano, responding to a challenge from Stuart Varney on why the Pope is talking about economics, responded: "I wish he would stick to faith and morals, on which he is very sound and traditional."

These commentators all but come and out say: we embrace Catholic teaching when it concerns itself with "faith and morals" - when it denounces abortion, opposes gay marriage, and urges personal charity. This is the Catholicism that has been acceptable in polite conversation. This is a stripped-down Catholicism that doesn’t challenge fundamental articles of economic faith.

It is precisely this portion of Catholicism that is acceptable to those who control the right narrative because it doesn't truly endanger what's most important to those who steer the Republic: maintaining an economic system premised upon limitless extraction, fostering of endless desires, and creating a widening gap between winners and losers that is papered over by mantras about favoring equality of opportunity. A massive funding apparatus supports conservative Catholic causes supporting a host of causes - so long as they focus exclusively on issues touching on human sexuality, whether abortion, gay marriage, or religious liberty (which, to be frank, is intimately bound up in its current form with concerns about abortion).

Francis - like John Paul II and Pope Benedict before him - has upset the "arrangement." Rush and the gang are not about to go down without a fight. If only they could get that damn Marxist to talk about sex.

[angelatc]

This title is pretty deceptive. There is only one line, and it's almost a throwaway that mentions Napolitano:
Similarly, Judge Napolitano, responding to a challenge from Stuart Varney on why the Pope is talking about economics, responded: “I wish he would stick to faith and morals, on which he is very sound and traditional.”

This is an article that reminds all of us that Catholics are by and large Democrats.

[heavenlyboy34]

This title is pretty deceptive. There is only one line, and it's almost a throwaway that mentions Napolitano:

This is an article that reminds all of us that Catholics are by and large Democrats.
eduardo will haz teh sad if that's true...

[angelatc]

I'll make him some cookies.

Too bad you gave up the sugarz...

[Ronin Truth]

I always have trouble trying to square Catholics with the abortion party.:confused: Strange bedfellows I guess.

[Ronin Truth]

This title is pretty deceptive. There is only one line, and it's almost a throwaway that mentions Napolitano:

This is an article that reminds all of us that Catholics are by and large Democrats.

Preaching Marxism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/andrew-p-napolitano/preaching-marxism/)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/andrew-p-napolitano/preaching-marxism/
Andrew Napolitano on the Pope’s unfortunate economics.

[Cutlerzzz]

Catholics aren't democrat. They are 50/50. Among white Catholics 60% voted Romney.

[Acala]

Catholics aren't democrat. They are 50/50. Among white Catholics 60% voted Romney.

Wasn't Romney a democrat? I'm confused . . .

[Brett85]

"The American Conservative" is anything but conservative. I like their non interventionist stance on foreign policy issues, but they don't take or advocate a conservative point of view on any other issue.

[Christian Liberty]

The fact that theft apparently isn't an issue of "faith and morals" is yet more proof the RCC is not the "One True Church."

Mind you, my church doesn't get this right either, so I'm not saying that this absolutely discredits them as a "legitimate" church (I discount them as such for other reasons.) But the fact of the matter is, this is proof that they are not infallible. This was a blatant mistake right there. As smart as he is, I'm somewhat surprised that Judge Napolitano hasn't thought about this. Or maybe he has.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll make him some cookies.

Too bad you gave up the sugarz...
I still haz sugarz...just in moderation, at the right times, and in conjunction with lots of dietary fiber. :D (I am love dark chocolate!...Fruitcake is nom nom :):toady:)

[heavenlyboy34]

The fact that theft apparently isn't an issue of "faith and morals" is yet more proof the RCC is not the "One True Church."

Mind you, my church doesn't get this right either, so I'm not saying that this absolutely discredits them as a "legitimate" church (I discount them as such for other reasons.) But the fact of the matter is, this is proof that they are not infallible. This was a blatant mistake right there. As smart as he is, I'm somewhat surprised that Judge Napolitano hasn't thought about this. Or maybe he has.
Does teh judge believe in papal infallibility? If so, you're right-that is a blatant mistake, and in the general vicinity of heresy. It's one of the reasons for the East/West schism.

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

"The American Conservative" is anything but conservative. I like their non interventionist stance on foreign policy issues, but they don't take or advocate a conservative point of view on any other issue.

I absolutely agree with you. There's some very brilliant and scholarly writers there (in particular, "Tory Anarchist" Daniel McCarthy), but the position they took on the Cruz-Lee-Paul defunding strategy of ObamaCare was extremely disappointing. If it provides any consolation, libertarian doctrinaire Tom Woods is still a contributing editor, and Pat Buchanan - the very founder of this publication - deviates from much of what is published there. Here he is on the principled ObamaCare showdown in the Senate:


Ted Cruz may have, as Richard Nixon used to say, "broken his pick" in the Republican caucus. Yet, on Obamacare, his analysis is right, his instincts are right, and his disposition to fight is right.

These are more important matters than the news that he is out of the running for the Mr. Congeniality award on Capitol Hill.

[Christian Liberty]

Does teh judge believe in papal infallibility? If so, you're right-that is a blatant mistake, and in the general vicinity of heresy. It's one of the reasons for the East/West schism.

I don't know. For the record, I wasn't trying to bring up the sola fide (The doctrine) debate again, we have plenty of threads we can do that, at this point.

But to me this is a very clear mistake on the part of the Catholic Church. I know they don't think the Pope is always infallible, but they think he can be on issues of "faith and morals." Yet, conveniently, they say taxes aren't a moral issue. The Bible, however, makes no exceptions to its "Thou shall not steal" command.

Now, this isn't a salvation issue either, so I'm not saying a true church (small c) couldn't get this wrong. I don't think a single person in my church agrees with me on this... I might have half-agreement from a few people, but I don't think a single person completely agrees with me on it. I still view it as a true church, albeit flawed. But my church doesn't claim to be the one true church, or infallible in any circumstance. Hence the difference.

Does the EO church condemn ALL theft, including taxation?

[Christian Liberty]

Does teh judge believe in papal infallibility? If so, you're right-that is a blatant mistake, and in the general vicinity of heresy. It's one of the reasons for the East/West schism.

Oh, and to be clear, I admire Judge Napolitano alot. He's right up there with Ron Paul as one of the best. I think gay marriage is the only political issue I disagree with him on, and that's such a small issue it hardly registers for me. I just don't understand how, as someone who comes out so strongly against taxation as being theft, he somehow thinks the pope's statements are not statements regarding "faith and morals." That just doesn't make any sense to me.

[eduardo89]

The fact that theft apparently isn't an issue of "faith and morals" is yet more proof the RCC is not the "One True Church."

Mind you, my church doesn't get this right either, so I'm not saying that this absolutely discredits them as a "legitimate" church (I discount them as such for other reasons.) But the fact of the matter is, this is proof that they are not infallible. This was a blatant mistake right there. As smart as he is, I'm somewhat surprised that Judge Napolitano hasn't thought about this. Or maybe he has.


What does a personal statement by the Pope have to do with the infallibility of the Church when it comes to the Faith?


Oh, and to be clear, I admire Judge Napolitano alot. He's right up there with Ron Paul as one of the best. I think gay marriage is the only political issue I disagree with him on, and that's such a small issue it hardly registers for me. I just don't understand how, as someone who comes out so strongly against taxation as being theft, he somehow thinks the pope's statements are not statements regarding "faith and morals." That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Perhaps because the Pope said nothing about taxation? Or because the Pope didn't actually denounce capitalism, but instead was talking about consumerism and corruption?

[FrankRep]

This is an article that reminds all of us that Catholics are by and large Democrats.

I know plenty of Catholics who disagree with the Pope.

[eduardo89]

I know plenty of Catholics who disagree with the Pope.

That's because Catholics are free to disagree with the Pope (and any other bishop) on matters which are not de fide.

[Ronin Truth]

Preaching Marxism (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=6375bb7255d0a8966f3450241859c97d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulforums.com%2Fshowthrea d.php%3F434878-The-American-Conservative-Goes-All-Out-Crazy-in-Its-Denunciation-of-Judge-Napolitano%26p%3D5331100%23post5331100&v=1&libId=7baaf247-d283-43bb-917b-f136b4721f2c&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2F2013%2F12%2 Fandrew-p-napolitano%2Fpreaching-marxism%2F&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulforums.com%2Fsearch.ph p%3Fsearchid%3D10428081&title=The%20American%20Conservative%20Goes%20All-Out%20Crazy%20in%20Its%20Denunciation%20of%20Judge %20Napolitano&txt=Preaching%20Marxism&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13862665484468)

[Brett85]

I absolutely agree with you. There's some very brilliant and scholarly writers there (in particular, "Tory Anarchist" Daniel McCarthy), but the position they took on the Cruz-Lee-Paul defunding strategy of ObamaCare was extremely disappointing. If it provides any consolation, libertarian doctrinaire Tom Woods is still a contributing editor, and Pat Buchanan - the very founder of this publication - deviates from much of what is published there. Here he is on the principled ObamaCare showdown in the Senate:

Why would a website called "The American Conservative" have a socialist columnist who advocates socialist/big government principles in his editorials? That just seems completely ridiculous. I wish there were an actual paleo-conservative group on the internet.

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

I know plenty of Catholics who disagree with the Pope.

Judge Napolitano, Adam Shaw, and Reverend Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute are most certainly among them.

[Christian Liberty]

Why would a website called "The American Conservative" have a socialist columnist who advocates socialist/big government principles in his editorials? That just seems completely ridiculous. I wish there were an actual paleo-conservative group on the internet.

LewRockwell.com has some paleocons, although I think most of the people who post there are market anarchists. There's also, of course, tons of stuff by Ron Paul, who is libertarian but not anarchist.


What does a personal statement by the Pope have to do with the infallibility of the Church when it comes to the Faith?



It doesn't. The thing is though, the Catholic Church doesn't say that he's wrong. The Catholic Church, to my understanding, holds that taxation is legitimate. Am I wrong about this point? Does the Catholic Church condemn taxation?

And how is taxation NOT a moral issue?


Perhaps because the Pope said nothing about taxation? Or because the Pope didn't actually denounce capitalism, but instead was talking about consumerism and corruption?

I don't think Judge Napolitano has anything against the Catholic Church, being Catholic. I'd tend to trust him on these lines.

[Brett85]

They already deleted my first comment. We'll see if they delete my second comment. This group is just a joke. This group is just going to make anyone who supports a non interventionist foreign policy look like a liberal/progressive.

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

They already deleted my first comment. We'll see if they delete my second comment. This group is just a joke. This group is just going to make anyone who supports a non interventionist foreign policy look like a liberal/progressive.

Seriously? If that's the case, I think I'm officially done with The American Conservative. If you're looking for a reliable paleoconservative website that also publishes the likes of Pat Buchanan, I would suggest VDARE (http://www.vdare.com/). Lew Rockwell's publication is also pretty solid, though they're sometimes too capricious even for my tastes (in the sense of alliances, not necessarily the substance of their arguments). I really like the Ron Paul Institute and TomWoods.com, as well. Oh, and don't forget Chronicles (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/). They're awesome!

[Christian Liberty]

LRC has a lot of different contributers. I'll never agree with everybody on everything, but I agree with most of what I read there.

[Brett85]

Seriously? If that's the case, I think I'm officially done with The American Conservative. If you're looking for a reliable paleoconservative website that also publishes the likes of Pat Buchanan, I would suggest VDARE (http://www.vdare.com/). Lew Rockwell's publication is also pretty solid, though they're sometimes too capricious even for my tastes (in the sense of alliances, not necessarily the substance of their arguments). I really like the Ron Paul Institute and TomWoods.com, as well. Oh, and don't forget Chronicles (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/). They're awesome!

Groups like Cato and Reason get criticized a lot by people here, but even on those sites you would never read an article like this.

[heavenlyboy34]

The fact that theft apparently isn't an issue of "faith and morals" is yet more proof the RCC is not the "One True Church."

Mind you, my church doesn't get this right either, so I'm not saying that this absolutely discredits them as a "legitimate" church (I discount them as such for other reasons.) But the fact of the matter is, this is proof that they are not infallible. This was a blatant mistake right there. As smart as he is, I'm somewhat surprised that Judge Napolitano hasn't thought about this. Or maybe he has.
Although Catholics believe in Papal Infallibility (incorrectly, IMO), I'm not sure that poor judgement by a particular pope makes or breaks the Church. It certainly doesn't invalidate the RCC as a True Faith.

As eduardo pointed out (I just noticed), the pope was talking about fascism, corporatism, and variants of these when he said "unfettered capitalism". He was absolutely correct, too. RP and most libertarians oppose this sort of "unfettered capitalism". Remember, laissez-faire is not libertinism.

[angelatc]

I still haz sugarz...just in moderation, at the right times, and in conjunction with lots of dietary fiber. :D (I am love dark chocolate!...Fruitcake is nom nom :):toady:)


OMG - someone else who likes fruitcake? And not the kind that comes in a can from the department store, either....

[angelatc]

Groups like Cato and Reason get criticized a lot by people here, but even on those sites you would never read an article like this.


No but there we get to read what a nutter than Ron Paul is.

[Ender]

Although Catholics believe in Papal Infallibility (incorrectly, IMO), I'm not sure that poor judgement by a particular pope makes or breaks the Church. It certainly doesn't invalidate the RCC as a True Faith.

As eduardo pointed out (I just noticed), the pope was talking about fascism, corporatism, and variants of these when he said "unfettered capitalism". He was absolutely correct, too. RP and most libertarians oppose this sort of "unfettered capitalism". Remember, laissez-faire is not libertinism.


Exactly.

Also- most leaders of various churches believe in an altruistic state where we actually live the 2 Great Commandments:

Love God with all your might, mind and strength; Love your brother as yourself.

Many "conservatives" like to translate this to marxism/communism/whateverism- but it is none of these. It is a call to live on a higher plain and to do good all of one's days.

[Brett85]

Really, I didn't realize how bad this website was until today. This is an actual comment on this article, a comment that someone wrote on a "conservative" website.

"Thank You Very Much Patrick Deneen!

What American Catholics are suffering from, in their rejection of the Church’s social teaching on the evil of rabid capitalism, is a disease inflicted upon them by the late William F. Buckley when he and National Review rejected Pope John XXIII’s encyclical Mater et Magistra. Six years before “dissent” became a disease of the left with the rejection of Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, Buckley institutionalized dissent among so-called “conservative Catholics” who followed Buckley into believing that the Pope has no business talking about economic matters.

Buckley, the old CIA operative, knew what he was doing when he divided Catholics in this country: divide and conquer. His legacy is as enduring as it is shameful. When there really was a “Catholic moment” in this country, he derailed it."

[heavenlyboy34]

OMG - someone else who likes fruitcake? And not the kind that comes in a can from the department store, either....
Yay, fruitcake! :D I suspect that people who say they don't like it have only tried badly made cakes. :P

[Brett85]

I've posted articles from "The American Conservative" on my Facebook page in the past, but I won't be doing that again in the future. This group engages in false advertising.

[Ronin Truth]

Yay, fruitcake! :D I suspect that people who say they don't like it have only tried badly made cakes. :P


My family trades the same canned fruit cake back and forth for Christmas for decades. It is so well preserved it will last forever.:p

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

Really, I didn't realize how bad this website was until today. This is an actual comment on this article, a comment that someone wrote on a "conservative" website.

"Thank You Very Much Patrick Deneen!

What American Catholics are suffering from, in their rejection of the Church’s social teaching on the evil of rabid capitalism..."

I'm not usually a vulgar person but.. what the flying fuck.

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

Sorry for the duplicate. >.<

[Lucille]

Although Catholics believe in Papal Infallibility (incorrectly, IMO), I'm not sure that poor judgement by a particular pope makes or breaks the Church. It certainly doesn't invalidate the RCC as a True Faith.

As eduardo pointed out (I just noticed), the pope was talking about fascism, corporatism, and variants of these when he said "unfettered capitalism". He was absolutely correct, too. RP and most libertarians oppose this sort of "unfettered capitalism". Remember, laissez-faire is not libertinism.

Then he should have said fascism or corporatism or even crony capitalism rather than "unfettered capitalism," because they are not the same thing.

AmConMag is going to hell. They certainly have more prog commenters than conservatives. They refused to put one of my posts up last week, probably because I use proper terminology (fascism), unlike Pope Frank.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't know. For the record, I wasn't trying to bring up the sola fide (The doctrine) debate again, we have plenty of threads we can do that, at this point.

But to me this is a very clear mistake on the part of the Catholic Church. I know they don't think the Pope is always infallible, but they think he can be on issues of "faith and morals." Yet, conveniently, they say taxes aren't a moral issue. The Bible, however, makes no exceptions to its "Thou shall not steal" command.

Now, this isn't a salvation issue either, so I'm not saying a true church (small c) couldn't get this wrong. I don't think a single person in my church agrees with me on this... I might have half-agreement from a few people, but I don't think a single person completely agrees with me on it. I still view it as a true church, albeit flawed. But my church doesn't claim to be the one true church, or infallible in any circumstance. Hence the difference.

Does the EO church condemn ALL theft, including taxation?
The Eastern Church condemns all theft. WRT taxation, we only accept this insofar as it serves ti glorify God-in practice, this is never (priests don't like to talk about politics in my experience, so I have to refer to Orthodox reference books on this).

In Matthew 9, Jesus calls tax collectors sinners who need to repent, which Orthdox agree with. I consider this a condemnation of taxation as theft (and the footnotes in my bible seem to verify this), but I have to dig up some more articles/essays for you. Gtg for now, but I'll get back to this later.

[heavenlyboy34]

Then he should have said fascism or corporatism or even crony capitalism rather than "unfettered capitalism," because they are not the same thing.

AmConMag is going to hell. They certainly have more prog commenters than conservatives. They refused to put one of my posts up last week, probably because I use proper terminology (fascism), unlike Pope Frank.
I agree, but I don't think the pope specializes in modern economic and political theory. /shrugs

[angelatc]

Really, I didn't realize how bad this website was until today. This is an actual comment on this article, a comment that someone wrote on a "conservative" website.

"Thank You Very Much Patrick Deneen!

What American Catholics are suffering from, in their rejection of the Church’s social teaching on the evil of rabid capitalism, is a disease inflicted upon them by the late William F. Buckley when he and National Review rejected Pope John XXIII’s encyclical Mater et Magistra. Six years before “dissent” became a disease of the left with the rejection of Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, Buckley institutionalized dissent among so-called “conservative Catholics” who followed Buckley into believing that the Pope has no business talking about economic matters.

Buckley, the old CIA operative, knew what he was doing when he divided Catholics in this country: divide and conquer. His legacy is as enduring as it is shameful. When there really was a “Catholic moment” in this country, he derailed it."


They have a large number of liberals who post in their comment section. I wouldn't let the comments get to you too much if you can help it.

[Christian Liberty]

The Eastern Church condemns all theft. WRT taxation, we only accept this insofar as it serves ti glorify God-in practice, this is never (priests don't like to talk about politics in my experience, so I have to refer to Orthodox reference books on this).

I don't understand the point of making a statement like this. If you only accept taxation when it glorifies God, and taxation never glorifies God, why not simply say taxation is always wrong?

That said, I actually don't agree with this. God is glorified even by evil. Romans 9:17 and Isaiah 10:5-19 clearly spell this out. I believe this is ultimately the point of Romans 13:1-7 as well, when taken in the context of the entire New Testament, and Jesus' teachings. However, I think its undeniable that taxation is evil.


In Matthew 9, Jesus calls tax collectors sinners who need to repent, which Orthdox agree with. I consider this a condemnation of taxation as theft (and the footnotes in my bible seem to verify this), but I have to dig up some more articles/essays for you. Gtg for now, but I'll get back to this later.

My study Bible is blatantly wrong about this, IMHO (Lest I be misunderstood, I'm talking about the commentary notes, not the Bible itself). Among other things, my study Bible uses the fact that John the Baptist didn't explicitly tell the tax collectors to quit. But, first of all, John the Baptist is not an infallible source per se (I agree with your interpretation on Matthew 9), and second of all, John seems to imply that the profession isn't really morally acceptable.


Although Catholics believe in Papal Infallibility (incorrectly, IMO), I'm not sure that poor judgement by a particular pope makes or breaks the Church. It certainly doesn't invalidate the RCC as a True Faith.


"a true faith" or "The True Faith"? There's a difference. I believe my Baptist church is a true church, despite not being perfect, because it does not err on the gospel. Despite disagreeing with paedobaptism, I would also consider a Presbyterian church that practiced it to be a true church as long as the gospel they preached was the same gospel I believe. Aside from gospel issues, the fact that the Catholic church is wrong on this issue would not, in and of itself, discount it from being a true church.

However, the Roman Catholic Church claims infallibility for itself, and that it is THE True Church. That claim, I believe, can be disproven by finding ANY errors in their theology, including a refusal to condemn theft.

Of course, you could argue that the RCC is correct on this matter, and that I am wrong, but that's a separate issue entirely. And I think you agree with me on the tax=theft issue anyway. I'm not sure eduardo does.

As eduardo pointed out (I just noticed), the pope was talking about fascism, corporatism, and variants of these when he said "unfettered capitalism". He was absolutely correct, too. RP and most libertarians oppose this sort of "unfettered capitalism". Remember, laissez-faire is not libertinism

At the very least, this makes him an idiot who needs to learn what words mean (I probably wouldn't be this harsh if we were talking about some random joe on the street, but considering he claims to have some authority I think this respone is warranted.) That said, I think Napolitano read what he said, and thus I trust his interpretation. I'll have to take a first hand look.

[Danke]

eduardo will haz teh sad if that's true...

Then give him one of your infamous ~hugs~

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't understand the point of making a statement like this. If you only accept taxation when it glorifies God, and taxation never glorifies God, why not simply say taxation is always wrong?[quote]
Unlike Catholics, we do not use Scholastic techniques.

[QUOTE=FreedomFanatic;5331360]That said, I actually don't agree with this. God is glorified even by evil. Romans 9:17 and Isaiah 10:5-19 clearly spell this out. I believe this is ultimately the point of Romans 13:1-7 as well, when taken in the context of the entire New Testament, and Jesus' teachings. However, I think its undeniable that taxation is evil.
God is glorified in all things. This does not justify evil works.



"a true faith" or "The True Faith"? There's a difference. I believe my Baptist church is a true church, despite not being perfect, because it does not err on the gospel. Despite disagreeing with paedobaptism, I would also consider a Presbyterian church that practiced it to be a true church as long as the gospel they preached was the same gospel I believe. Aside from gospel issues, the fact that the Catholic church is wrong on this issue would not, in and of itself, discount it from being a true church.
The True Faith. Your worship community (or small-c church, if you prefer) is an offshoot of the Anabaptist movement. FYI, there were 2 types of Baptists in the beginning-the Particular Baptists (generally Calvinistic) and General Baptists (generally Arminian). There are also "Free Will" Baptists and a few others IDR.
You and I do have some common ground. All the Baptist churches have a common tradition and a common set of doctrines. This is good. However, Baptists reject a lot of important stuff like Sacremental Theology.


However, the Roman Catholic Church claims infallibility for itself, and that it is THE True Church. That claim, I believe, can be disproven by finding ANY errors in their theology, including a refusal to condemn theft.

Of course, you could argue that the RCC is correct on this matter, and that I am wrong, but that's a separate issue entirely. And I think you agree with me on the tax=theft issue anyway. I'm not sure eduardo does.
I don't consider the RCC The True Church. It errs in development of doctrine, relationship of faith and reason, and its understanding of spirituality. It goes beyond beyond being rational into demanding conformity to human reason. In contrast, the OC uses reason as a tool, not the criterion of Truth. (Scholasticism is wrong-headed...but I'm sure eduardo will disagree :P )

At the very least, this makes him an idiot who needs to learn what words mean (I probably wouldn't be this harsh if we were talking about some random joe on the street, but considering he claims to have some authority I think this respone is warranted.) That said, I think Napolitano read what he said, and thus I trust his interpretation. I'll have to take a first hand look.
Yep. The pope needs to adjust his language to something the non-Roman world can understand clearly. His Scholastic approach tends to muddle meanings because it is so idiomatic.

[heavenlyboy34]

Then give him one of your infamous ~hugs~
Will do. :) And my ~hugs~ are famous, not infamous. :P

[Christian Liberty]

Hi, HB. How's it going?

Unlike Catholics, we do not use Scholastic techniques.

Can you explain what you mean here?

God is glorified in all things. This does not justify evil works.



I agree, of course.


The True Faith. Your worship community (or small-c church, if you prefer) is an offshoot of the Anabaptist movement. FYI, there were 2 types of Baptists in the beginning-the Particular Baptists (generally Calvinistic) and General Baptists (generally Arminian). There are also "Free Will" Baptists and a few others IDR.

Yeah, there are different types. My particular church is a conservative baptist church, but I wouldn't really describe myself as "conservative baptist" so much as a Christian who happens to attend a conservative baptist church, and believes in credobaptism.

My church is split between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. My pastor/dad is certainly a five pointer. I don't necessarily care for the term "Calvinist", but I accept all five points as well.


You and I do have some common ground. All the Baptist churches have a common tradition and a common set of doctrines. This is good. However, Baptists reject a lot of important stuff like Sacremental Theology.


I also reject it. I don't believe in sacraments, at least not as the RCC and EO churches define them.

I don't consider the RCC The True Church. It errs in development of doctrine, relationship of faith and reason, and its understanding of spirituality. It goes beyond beyond being rational into demanding conformity to human reason. In contrast, the OC uses reason as a tool, not the criterion of Truth. (Scholasticism is wrong-headed...but I'm sure eduardo will disagree :P )


Not sure what you mean here. The truth can't contradict itself, so it has to be logical. It might not actually seem reasonable to us, however.

As an example, for the rich man to be commanded to sell everything he had and give it to the poor was not illogical, but it didn't seem reasonable to him, because of his worship of his money. For a man to die rather than deny Christ isn't "reasonable" to the world, but there's nothing illogical about it.

On the other hand, the truth can't contradict itself. God can't make a square circle, for example.

Yep. The pope needs to adjust his language to something the non-Roman world can understand clearly. His Scholastic approach tends to muddle meanings because it is so idiomatic.[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt the Pope actually likes free market capitalism or opposes all theft (taxation) on principle. To be fair, most Christians don't either, but most Christians don't claim to be infallible authorities, or the leader of the "One True Church." I expect more out of Pope Francis (And am disappointed) than I would from a random pastor, such as my dad as one example.

[Brett85]

They have a large number of liberals who post in their comment section. I wouldn't let the comments get to you too much if you can help it.

It seems like they have a large number of liberal editorialists as well.

[eduardo89]

As eduardo pointed out (I just noticed), the pope was talking about fascism, corporatism, and variants of these when he said "unfettered capitalism". He was absolutely correct, too. RP and most libertarians oppose this sort of "unfettered capitalism". Remember, laissez-faire is not libertinism.

Then he should have said fascism or corporatism or even crony capitalism rather than "unfettered capitalism," because they are not the same thing.


He never used the phrase 'unfettered capitalism.' In fact, in in the entire Apostolic Exhortation the word capitalism is not used a single time.

[heavenlyboy34]

Can you explain what you mean here?
Scholasticism is complicated, and deliberately so. It's difficult to explain it briefly. Basically, they try to systematize every little detail possible. Augustine, for example, created an extremely complicated doctrine of Grace. More here- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm




I also reject it. I don't believe in sacraments, at least not as the RCC and EO churches define them.
You can reject it if you want, but you lose one of the defining parts of Christian life.


Not sure what you mean here. The truth can't contradict itself, so it has to be logical. It might not actually seem reasonable to us, however.

As an example, for the rich man to be commanded to sell everything he had and give it to the poor was not illogical, but it didn't seem reasonable to him, because of his worship of his money. For a man to die rather than deny Christ isn't "reasonable" to the world, but there's nothing illogical about it.

On the other hand, the truth can't contradict itself. God can't make a square circle, for example.

The laws of reason (especially formal logic) are man-made and abstract-and do not necessarily describe reality. Something can be "logical" and false or "illogical" and true. Although it is illogical technically, the 3 persons/aspects of the Trinity are equally God. This has confounded logicians for centuries.


I seriously doubt the Pope actually likes free market capitalism or opposes all theft (taxation) on principle. To be fair, most Christians don't either, but most Christians don't claim to be infallible authorities, or the leader of the "One True Church." I expect more out of Pope Francis (And am disappointed) than I would from a random pastor, such as my dad as one example.
I too am disappoint. :( A number of Catholic scholars like Dr Woods have written detailed defenses of laissez-faire from the Catholic perspective. Someone should have the Pope call Tom. :D

[Christian Liberty]

Scholasticism is complicated, and deliberately so. It's difficult to explain it briefly. Basically, they try to systematize every little detail possible. Augustine, for example, created an extremely complicated doctrine of Grace. More here- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm

I'll look at it, but even without looking at it, man will never, in all eternity, have a complete understanding of the gospel. However, it only takes a sentence or two to convey the general message. John 3:16 pretty much does it by itself, minus the omission (Which, of course, appears in plenty of other Biblical passages) of WHY we needed God's only begotten Son.

All men have sinned, and deserve punishment, so Christ came to die on the cross and suffered in the place of any who would put their faith and trust in him alone, rather than anything within themselves, for their salvation.

I'm sure you could get it even simpler than that and still convey the message, but that in and of itself isn't complex.






You can reject it if you want, but you lose one of the defining parts of Christian life.


Any BIBLICAL evidence?

The laws of reason (especially formal logic) are man-made and abstract-and do not necessarily describe reality. Something can be "logical" and false or "illogical" and true. Although it is illogical technically, the 3 persons/aspects of the Trinity are equally God. This has confounded logicians for centuries.


I don't think the Trinity is illogical. I don't see it as illogical anymore than the yolk, white, and shell of an egg are all completely egg, and make up only one egg, and yet are distinct. Mind you, that's a simple analogy. My finite mind cannot possibly grasp the complexity of the Trinity. But I think my simple analogy shows that it is NOT illogical to have three things that are completely X and yet make up only one X. So, I fail to see how the Trinity is truly "illogical."

I believe God is logical as well. His logic is higher than our logic, but he's not illogical.


I too am disappoint. :( A number of Catholic scholars like Dr Woods have written detailed defenses of laissez-faire from the Catholic perspective. Someone should have the Pope call Tom. :D

To be clear, I wasn't implying that all Catholics are socialists. I admire Tom Woods and Judge Napolitano, though obviously I don't theologically agree with them. But I feel like the Pope's statements here alone, even on this trivial subject, prevent the Catholic Church from being the "One True Church" for the reasons I've already explained.

[heavenlyboy34]

Any BIBLICAL evidence?
The most obvious, the sacrement of baptism: John 3:5-8
Eucharist: Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29, Luke 22:13-20
I can do this for all the sacrements, but I don't have time. Google it.



I don't think the Trinity is illogical. I don't see it as illogical anymore than the yolk, white, and shell of an egg are all completely egg, and make up only one egg, and yet are distinct. Mind you, that's a simple analogy. My finite mind cannot possibly grasp the complexity of the Trinity. But I think my simple analogy shows that it is NOT illogical to have three things that are completely X and yet make up only one X. So, I fail to see how the Trinity is truly "illogical."
It's logical to you and I, but to the various peoples the apostles preached to, it wasn't. It still isn't to atheists and certain heretical sects.


I believe God is logical as well. His logic is higher than our logic, but he's not illogical.
Correct. :)

[DamianTV]

Article here (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/would-someone-just-shut-that-pope-up/?utm_source=feedly).

http://media2.wptv.com//photo/2013/12/02/WPTV-Pope-Francis-Rush-Limbaugh_20131202134927_320_240.JPG

MSM demonizes anyone who expresses an opinion that, if agreed with, poses a threat to the Status Quo.

[cajuncocoa]

eduardo will haz teh sad if that's true...
it's not.

[dannno]

Fruitcake is nom nom :):toady:)

This is supposedly the best fruitcake recipe ever:

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/free-range-fruitcake-recipe/index.html