Do we really expect Pope Francis to monitor every news site/outlet and what is said about him and issue corrections? Should the Vatican have corrected Taylor Marshall's video? While that would be nice in many ways it's not really practical.
That's not reassuring. But we know that the Lavender Mafia have the clout.I have to say the best most benefit of the doubt statement I could come up with is that he did not mean for it to come across the way he did with the editing. But lacks the will to push a statement out from the Vatican because of the lavender Mafia
And in that case even the most generous benefit of the doubt I can give right now might be one of the worst possibilities.
people are going along with it because they agree with him or are gay themselves. Sorry late to the discussionWhy are people going along with it? I walked out. I follow the lord not the head of a church. Some other thread just started on this and from what I read if the pope says it's OK then it must be. I have to say from the outside looking in the pope scares me. No disrespect but I have to be honest.
No, just because the pope has an opinion doesn't make his opinion right or anything I have to conform to. Infallibility is a very limited thing, and this is in no way one of those things.Why are people going along with it? I walked out. I follow the lord not the head of a church. Some other thread just started on this and from what I read if the pope says it's OK then it must be. I have to say from the outside looking in the pope scares me. No disrespect but I have to be honest.
Join the club.I'm confused.
Sort of. He isn't able to teach lies as part of the faith. He is able to have wrong opinions. He is able to sin. Dante was quite sure there were popes in hell.Isn't the integrity of the faith of the bishop of Rome guaranteed by Jesus' prayer about Peter that his "faith not fail"?
That's a limited infallibility. Doesn't cover every utterance a pope ever makes. Doesn't cover documentaries. And it's a negative thing. It only protects the teaching office of the Church from errors in faith and morals. It doesn't mean every garden variety opinion is correct. It doesn't mean a particular pope is saved, just that there are limited times he is protected from saying something wrong. Which is why he has said nothing about the dubia. He is being prevented from answering that wrongly.I thought I had read that in the documents of Vatican 1.
No problem. As serious as this mistake of pope Francis is, I don't think it actually runs afoul of infallibility. Not even close IMHO.(Not wanting to debate here, just wondering how other people see this.)
And I understand your view. I agree he should have come out already and clarified this. That's not something he ever does and that at a point becomes indefensible because of the scandal that causes the faithful. And at a point you have to say well if you're not coming out to clarify it it's because don't want to handle hard questions you just want people to interpret things their own way on each side.
That's not what a Pope should do.
THAT is the scariest possibility, far worse than bumbling or clueless or even being manipulated.Do you ever consider that he doesn't want to clarify his comments and that we are not his intended audience? The Pope is an educated person and media savvy. He knows exactly what he is saying and always gives himself the cover of ambiguity.
Do you ever consider that he doesn't want to clarify his comments and that we are not his intended audience? The Pope is an educated person and media savvy. He knows exactly what he is saying and always gives himself the cover of ambiguity.
In this case his comments were evidently pretty clear, they just got edited. From National Catholic Reporter of all places:Do you ever consider that he doesn't want to clarify his comments and that we are not his intended audience? The Pope is an educated person and media savvy. He knows exactly what he is saying and always gives himself the cover of ambiguity.
Then I would reject the legitimacy of those news outlets. If National Catholic Reporter cares enough to do the research and report it was a deliberate deception and they don't, how legitimate are they? Nobody fact checked the source before they reported, which is not a surprise.I don't think it's fair to compare a Taylor Marshall one-off to this story. Basically every news outlet has reported on this story. If I reject this story then I have rejected the legitimacy of NBC, AP, CNA, BBC, and literally every other news outlet that exists!
No, it's not practical for the Vatican to issue clarifications every time a blogger misrepresents them. At the same time it is utterly insane for the Vatican not to issue a clarification when every news outlet in the world is publishing a story about what was allegedly said. A growing number of bishops have also either made or asked for clarifications with regard to the statement.
I'm confused.
Isn't the integrity of the faith of the bishop of Rome guaranteed by Jesus' prayer about Peter that his "faith not fail"?
I thought I had read that in the documents of Vatican 1.
(Not wanting to debate here, just wondering how other people see this.)
Regarding the "civil union," that does appear to be a mistranslation, whether intentional or not, who knows.
It seems not:
Argentine archbishop and Pope Francis advisor says 'civil union' not mistranslated in documentary
I don't find any of the confusion confusing. Pretty much everyone agrees that the promotion of same-sex civil unions is implicit support for homosexual acts. The liberals cheered and the conservatives booed, but they all shared that premise, and who can blame them? Hopefully Francis doesn't share the premise, but the position still strikes me as poor judgment on all sorts of levels.
Satan tricked Adam and Eve via sly and devious ways - much how the Vatican is run today.
The Evil one doesn't come out and say - "Hey do this, it will feel good for a bit, and then horrible for eternity."
All back to JPII kissing the Koran, and further, a long string of things that would have gotten popes thrown out of the early church, no longer do because of the supreme, centralized power.
Does anyone think Athanasius (if he were here) would have allowed JPII to kiss the Koran and just let it go????? NO WAY! The church of today is not in continuity of the church of the first 1,000 years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?