“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.
The Pope should just excommunicate the couchfucker.
The heretical couchfucker.
On second thought, that might make him sound more metal. Maybe just couchfucker is enough.
Not justifying mr couch fucker, but I will point out: modern Catholic doctrine does not actually say the Pope is infallible. Rather, it is that he is infallible when speaking “ex cathedra”, literally “from the chair”, which is also like… weird with different peoples’ opinions on what is ex cathedra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
on the other hand, Vance’s “catholicism” doesn’t even match the fucking Bible, so, yknow.
Well, let’s be real… Catholicism doesn’t match the Bible, either.
It’s a ridiculous book full of contradictions, so par for the course.
He can disagree with the pope but not disagree with the catechism and still consider himself catholic, and the pope is only restating the “Safeguarding Peace” chapter.
Yeah, pretty much. What, you expected consistency from the religious sect that has consistently had issues with child sexual abuse?
I hate to break it to you about other religions, too…
Obviously the Catholic Church has a systemic problem, and given that it’s one of the largest religions on earth (and their molester shuffling), it’s more universal than in a lot of religions, and I’m not defending them. They’re only unique in scale though.
Which other religions are you referring to? Naturally you would identify them by name.
If you’d like. Mormons, different kinds of Protestant, Jehovas Witnesses, Amish, Hasidic Jews, Muslims, and so many cults off the top of my head (not the links, obviously, but I just wrote out all of the religions associated with pedophilia I remembered from the past few years and went looking for stories). I suspect if I lived around more other religions, I’d be able to remember different ones and you can probably find cases for most religions (I just went looking for an exception, but even Unitarians are not immune).
I mean, yeah. They’re just the most famous about it.
It’s weird, full stop. Everyone is human, anyone can be wrong.
It isn’t. That’s only when the Pope is speaking “ex cathedra” meaning “from the chair” which Pius IX defined as
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?
If you have people frequently referring you to Dunning Kruger you may want to rethink things a bit.
I render my former answer. You don’t care to learn, I don’t care to teach.
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?