The Pope Is A Communist.

[Right Divider]

No its not. Like Right Divider you are clueless about that the Bible says.

Nope... it's you that's clueless.

 

[Idolater]

Human rights are "invented" by God, and the United States is the first nation to enumerate in a Constitution, the liberal ideological principles of the rule of law, the separation of powers, a constitution, and the recognition of universal human rights in law. So while history shows that the American founders were not even Catholics, let alone Catholic (or Orthodox) bishops, nonetheless, because human rights are God-given, America, particularly our liberal democracy as defined by the institutions listed above, which has since spread to the whole developed world, is of God and not of man.

Just to underscore how non-communist the pope is, because he's not suggesting changing Church teaching, here are some excerpts of pertinent /relevant Church teaching:

1901 . . . The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to ... the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

1904 It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the 'rule of law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men.

1907 . . . In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. . . In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

 

[Caino]

When the Pope makes these kinds of statements he's converting the church into a political party. This is true of any religious sect. Either be a minister or a political activist!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Briefly scanning your reply I can see that it is a massive heap of nonsense and gobbledygook so I won't read it in detail nor will I engage in petty bickering.

An appeal to the stone does not a good argument make.

Bottom line: Saying that the pope discarded what God says in favor of his own personal beliefs is a total lie.

Again, when the pope claims
that Christianity has never recognized as "absolute and untouchable the right to private property, and has always emphasized the social function of all its forms," and that "The right of ownership is a secondary natural right deriving from the right that everyone has, born from the universal destination of the created goods," that is, BY DEFINITION, a rejection of God's word, which says "thou shall not steal," which implies that a person has a right to own, and not have taken away by force, his own property.

And the Pope is not a Communist either.

Then he should stop acting like one.

That was definitely a lie. I suppose you will be thread banning me for that, but that is precisely what it is.

You should stop bearing false witness.

As to the content of what the pope said we turn to this:

How about, instead of turning to what the pope said for a standard on how to interpret the Bible, we use the Bible as the standard, to see if the pope is on the right track? A novel idea, no?

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"
ARTICLE 7
"You Shall Not Steal"

I. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION AND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GOODS

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits (Gen 1:26-29). The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race.

No argument here.

And yet...

However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

God gave men the right to own property. That means that if a man owns something, then no individual has the right to take away that property.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind.

No one said it did.

The point is that no one person can own the whole earth. (It belongs to God.)

However, the fruits of one's labor USING the things God has provided for man don't belong to anyone but the one who produced them. That's what it means to own something.

So that, if I build a house of clay and mud, and live in it, my neighbor does not have the right to live there too, unless I let him, and I have every right to kick him out should I decide to.

So that, if I work hard, and save up some money, and buy a high end graphics card for the computer I'm building, you don't have the right to come take it out of my computer and put it in yours and call it yours. That's theft.

So that, if you buy a car, and put gas in it, I do not have the right to take either your car or the gasoline you put in it.

That's the right to private property.

And God even goes further, after the 10 commandments, (for Israel specifically, but as a general rule for others) that specifies that if someone's property is damaged, stolen, destroyed, sold (after stolen), or returned, that those are, in fact, crimes, and the perpetrator should be punished.

The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

Again, this ignores the fact that if I make something, or I buy something that someone else makes, it inherently becomes my property, simply because I earned it. Someone who did NOT earn it, has no right to it.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also,

If a man has the legitimate right to something, then no one has the right to take it by force, nor is he obligated to share it with anyone, nor is he obligated to give it away. Should he choose to, that is up to him, and no one else.

in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."

The problem here is that the pope is asserting that therefore it SHOULD be given away or lent out or shared. This is false. Again, no one but me has the right to my property. This is affirmed by God: "Thou shall not steal."

The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

Yes, but not necessarily to anyone else.

But what he's saying in the video is that the right to own property can be superseded by someone else's need, which would then, logically speaking, obligate the person to give that away, but there is NO SUCH OBLIGATION given anywhere in the Bible.

This is why I say the pope is communist:

He claims that if someone is in need, then you and I are obligated to give up our possessions to, or share them with, that person. Francis also writes, "Yet we need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home."

This is, by definition, communism. "Our home," "our dwelling," "our family," "our possessions," These are the things said by the Communist Russians, not Capitalistic America, and certainly not what God wants to hear from His people.

The pope is quite loose with his language

That doesn't excuse him from promoting that which is wicked.

so I am not too worked up. And he also gets taken out of context a lot.

He's the pope, he should be far more careful with his words.

A sloppy pope results in sloppy catholicism.

Unless he comes out and specifically says he is changing Church teaching, which he has not, I would not get too worked up[.]

And you think a communist would come right out and say he's changing church teaching?

Naiive.

The doctrine stated above is correct and he did not change it.

The doctrine you quoted above has very little to do with what he said in this video and what was reported in this article.

If anyone thinks that the doctrine stated above is not correct then they are in error.

Because you say so?

The importance of the word “absolute” in his statement as quoted by the OP article cannot be ignored.

Yes or no, TG, does man have a God-given absolute right to private property?

The Pope is speaking very precisely here, and needs to be heard precisely.

So which is it, is the pope loose with his language? Or is he speaking very precisely? Because it cannot be both.

Overlooking that word and its impact leads to a misinterpretation of the pope’s message.

Does man have the absolute God-given right to own property? Yes or no.

Of course property rights are important. And of course they are not absolute, as he correctly stated.

You disagree with the Bible:

God said: "Thou shall not steal."

Therefore, we know that A) man has the right to own property, and B) that taking that property unjustly for any reason is called theft.

Jesus said: Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ - Matthew 20:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew20:15&version=NKJV

Who are you to disagree?

Who is the pope to disagree with Jesus?

The author of the OP article states further down, "Sorry, but property rights are not secondary. As an attorney who defended property owners from government takings liked to say, “Property rights are human rights.” You can’t have one without the other."

She speaks of laws of men, not God.

Supra.

Maybe they are not secondary according to the laws of her land, but man's law is not God's law.

God's laws supersede man's laws.

God's laws supersede what the pope says.

God's law says, "Thou shall not steal."

The pope says that the "in need" have the right to the property of others, because we should "give them back what is theirs."

Your OP article places man's law above God's law,

In what way?

and in your attack against the pope, you confused man's law with God's law.

"Thou shall not steal" is man's law? I would love that if it were true, because it would be fully in line with God's law.

Communism violates that law.

The pope promotes communism.

Ergo, he's a communist, and so he is in the wrong.

In the end, despite any translation oddities, the article's quote of the pope is a reasonable summary

So you're retracting what you said near the beginning of this thread, that it's a mistranslation of what he said?

of the Church’s teaching on private property rights, which falls under the commandments, and that teaching is infallible, ratified by God the Holy Spirit.

Yes, indeed, "thou shall not steal" is infallible, and ratified by God.

Yet the pope contradicts that by saying "Yet we need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home."

By the way, did you notice in the video that the pope's surroundings at the Vatican are very luxurious?

Property rights are important, but they are secondary and limited rights,

"Thou shall not steal," is absolute. It is not secondary, nor is it limited.

subject to the common good

So you think that communism is a good thing?

"Common good"
"Communism"

Note that, while this is how many believers lived in the first year after Christ's ascension (see Acts 4:32-35), they quickly ran out of money, and Paul, throughout his writings, (1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Rom 15:14–32) is seen taking up offerings for them, because they lived communally, and had "all things in common."

By the way, in case you've forgotten, the passage in Acts is where Karl Marx got his idea for communism. Wrongly, of course, since

and the needs of others.

If someone is in need, no one has the right to force me to give money, belongings, or property to them.

The only way is PURELY in the form of "from my hand to yours" giving.

Thus sayeth the Lord.

Thus sayeth the Lord: "Thou shall not steal."
Thus sayeth the pope: "Yet we need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home."

:think:

You should know me better than that by now.

Well we certainly know that you don't like to keep your word when it comes to your statements of leaving threads...

 

[JudgeRightly]

So you agree with the pope. Then what the heck was all the other crap for.

I could say the same to you, you know...

 

[Trump Gurl]

Well we certainly know that you don't like to keep your word when it comes to your statements of leaving threads...

Nothing is ever written in stone, and people like you who make totally false statements should not be throwing stones regarding peoples "word".

As for the rest of your post, see Post #20.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No its not.

Yes it is.

Like Right Divider you are wrong about [w]hat the Bible says.

Because you say so?

Have you ever read the Bible?

I have.

You are so busy blabbing about creation science in other threads

"Blabbing" is the wrong word for it.

that you missed what is right in your face:

How so?

God created man, placed him in paradise, and gave him dominion over everything.

And you think I disagree with that?

That came first!

And?

That is the primordial original intent.

Having dominion over everything has very little to do with the right to own property.

Only later, after sin and the fall, after murder and casting out of Cain and all that did man invent nations and property rights.

Because you say so?

So the Catechism quote is exactly in line with Genesis:

The portions which are not, are not.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

See my previous post.

Case closed. Your entire thread debunked.

Because you say so?

By the way, don't think that I missed how you, a moderator, encouraged insults and joined in them in my creation thread.

When you fling poo at the fan, don't be astonished when some of it gets flung back at you.

That being said, perhaps you shouldn't resort to name calling and character assassination in your discussions. In addition, you have a serious persecution complex.

Next time you ban someone maybe you should be the next in line.

:yawn:

 

[JudgeRightly]

As for the rest of your post, see Post #20.

How about responding to the full post, as I did yours?

A bit of effort goes a long way in a discussion, but you always seem to flame out long before you listen to what others are saying.

 

[Trump Gurl]

How about responding to the full post, as I did yours?

Says the man who keeps deleting posts of mine that shine a light on your dishonesty.

A bit of effort goes a long way in a discussion, but you always seem to flame out long before you listen to what others are saying.

What is to discuss? Your entire thread is a big fat lie, and my previous posts along with idolator's post have already totally refuted it. Anything else is just redundancy.

Why should I keep repeating myself just because you cannot comprehend the facts.

The combination of post 7 and 20 plus idolator's comments refute your premise and your faulty read on the scriptures.

God created man, placed him in paradise, and gave him dominion over everything. That came first! That is the primordial original intent. Only later, after sin and the fall, after murder and casting out of Cain and all that did man invent nations and property rights.

So the Catechism quote is exactly in line with Genesis:

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.​

Case closed. Your entire thread debunked.

Now, why did you chose a 100% lie that mischaracterized my beliefs as your Post of the Day? Do you think that false statements deserve such an award? Oh, wait, what am I saying: This entire thread is based on a false statement. Never mind.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nothing is ever written in stone,

The 10 commandments were. One of them being, "Thou shall not steal."

and people like you who make totally false statements should not be throwing stones regarding peoples "word".

What false statements have I made?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Says the man who keeps deleting posts of mine that shine a light on your dishonesty.

Read the message you got. It explains why I deleted it. Do not bring this up again.

What is to discuss?

Good point. What IS there to discuss? The pope is a communist, and is going against what God said.

That puts him in the wrong.

Your entire thread is a big fat lie,

Because you say so?

and my previous posts along with idolator's post have already totally refuted it.

Rebutting what I say is not a refutation. I have responded to your rebuttal, and am awaiting your response to my rebuttal of your post.

Anything else is just redundancy.

Why should I keep repeating myself

Don't repeat yourself. Address the points I made.

just because you cannot comprehend the facts.

Because you say so?

The combination of post 7 and 20 plus idolator's comments refute your premise and your faulty read on the scriptures.

And I have addressed those posts. I am currently waiting for you to respond to my rebuttal.

God created man, placed him in paradise, and gave him dominion over everything. That came first! That is the primordial original intent. Only later, after sin and the fall, after murder and casting out of Cain and all that did man invent nations and property rights.

So the Catechism quote is exactly in line with Genesis:

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.​

Case closed. Your entire thread debunked.

Repeating your argument won't make me retype my posts in agreement with you.

Convincing me I'm wrong will.

Now, why did you chose a 100% lie that mischaracterized my beliefs as your Post of the Day?

This is NOT the thread for this discussion.

Do you think that false statements

Saying they're false doesn't make it so.

deserve such an award? Oh, wait, what am I saying: This entire thread is based on a false statement. Never mind.

lain: