Bush more Catholic than JP2?

[popestpiusx]

Let me clarify: I am in no way saying that Bush is more Catholic than the Pope. I think that is a stupid claim. One is not more or less Catholic. Bush is not Catholic at all (even if he holds some Catholic ideas), and is therefore, not 'more Catholic' than anyone.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 5 2005, 09:34 AM'] However to use the phrase "more Catholic" in regards to Bush is wrong and offensive in more ways than I can count. [/quote]
I agree that the moniker "more Catholic" than the Pope is foolish, but it should be noted that Professor Oderberg never uses that turn of phrase in his article.

Nevertheless, Professor Oderberg clearly shows that President Bush's views on capital punishment and just war theory (and those views only) are a better reflection of the Catholic Church's doctrinal patrimony on these two issues than are the views of Pope John Paul II. The article is quite insightful.

[Timothy]

Check out the poll I just posted. I would love to hear everyones thoughts.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='May 5 2005, 01:14 PM'] I agree that the moniker "more Catholic" than the Pope is foolish, but it should be noted that Professor Oderberg never uses that turn of phrase in his article.

Nevertheless, Professor Oderberg clearly shows that President Bush's views on capital punishment and just war theory (and those views only) are a better reflection of the Catholic Church's doctrinal patrimony on these two issues than are the views of Pope John Paul II. The article is quite insightful. [/quote]
I agree.

[musturde]

I don't blame Jp2 for being against the Iraqi war. The author admits the Pope mentioned there being times for war but that there wasn't much reason to go into Iraq. Don, you argue the Iraq war but you argue against the results, am I missing something here? You claim democracy is horrible and you can not go around the fact that with that a lot of blood shed is to come. If anything the Pope thought we didn't have everything planned out and enough reason to fight the war. In a way I can see how Bush did a great job of enforcing his stance and not delaying (which is a quality I like, especially with the Syrian withdrawel) but also I don't believe the end of it well end up too great. John Paul saw what happened during the Second World War and did not want something soo great to happen again. Iraq may not be a threat to us but, like you mentioned, there's not really going to be much of an established government and if there is then, like you said, it'll probably be more open to abortion. I don't know which side your arguing, I personally am not against Bush but I don't believe the War on Iraq was the best of what we've done so far even though we took out Sadam. Also, I don't believe in the death penalty and I'm sure we're getting to a point in history where it won't be needed. Killing someone for killing somone else just doesn't make sense to me.

[Don John of Austria]

Musturde --- I am not arguing the Iraq war ... unfortunatly our forum has changed locations since the War began or I would pull the post from then saying precisely that the war was not justified, as it violated the international Law imposed on the world by the Church in 1648. I particularly was opposed to the attack on Iraq because Hussein protected Christians more than anyother ruler in the area. However that does not mean the the reasons given by the Pope where valid reasons, nor does that mean that the War did not meet the normal Just War criteria.

The Blood of the Guilty being shed does not bother me, I believe in Just Wars more than that I believe war can be not only morally permissable but morally Obligatory. Democracy is evil and in oppostion to Christ Authority, it is the Product of Pagan ideas and ours is the result of the rebirth of pagan Ideas during the Enlightenment.

[musturde]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 6 2005, 08:42 AM'] Musturde --- I am not arguing the Iraq war ... unfortunatly our forum has changed locations since the War began or I would pull the post from then saying precisely that the war was not justified, as it violated the international Law imposed on the world by the Church in 1648. I particularly was opposed to the attack on Iraq because Hussein protected Christians more than anyother ruler in the area. However that does not mean the the reasons given by the Pope where valid reasons, nor does that mean that the War did not meet the normal Just War criteria.

The Blood of the Guilty being shed does not bother me, I believe in Just Wars more than that I believe war can be not only morally permissable but morally Obligatory. Democracy is evil and in oppostion to Christ Authority, it is the Product of Pagan ideas and ours is the result of the rebirth of pagan Ideas during the Enlightenment. [/quote]
alright, now I understand whatcha mean.

[guardsman]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 4 2005, 05:14 PM'] [b]STOP SAYING THAT JOHN PAUL THE SECOND IS A SAINT!!!!!!!!!![/b]

[/quote]
You don't have to be declared venerable to be a saint. All Christians are saints. JPII is a saint. You Are a saint. Neither of you are canonized, but that has nothing to do with it. If you're a Christian, you're a saint.

[cmotherofpirl]

No.
You cannot be a Saint until you die and only if you get to heaven.

[guardsman]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 8 2005, 10:41 PM'] No.
You cannot be a Saint until you die and only if you get to heaven. [/quote]
References? Weren't the Apostles and disciples considered saints when they were alive?

[philothea]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 8 2005, 10:41 PM'] No.
You cannot be a Saint until you die and only if you get to heaven. [/quote]
Picky, picky...

You could be someone who, if you were to die now, would go straight to heaven!

[guardsman]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 8 2005, 10:41 PM']No.
You cannot be a Saint until you die and only if you get to heaven.[/quote]
cmotherofpirl- I respect your opinion but in this case you are mistaken. We, as disciples of Jesus, are indeed Saints. That is our title. Saint means "Holy One." Look at the introduction to Philippians. "Greeting. Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the HOLY ONES in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi..." NAB Let's see what a different interpretation says. " Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the SAINTS in Christ Jesus at Philippi..." NIV We, as Christians, are considered saints. John Paul II was and is no doubt a saint. He just isn't a "canonized" saint. It's OK to call a believer a saint. You don't have to be dead and in heaven to be a saint. Of course, a "canonized saint" recognized by the Church is something completely different.

[Don John of Austria]

No she is not mistaken, it is you who are mistaken, about a great many things. a saint is someone in Heaven. A Saint (capital S) is someone in Heaven who we know to be in Heaven infallablly. Believers are not Saints.

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 8 2005, 11:06 PM'] No she is not mistaken, it is you who are mistaken, about a great many things. a saint is someone in Heaven. A Saint (capital S) is someone in Heaven who we know to be in Heaven infallablly. Believers are not Saints. [/quote]
If I'm not mistaken, the terminology of a saint being a believer is pure born-again fundamentalist protestant nonsense.

[guardsman]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 9 2005, 01:06 AM'] No she is not mistaken, it is you who are mistaken, about a great many things. a saint is someone in Heaven. A Saint (capital S) is someone in Heaven who we know to be in Heaven infallablly.  Believers are not Saints. [/quote]
Dude, what are the great many things I am mistaken about? The Apostles referred to believers as saints. I think I made it clear what I meant between saints and "canonized " saints. Notice no capital "S" in my posts. Are you refuting my Bible?

Edited May 9, 2005 by guardsman