Agree. I have told several that this time will be spoken about in the near slightly distant future. Will it be looked at objectively and impartially, or will it have the liberal owned media spin on it?
Well no he’s SUPPOSED to be Catholic but his beliefs and actions are Protestant. It’s really obvious, have you not researched?
My beliefs are far more “catholic’ than his and I’m no Angel. His seem to be a different religion based on a combination of MTV, Castro and Bill Gates. Or some nightmare like that.
Peter had a sword. I’m sure if Jesus was so dead set against weapons, He would have made Peter get rid of it. (Yes, I know he healed the guy Peter hacked up)
AJ actually talked about the line "the meek shall inherent the earth". The problem is with the English-Greek translation, and how English has changed over time. The original word for "meek" is closer to "he who has a sword, but keeps it sheathed" so it's more like "the vigilant-yet humble shall inherent the earth"... (just like how the Greek word for "anti" means imposter/in place of, so the anti-christ isn't the "opposite of" it's a fake/wannabe/deceiver Christ)
This passage from Mt is the Gospel we picked for our wedding 15 years ago.
I get so sick of hearing about "love", when there is no love outside of truth.
Jesus' message, now more relevamt than ever: "turn away from sin or your soul will be lost. Follow the cammandments. Be prepared to be hated for it (by even close family, thus bringing division)."
He healed the guy, but didn't rebuke Peter with anything stronger than "It's not the time for that." Nor did Jesus tell the Centurion to quit his job. Lots of other examples- God is not weak.
The Pope never said that. For a group of people who pride ourselves on spotting fake news, many here are for some reason always more than ready to pounce on fakery against the Pope.
The Pope was talking about arms manufacturers and dealers who provide weapons for armed conflicts without regard to the morality of the wars themselves. Even in that context all he said was that those manufacturers claiming a Christian worldview creates distrust of Christianity (it does) and that if you knowingly and carelessly make money off of something immoral like that, you are guilty of hypocrisy (you are).
His comments had nothing, whatsoever, to do with gun ownership or 2A.
You've answered your own question: the fact that Vatican City has military forces establishes that the Pope is most definitely not saying that literally anyone who owns a gun, or purchases one for the point of owning it, can't be a Christian. He is referring, clearly, to people who manufacture weapons without regard to the morality of how they will be used, and those who invest in their distribution without care as to who they hurt. This has literally nothing to do with the completely licit, moral, and in some cases required use of weapons for legitimate and necessary purposes, which is clearly established in Catholic teaching and which the Pope obviously does not condemn because he has the Swiss Guard.
The actual context of his comments, alone, should tell you that he isn't talking about what you're alleging. He went on in the same speech to ask why the allies didn't bomb the rail lines to the holocaust sites. That would be a use of weapons. Weapons that would have had to have been manufactured and paid for. So no, he is not saying that anyone who makes weapons, owns them, or funds the same is a hypocrite. He's talking about actual hypocrites who claim to be Christians and then feel no moral reservation about manufacturing weapons that are used for illicit purposes.
With regard border walls, he also didn't say that anyone supporting the building of the border wall isn't a Christian. What he said was that he believes--based on the history of things like the Berlin Wall--that walls are not the correct way to "defend territories" because they bring "headaches and suffering." What he actually said Christians "can't" (meaning, ought not) do is support separating parents from their children, because it goes against "natural law" and is "cruel." Since we know that it is not the Trump policy to separate families, there is no issue. If it were Trump's actual policy to separate families without reason, then that would be wrong. The Pope isn't a clairvoyant...he knows about the policies only that which he is told. But his moral prescription here is right.
As to the Pope being the Antichrist...the Pope is not Antichrist. Not least of all because the Bible tells you that the Antichrist is he who "denies that Jesus has come in the flesh." Whatever your opinions on the Pope's (supposed) positions on guns, the Pope certainly doesn't deny this fact. With regard to being "in bed" with the Chinese Communist Party, that would be very difficult since professing to be a communist can result in excommunication from the Catholic Church and even voting for parties which claim to be Christian but support communism in other ways is prohibited. Here's what the Vatican's own official website says about communism:
"Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever."
That the Catholic Church tries to work with the national government of China in order to provide for the liturgical and spiritual needs of Chinese Catholics in the best way that is practicable is no more an indication that it supports Communism than the fact that it works with the US government is an indication that it supports Planned Parenthood. Time will tell if the current, controversial arrangements prove fruitful. It is possible that they won't, but being "in bed with communists" has nothing to do with it.
That is all I’m going to say about the topic. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
Not exactly. He's made multiple different statements against gun owners. Here's a direct quote from him:
"We need to dismantle the perverse logic that links personal and national security to the possession of weaponry. This logic serves only to increase the profits of the arms industry, while fostering a climate of distrust and fear between persons and peoples." source
To me, I would interpret that as condemning both weapons manufacturers, and those private individuals who believe in owning weapons for defense of themselves and country. He also does not exclude small arms, either.
Here's another example:
"Do we really want peace? Then let’s ban all weapons so we don’t have to live in fear of war." source
You are correct that the quote in OP's post is not something he said verbatim, but he really does believe in small arms being banned. He's also said people who own shares of a weapons company are basically hypocrites. And I would assume, if he believes ownership of any weapon is the cause of war, that owners of them are not following the ways of Christ.
He is speaking from a theological position which says that, ultimately, security comes from God. “Secular messianism”, or the idea that the proper application of some policy, lifestyle choice, or force is going to produce lasting peace on earth and happiness for all the world, is identified as corrupt thinking in the Catholic Church, and that’s because it is. If Christianity is true, real security and peace can only come from the final victory of Jesus Christ. The Pope, who is daily guarded by armed men and who leads a church which venerates as Saints many who fought in armed conflicts, is not so dumb or hypocritical as to consider all forms of weaponry and ownership Unchristian. He is right, however, to point out that questions of weapons and violence and war do touch Christian morality and that far too few people in the world consider them in that context. As someone who converted to Catholicism as a conservative adult, eyes wide open, I can say for sure that this Pope is “fake newsed” nearly as much as Trump is, and it is surprising to me sometimes how easily those trained in spotting fake media bs are able to be turned against him by reporters and, in some cases, translators.
The problems of the world are created by sin. If it were possible to eradicate sin—greed, lust, abuse, envy, gluttony, covetousness, etc.—by some alternative means besides Jesus Christ, then there’d be no need for Jesus, which would make his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and return superfluous, and mean that Christianity were just one means of victory over sin among many. This is definitely not the teaching of Jesus, which would mean that Jesus was wrong about what he said, which would mean he was not only not the Messiah, but also not God. Christianity collapses if there is some other means of defeating, ultimately, sin in the world.
That does not mean that as individuals living in the world that we are to ignore physical realities and “pray for the best.” And the Church doesn’t teach that. While it
does tell us that we should pray to God that His will be done and that we should trust in Him to provide for us, Jesus himself ate food, for example, showing that we are supposed to use our physical faculties—also created by God—to care for our physical needs. With regard to defense, that Church teaches definitively that it is the sacred duty of those who have had others placed in their care (wives, children, etc.) to protect those people from harm, and this includes the use when actually necessary (not in LARP suburban commando scenarios) of deadly physical force against unjust aggressors.
Once again, whatever one thinks they are understanding from the Pope’s messages or tweets, if they take away from them a meaning that is contrary to what I just explained, chances are pretty close to 1:1 that they are misunderstanding what he is trying to say.
That does not mean that as individuals living in the world that we are to ignore physical realities and “pray for the best.” And the Church doesn’t teach that.
Right. Nobody hear is arguing that guns replace morality or God or Jesus's salvation if you are Christian, etc.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure the majority of arms owners are good people, using them to protect what's righteous and Godly, and to use them as a tool against evil. It is to ensure guns are not concentrated in the hands of thugs and tyrants. The Pope obviously sees guns in a negative light overall, that they cause violence; not in a pro 2nd amendment light. He would like all of them to be banned, manufacturers, governments, and individuals alike.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for guns. But then again, in a perfect world, there would be no need to ban them, either.
Once again, whatever one thinks they are understanding from the Pope’s messages or tweets...
It is quite obvious what he means. I see in multiple comments you are trying to argue he only talks about gun manufacturers and nothing about 2A or gun ownership, yet he says in at least one message we should ban all weapons, and in another that the idea of personal weapon ownership is perverse to the idea of security, which is the polar opposite of the 2nd amendment (being necessaey for the security of a free state, ownership shall not be infringed) and weapon ownership.
The Pope certainly doesn’t believe that guns actually cause violence. He wouldn’t have them around him for protection if he did. Besides, he knows as a theologian that sin causes violence. That said, all Christians should like to see all guns destroyed...unless you are arguing that there should be guns in the world to come, that is to say, there would still be a need to shoot somebody in a perfect world. I can assume you don’t mean that, and so assume you agree with the Pope on this matter.
He did not say, again, that personal weapon ownership is perverse in a practical human context, nor does he as a Catholic believe that. If you think that’s what he meant by a statement, either he is guilty of imprecise speech, you are guilty of an uncharitable reading of the thoughts of another, or there has simply been a miscommunication.
The Pope does not believe that owning weapons makes someone Unchristian and he didn’t say it did. I don’t know how else to communicate this any more clearly.
The Pope certainly doesn’t believe that guns actually cause violence.
He believes banning them would end all war.
So yes, he does.
That said, all Christians should like to see all guns destroyed
No, Christians should wish to see all wickedness and evil destroyed. Anything can be a weapon in the hands of someone wanting to do evil.
unless you are arguing that there should be guns in the world to come
In a perfect world, there would be no need for guns. Then again, in a perfect world, there would be no need to ban them, either.
He did not say, again, that personal weapon ownership is perverse in a practical human context
He said the idea of personal ownership being necessary for security was incorrect. That is literally the opposite of the 2nd amendment, contrary to your previous defense that implied otherwise.
If you think that’s what he meant by a statement, either he is guilty of imprecise speech...
No, I think his speech was perfectly precise, which is why I disagree with it.
The Pope does not believe that owning weapons makes someone Unchristian and he didn’t say it did.
He said all wars would stop if they were banned, and the idea of owning them for personal or national security is perverse, and that all such a belief does is make profits for weapons manufacturers.
Second renaissance
Agree. I have told several that this time will be spoken about in the near slightly distant future. Will it be looked at objectively and impartially, or will it have the liberal owned media spin on it?
Not my pope
Ah, so Protestant.
Well no he’s SUPPOSED to be Catholic but his beliefs and actions are Protestant. It’s really obvious, have you not researched?
My beliefs are far more “catholic’ than his and I’m no Angel. His seem to be a different religion based on a combination of MTV, Castro and Bill Gates. Or some nightmare like that.
Peter had a sword. I’m sure if Jesus was so dead set against weapons, He would have made Peter get rid of it. (Yes, I know he healed the guy Peter hacked up)
AJ actually talked about the line "the meek shall inherent the earth". The problem is with the English-Greek translation, and how English has changed over time. The original word for "meek" is closer to "he who has a sword, but keeps it sheathed" so it's more like "the vigilant-yet humble shall inherent the earth"... (just like how the Greek word for "anti" means imposter/in place of, so the anti-christ isn't the "opposite of" it's a fake/wannabe/deceiver Christ)
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." -Matt. 10:34
This passage from Mt is the Gospel we picked for our wedding 15 years ago.
I get so sick of hearing about "love", when there is no love outside of truth.
Jesus' message, now more relevamt than ever: "turn away from sin or your soul will be lost. Follow the cammandments. Be prepared to be hated for it (by even close family, thus bringing division)."
yeah, 'praus'. also applies to wild stallions who have been broken into war horse. under control, but don't fuck around.
I think by meek it means insects, bacteria, virus.
He healed the guy, but didn't rebuke Peter with anything stronger than "It's not the time for that." Nor did Jesus tell the Centurion to quit his job. Lots of other examples- God is not weak.
great point. peter and richard the lionheart and the other crusaders would disagree with this 'pope'...fuck this commie impostor.
John Paul he is not.
https://m.imgur.com/6ozZ54J
what next? can we trade in our carbon credits to get in heavan?
Yeah you gotta get a covid pass chip in your right hand and have a certain amount of social credit points to make it to heaven
Good thing that's the one place liberals have no say in things
tooo funny
Does the pope have ties to the Rothschilds?
Oh I have
Pope Francis could thus be the "perfect" spokesperson for the United Nations (NWO), correct?
about a hundred years ago the vatican bank borrowed money from them. since then they have been somewhat compromised.
Somewhat compromised? They look like pure swamp...
That isn’t even half of the Arsenal they have. Sub machine guns for days.
The Pope never said that. For a group of people who pride ourselves on spotting fake news, many here are for some reason always more than ready to pounce on fakery against the Pope.
The Pope was talking about arms manufacturers and dealers who provide weapons for armed conflicts without regard to the morality of the wars themselves. Even in that context all he said was that those manufacturers claiming a Christian worldview creates distrust of Christianity (it does) and that if you knowingly and carelessly make money off of something immoral like that, you are guilty of hypocrisy (you are).
His comments had nothing, whatsoever, to do with gun ownership or 2A.
This should get to the top.
You've answered your own question: the fact that Vatican City has military forces establishes that the Pope is most definitely not saying that literally anyone who owns a gun, or purchases one for the point of owning it, can't be a Christian. He is referring, clearly, to people who manufacture weapons without regard to the morality of how they will be used, and those who invest in their distribution without care as to who they hurt. This has literally nothing to do with the completely licit, moral, and in some cases required use of weapons for legitimate and necessary purposes, which is clearly established in Catholic teaching and which the Pope obviously does not condemn because he has the Swiss Guard.
The actual context of his comments, alone, should tell you that he isn't talking about what you're alleging. He went on in the same speech to ask why the allies didn't bomb the rail lines to the holocaust sites. That would be a use of weapons. Weapons that would have had to have been manufactured and paid for. So no, he is not saying that anyone who makes weapons, owns them, or funds the same is a hypocrite. He's talking about actual hypocrites who claim to be Christians and then feel no moral reservation about manufacturing weapons that are used for illicit purposes.
With regard border walls, he also didn't say that anyone supporting the building of the border wall isn't a Christian. What he said was that he believes--based on the history of things like the Berlin Wall--that walls are not the correct way to "defend territories" because they bring "headaches and suffering." What he actually said Christians "can't" (meaning, ought not) do is support separating parents from their children, because it goes against "natural law" and is "cruel." Since we know that it is not the Trump policy to separate families, there is no issue. If it were Trump's actual policy to separate families without reason, then that would be wrong. The Pope isn't a clairvoyant...he knows about the policies only that which he is told. But his moral prescription here is right.
As to the Pope being the Antichrist...the Pope is not Antichrist. Not least of all because the Bible tells you that the Antichrist is he who "denies that Jesus has come in the flesh." Whatever your opinions on the Pope's (supposed) positions on guns, the Pope certainly doesn't deny this fact. With regard to being "in bed" with the Chinese Communist Party, that would be very difficult since professing to be a communist can result in excommunication from the Catholic Church and even voting for parties which claim to be Christian but support communism in other ways is prohibited. Here's what the Vatican's own official website says about communism:
"Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever."
That the Catholic Church tries to work with the national government of China in order to provide for the liturgical and spiritual needs of Chinese Catholics in the best way that is practicable is no more an indication that it supports Communism than the fact that it works with the US government is an indication that it supports Planned Parenthood. Time will tell if the current, controversial arrangements prove fruitful. It is possible that they won't, but being "in bed with communists" has nothing to do with it.
That is all I’m going to say about the topic. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
Is that a fucking jester in the background?
Swiss guard.
Ancient
All authoritarian Marxists say people shouldnt have guns yet own many themselves.
The Pope is a Marxist totalitarian who is a heretic and should be dealt with accordingly.
this commie impostor may be the appointed head of the catholic church by traitors within but he is not part of the Catholic Church, huge difference.
The pope may have more arms in his basement than I have in my closet, but by God my rifle barks with the Spirit of the One on High!
Luke 22:36
This pope has been such a disappointment.
i am sure richard the lionheart and the other crusaders would disagree.
Commie globalist plot to disarm free people so they can be enslaved.
Evil man this Pope is. There is a special place for him in the after life. We all call it Hell.
I had no damn clue. What an amazing collection.
https://www.guns.com/news/2017/04/16/guns-swiss-guard
https://citywonders.com/blog/Italy/Vatican/6-facts-about-swiss-guards
Good one.
This Pope is a piece of shit.
It looks like God's basement to me.
He also gets big beautiful walls.
And the Lord spake and said, "Then I shall remove thy Swiss Guard for they are no longer needed to thee.."
I’m glad I’m Jewish and not a papalist. I know nothing except for what is written.
Maybe he owns nothing and is happy.
I was told to never trust a Jesuit, I wonder why?
Wasnt it predicted this pope is the antichrist? His liberal views are causing a break in ardent Catholics views
The king of the pedophiles has spoken!
Why is there a young man there dressed in silly silky pants?
Imagine thinking God appointed a cuckfaggot to head his favored religion.
Jesus is a Proud Boy.
Not exactly. He's made multiple different statements against gun owners. Here's a direct quote from him:
To me, I would interpret that as condemning both weapons manufacturers, and those private individuals who believe in owning weapons for defense of themselves and country. He also does not exclude small arms, either.
Here's another example:
You are correct that the quote in OP's post is not something he said verbatim, but he really does believe in small arms being banned. He's also said people who own shares of a weapons company are basically hypocrites. And I would assume, if he believes ownership of any weapon is the cause of war, that owners of them are not following the ways of Christ.
He is speaking from a theological position which says that, ultimately, security comes from God. “Secular messianism”, or the idea that the proper application of some policy, lifestyle choice, or force is going to produce lasting peace on earth and happiness for all the world, is identified as corrupt thinking in the Catholic Church, and that’s because it is. If Christianity is true, real security and peace can only come from the final victory of Jesus Christ. The Pope, who is daily guarded by armed men and who leads a church which venerates as Saints many who fought in armed conflicts, is not so dumb or hypocritical as to consider all forms of weaponry and ownership Unchristian. He is right, however, to point out that questions of weapons and violence and war do touch Christian morality and that far too few people in the world consider them in that context. As someone who converted to Catholicism as a conservative adult, eyes wide open, I can say for sure that this Pope is “fake newsed” nearly as much as Trump is, and it is surprising to me sometimes how easily those trained in spotting fake media bs are able to be turned against him by reporters and, in some cases, translators.
So why have weapons at all? If a nazi comes and tries to steal your Jewish wife, let them, and just pray. No weapons needed.
His tweets don't reflect that.
The problems of the world are created by sin. If it were possible to eradicate sin—greed, lust, abuse, envy, gluttony, covetousness, etc.—by some alternative means besides Jesus Christ, then there’d be no need for Jesus, which would make his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and return superfluous, and mean that Christianity were just one means of victory over sin among many. This is definitely not the teaching of Jesus, which would mean that Jesus was wrong about what he said, which would mean he was not only not the Messiah, but also not God. Christianity collapses if there is some other means of defeating, ultimately, sin in the world.
That does not mean that as individuals living in the world that we are to ignore physical realities and “pray for the best.” And the Church doesn’t teach that. While it does tell us that we should pray to God that His will be done and that we should trust in Him to provide for us, Jesus himself ate food, for example, showing that we are supposed to use our physical faculties—also created by God—to care for our physical needs. With regard to defense, that Church teaches definitively that it is the sacred duty of those who have had others placed in their care (wives, children, etc.) to protect those people from harm, and this includes the use when actually necessary (not in LARP suburban commando scenarios) of deadly physical force against unjust aggressors.
Once again, whatever one thinks they are understanding from the Pope’s messages or tweets, if they take away from them a meaning that is contrary to what I just explained, chances are pretty close to 1:1 that they are misunderstanding what he is trying to say.
Right. Nobody hear is arguing that guns replace morality or God or Jesus's salvation if you are Christian, etc.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure the majority of arms owners are good people, using them to protect what's righteous and Godly, and to use them as a tool against evil. It is to ensure guns are not concentrated in the hands of thugs and tyrants. The Pope obviously sees guns in a negative light overall, that they cause violence; not in a pro 2nd amendment light. He would like all of them to be banned, manufacturers, governments, and individuals alike.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for guns. But then again, in a perfect world, there would be no need to ban them, either.
It is quite obvious what he means. I see in multiple comments you are trying to argue he only talks about gun manufacturers and nothing about 2A or gun ownership, yet he says in at least one message we should ban all weapons, and in another that the idea of personal weapon ownership is perverse to the idea of security, which is the polar opposite of the 2nd amendment (being necessaey for the security of a free state, ownership shall not be infringed) and weapon ownership.
The Pope certainly doesn’t believe that guns actually cause violence. He wouldn’t have them around him for protection if he did. Besides, he knows as a theologian that sin causes violence. That said, all Christians should like to see all guns destroyed...unless you are arguing that there should be guns in the world to come, that is to say, there would still be a need to shoot somebody in a perfect world. I can assume you don’t mean that, and so assume you agree with the Pope on this matter.
He did not say, again, that personal weapon ownership is perverse in a practical human context, nor does he as a Catholic believe that. If you think that’s what he meant by a statement, either he is guilty of imprecise speech, you are guilty of an uncharitable reading of the thoughts of another, or there has simply been a miscommunication.
The Pope does not believe that owning weapons makes someone Unchristian and he didn’t say it did. I don’t know how else to communicate this any more clearly.
He believes banning them would end all war.
So yes, he does.
No, Christians should wish to see all wickedness and evil destroyed. Anything can be a weapon in the hands of someone wanting to do evil.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for guns. Then again, in a perfect world, there would be no need to ban them, either.
He said the idea of personal ownership being necessary for security was incorrect. That is literally the opposite of the 2nd amendment, contrary to your previous defense that implied otherwise.
No, I think his speech was perfectly precise, which is why I disagree with it.
He said all wars would stop if they were banned, and the idea of owning them for personal or national security is perverse, and that all such a belief does is make profits for weapons manufacturers.