While speaking at a Turning Point USA event in Athens, Georgia, Vice President JD Vance said that Pope Leo XIV should “be careful” when he talks about theology. The pope recently criticized the war with Iran.
Isn’t the Pope supposed to be the guy for Catholics, appointed to directly hear God’s voice on Earth, and spread it to the masses? And if that’s the case, aren’t all these faux-Christians disagreeing with him - like Vance - disagreeing with the very God they purport to worship?
In my experience American catholics in general tend to be the ones who vote hard right, while saying “I think politics is tearing us apart” and “oh, I don’t discuss politics” “I’m not racist, but…”.
They want the same thing the far righ wants they just don’t want to get their hands dirty.
Catholics can disagree with the pope on secular matters, the problem here is that the pope is quoting the catechism almost verbatim, and convert-boy is throwing a tantrum because he joined the church based on aesthetics and not any kind of conviction.
A bunch of Protestants think the Pope is the Antichrist, but apparently Vance identifies as Catholic, so yeah, he’s defying God. Catholic doctrine also holds that the Pope is infallible when ruling on theology.
The latter is not universal. Several popes have explicitly stated that they are indeed fallible (which would render total infallibility self-contradictory). Also, infallibility is generally limited in certain ways that I won’t bother researching in enough depth to put into a concise description. But the pope can’t just make up some random shit and have it automatically considered to be the word of God.
Of course, pointing out that someone violates the basic tenets of Catholicism while naming those specific tenets is well within “the pope is right” territory.
I appreciate the nuanced info. It’s pretty tough to find when discussing religion on platforms like this. It helps logical people trapped by corrupted religious beliefs realize that its okay, even encouraged, to keep their core beliefs intact while still being able to condemn those within their religion that work to corrupt the church.
If all you see is church/religion bad, then they’ll just dismiss you and move on. And the corrupt version of Christianity or Islam or Judaism or what have you will continue growing
Isn’t the Pope supposed to be the guy for Catholics, appointed to directly hear God’s voice on Earth, and spread it to the masses? And if that’s the case, aren’t all these faux-Christians disagreeing with him - like Vance - disagreeing with the very God they purport to worship?
Literally any Catholic who criticizes the Pope is a hypocrite because the Pope is meant to be God’s representative/mouthpiece on Earth.
The man converted to catholicism then within a few years was beefing with two popes in a row on basic catholicism.
The American Catholic leadership are hardcore conservative, with a few exceptions, and working at cross purposes with Christ’s mission on earth.
In my experience American catholics in general tend to be the ones who vote hard right, while saying “I think politics is tearing us apart” and “oh, I don’t discuss politics” “I’m not racist, but…”. They want the same thing the far righ wants they just don’t want to get their hands dirty.
Catholics can disagree with the pope on secular matters, the problem here is that the pope is quoting the catechism almost verbatim, and convert-boy is throwing a tantrum because he joined the church based on aesthetics and not any kind of conviction.
A bunch of Protestants think the Pope is the Antichrist, but apparently Vance identifies as Catholic, so yeah, he’s defying God. Catholic doctrine also holds that the Pope is infallible when ruling on theology.
The latter is not universal. Several popes have explicitly stated that they are indeed fallible (which would render total infallibility self-contradictory). Also, infallibility is generally limited in certain ways that I won’t bother researching in enough depth to put into a concise description. But the pope can’t just make up some random shit and have it automatically considered to be the word of God.
Of course, pointing out that someone violates the basic tenets of Catholicism while naming those specific tenets is well within “the pope is right” territory.
Pretty sure the infallibility part is only when he speaks “ex cathedra” which is a pretty narrow and specific time, but I’m not a Catholic.
A quick Google says the last time that was done was in 1950.
And that’s why francis had to clarify that he wasn’t speaking infallibly when he said he hoped hell was empty
I appreciate the nuanced info. It’s pretty tough to find when discussing religion on platforms like this. It helps logical people trapped by corrupted religious beliefs realize that its okay, even encouraged, to keep their core beliefs intact while still being able to condemn those within their religion that work to corrupt the church.
If all you see is church/religion bad, then they’ll just dismiss you and move on. And the corrupt version of Christianity or Islam or Judaism or what have you will continue growing