The Catholic Message Board

Jack3 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2026 6:34 am I wasn't prepared for this much disagreement with the Pope when he quoted the Bible.

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition go hand-in-hand.

Context, or perceived context, matters.

Student wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2026 7:27 pm God listening to prayers is not conditional.

Scripture disagrees with you.

Proverbs 28 9 When one will not listen to the law, even one’s prayers are an abomination.

James 4 2 You want something and do not have it, so you commit murder. And you covet something and cannot obtain it, so you engage in disputes and conflicts. You do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive because you ask wrongly, in order to spend what you get on your pleasures.

Isa 59 Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save,
nor his ear too dull to hear.
2 But your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
so that he will not hear.

In each of those cases, Stella, God listened. His answers might not have been what the prayer requested - perhaps. You want to discuss the value (or righteousness?) or the prayers?

Islam is clearly an abomination. Authoritarian control over an entire people, also an abomination.

My problem here is that it seems like recent Popes, and by "modern" I mean "since Paul VI", are trying to add three new dogmas to the deposit of faith:

1. The dogma of climate change
2. The dogma of open borders
3. The dogma of absolute pacifism

I am serious about the following question: What does Pope Leo mean when he says that war is "Never justified"?

Does he mean that in response to Pearl Harbor, FDR should have responded by asking the Japanese for terms of our surrender?
Does he mean that Churchill should have just let Hitler take over Europe without offering any resistance?
Does he mean that Charles Martel should have just let the Muslims conquer Europe?

Is he really trying to say that Catholicism is a pacifist religion like the Quakers or the Mennonites? Because a lot of what he is saying sounds like he is trying to teach exactly that.

What exactly does he mean?

And the problem is not unique to Leo, it has been an issue with every Pope of my lifetime (excepting, of course, John Paul I, who didn't actually do anything).

And when I say "It seems like they are trying to proclaim a new dogma," this is because it is a serious question just why, with all the issues in the world, those three issues are the ones that have consumed more of the Pope's time,in the last 60 years, than any other issues. Why those issues? Issues about which there is a wide range of acceptable positions within Catholicism?

Let's not forget that Pope Urban II called for Western Christianity to take up arms to help the Byzantine Empire and recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule, popularizing the phrase "Deus vult" ("God wills it").

So if Pope Leo is to be taken at face value, he's saying that God didn't listen to one of his predecessors.

Doom wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 7:50 amMy problem here is that it seems like recent Popes, and by "modern" I mean "since Paul VI", are trying to add three new dogmas to the deposit of faith:

1. The dogma of climate change
2. The dogma of open borders
3. The dogma of absolute pacifism
...
... why, with all the issues in the world, those three issues are the ones that have consumed more of the Pope's time,in the last 60 years, than any other issues. Why those issues?
...

That is interesting. In this case I don't know if I agree with Doom, but I am listening.

One area, not rising to dogma, that I find troublesome is the defense of Christendom. Or the lack of defense. The current, multi-generational Islamic jihad, aimed at eradicating all other religions (and all of Western civilization) and the similar atheistic Communist/Progressive/Liberal effort seem to be an issue that should move to the fore.

Another is the collapse of Catholicism in Europe. With the background of the morphing of the Protestant "churches" into empty shells. The withering of the Catholic buttress against a godless continent should be a major issue.

Doom's post bears pondering.

Doom wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2026 7:50 am My problem here is that it seems like recent Popes, and by "modern" I mean "since Paul VI", are trying to add three new dogmas to the deposit of faith:

1. The dogma of climate change
2. The dogma of open borders
3. The dogma of absolute pacifism

I am serious about the following question: What does Pope Leo mean when he says that war is "Never justified"?

Does he mean that in response to Pearl Harbor, FDR should have responded by asking the Japanese for terms of our surrender?
Does he mean that Churchill should have just let Hitler take over Europe without offering any resistance?
Does he mean that Charles Martel should have just let the Muslims conquer Europe?

Is he really trying to say that Catholicism is a pacifist religion like the Quakers or the Mennonites? Because a lot of what he is saying sounds like he is trying to teach exactly that.

What exactly does he mean?

And the problem is not unique to Leo, it has been an issue with every Pope of my lifetime (excepting, of course, John Paul I, who didn't actually do anything).

And when I say "It seems like they are trying to proclaim a new dogma," this is because it is a serious question just why, with all the issues in the world, those three issues are the ones that have consumed more of the Pope's time,in the last 60 years, than any other issues. Why those issues? Issues about which there is a wide range of acceptable positions within Catholicism?

In a 2003 interview with 30 Days, the then Cdl Ratzinger states “We must begin asking ourselves whether as things stand, with new weapons that cause destruction well beyond the groups involved in the fight, it is still licit to allow that a just war might exist.”

Being careful not to make any comment that would be deemed controversial, I'll just link to Pope Paul VI's 1974 message regarding what peace is and isn't.

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/ ... peace.html

aussie_aussie_oi_oi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 5:07 pm Pope Leo XIV on Sunday said ... “Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” the first American pope, citing a Bible passage, told congregants in St. Peter’s Square, according to The Associated Press.

I've heard of Christ the King, but the Bible passage Leo was trying to use may have been Isaiah 9:6, which prophesies Christ as "Prince of Peace". Yes, he is King by creating in the beginning and King of kings in the end (when all enemies will be put under his feet and there will be full peace), but as Prince now, in between times, on the way to the all-in-all Kingship, he is not above conflict, which will be not only spiritual but incarnate in this world, which does not give peace.
Islam's version of the conflict, having our bodily submission in mind, is not particularly spiritual. Our battle (against Islam, among others) is not against their flesh and blood as such but against evil that has taken up residence in them. If the "violence" of war is never to be employed for that, then neither can we even send a son or daughter to their room, let alone spank them.

What I would like to know is why the Pope is only condemning the United States.

In January, Iran massacred 40,000 non-violent protestors, openly calls for the extermination of the Jews, and is actively pursuing a nuclear program. Yet none of this has warranted a mild rebuke from the Pope.

I hate to say it, but I don't think he is anti-war; he is anti-American, as most so-called "anti-war" activists are.

Taken literally, his call for nations (including the United States in particular) to "lay down their arms" sounds like a call for all militaries to be permanently disbanded. Does he really think this is feasible?

I expect Popes to make calls for "peace" and to say that "negotiations" are to be preferred to war, but I am surprised to see him openly taking the side of Iran. How can the Pope be an impartial mediator for peace when he clearly favors one side in a conflict over the other?

And to go so far as to suggest that all forms of violence are morally equal and that there can never be justification for war really sounds like a call for pacifism. Taken literally, it calls for the abolition of the military and even the disbanding of all police forces around the world. I just find it hard to believe that he actually means what he is saying here.

I agree with Doom.

He just said it a lot better than I could.

anawim wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2026 10:28 am I agree with Doom.

He just said it a lot better than I could.

Indeed. I'm saving this as a document.

Doom wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2026 7:48 am What I would like to know is why the Pope is only condemning the United States.

In January, Iran massacred 40,000 non-violent protestors, openly calls for the extermination of the Jews, and is actively pursuing a nuclear program. Yet none of this has warranted a mild rebuke from the Pope.

I hate to say it, but I don't think he is anti-war; he is anti-American, as most so-called "anti-war" activists are.

Taken literally, his call for nations (including the United States in particular) to "lay down their arms" sounds like a call for all militaries to be permanently disbanded. Does he really think this is feasible?

I expect Popes to make calls for "peace" and to say that "negotiations" are to be preferred to war, but I am surprised to see him openly taking the side of Iran. How can the Pope be an impartial mediator for peace when he clearly favors one side in a conflict over the other?

And to go so far as to suggest that all forms of violence are morally equal and that there can never be justification for war really sounds like a call for pacifism. Taken literally, it calls for the abolition of the military and even the disbanding of all police forces around the world. I just find it hard to believe that he actually means what he is saying here.

I would bet my house that Pope Leo is not the least anti American. That he is navigating the situation with the same caution and discernment that Pope Pius XII did leading into WWII and beyond.

Like many of us around the world, we fear the reckless rhetoric coming from the US leadership. It’s not the way toward peaceful solutions at all. Did you read the link I posted by Pope Paul VI regarding what peace is to Christians? It would explain well what all subsequent Popes are conveying as a better way than threats and taunts and chest beating and foul language.

Fr Pierre Blet an historian of the Church, wrote a book about Pius XII and his efforts to prevent the war. Here he gives an interview about the book. https://www.ncregister.com/interview/re ... f-pius-xii

There is a need for common sense and sensibility in these kinds of global threats.

The core issue, I think, is the ongoing extinction of the old world order ... which began right after WWII ... and the ongoing suicide of the West which was ignited and is fueled by the inanities and outright economic idiocy of Marxism, modern liberalism, and the decadence of Western affluence.

The current cultural coin demands immediate utopian results with a minimum of, or no, effort and sacrifice. I am reminded of a story I read in which a speaker pointed out that we are a warrior society, struggling to survive, which has decided to sent its children to be educated by pacifist monks.

Perhaps the Pope should consider those of his predecessors who called for Crusades, rather than those whose standard was infinite accommodation. If one looks to areas of Paris and London and Stockholm and Dublin and Dearborn one can see the results of accommodation without boundaries.

Bravo Highlander, bravo ...