Question about your view of the Papacy for the past 50 years

[RKO]

Do you as a member of the EOC see much difference now than in years past? I'm sure you're not thrilled with the VAtican II stuff, believe me a lot of us aren't crazy about the Mass these days.

But do you see the Papacy as less of a political power than it used to be? And do you think that's because of the natural decline of the RCC in temporal political affairs, or the result of an effort on a Pope's part to be more spiritual and less political?

And finally, other than the standard "admit and apologize for the theological errors," what could the Pope or the RCC do to actually make inroads toward the hope of a possible re-unification?


Or, if that's been discussed to death, or you just don't want to discuss it, let this thread die a quick death.

By the way, I hadn't been popping in for a while and have been back a few times lately. Nice to see my friends here and hope you are all doing well.

 

[RKO]

Regarding my statement about "other than admitting..." I didn't intend to make light of those concerns. I was interested to see if there are other things that the RCC could do to build bridges...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I must've missed the memo. I didn't know you went back to the Catholic Church. I won't lie. I'm bummed. I thought you were headed East, bro....

 

[RKO]

Gurney, I haven't done anything yet. Still discerning and working through stuff. Feel more comfortable in the EOC than the RCC in many respects, but have a few issues. Also my crazy job has me about 60 miles from the Orthodox Church I had been attending. Have just been in "limbo." I am still very much discerning.

 

[ArmyMatt]

from what I have seen. the Pope has less political power because the Christian West has much more lukewarmness about it (not that Orthodoxy is immune from that of course, but someone like Nancy Pelosi probably would have been excommunicated long ago).

and the Papacy just keeps wandering further from Orthodoxy, all the while trying to externally make it look like we are close.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I will echo Brother Matthew here. I do think the papacy has become less powerful in that it doesn't really sway politicians anymore. Most Hispanic countries that were once very concerned about keeping in line with the Catholic Church now usually could care less. That is true with all the same-sex "marriage" nonsense in Central and South America, and my observation is that the Philippines is more concerned about the secular than the papal stamp of approval.

The Pope is more of a religious figure I think, yes.

He doesn't carry the clout he once did. In fact, this pope has allowed the LGBT Nazis to shape him into something I don't think he totally truly is--a pro-pan-sexual nutcase.

I think Matt is dead on that the papacy is wandering and drifting further and further into lost waters away from Orthodoxy almost by the day!

 

[Columba7]

He doesn't carry the clout he once did. In fact, this pope has allowed the LGBT Nazis to shape him into something I don't think he totally truly is--a pro-pan-sexual nutcase.

Seriously, where do you get your information?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Columba, please do one of two things: put me on ignore or become Catholic. You obviously have it in for me, and no matter what I say you're going to charge me with cooking up my own facts. Please put me on ignore rather than continue your insults...or just convert to the CC already.

Seriously, where do you get your information?

 

[rusmeister]

Hey, Gurney, I don't think Columba was trying to insult, I think he doesn't see what you and I see.

Columba, we get our information from the same sources that you do - the very privately-owned mass media. The Pope's now-famous statement on homosexuals ("Who am I to judge?") was disastrously misleading. That's exactly why it got wide-scale press attention, because, willy-nilly, speaking about our view that we may not judge the standing of others before God is of no help at all to people who do not even think sodomy sin - who renamed it into (first, "homosexuality", then) "being gay" so that they WOULDN'T think of it as such. And someone of Francis's stature ought to realize that.

The Pope is supposed to LEAD, not mislead. He had a great opportunity to, in a couple of sentences, to delineate that. And he blew it big-time. Yes, people DO need to be reminded that we are not personally judging their standing before God. But they just as desperately need to be reminded that we can, and ought to, say that wrong is wrong, and sin is sin. The tautology is necessary for those who have ceased to see the tautology.

 

[Knee V]

The political structure (the Holy Roman Empire) that gave the Papacy its strong political power gave up the ghost after WWI. With that structure gone, the Papacy lost much of its relevance and influence. I believe that Vatican II was its reaction to that loss of relevance.

 

[Columba7]

Columba, please do one of two things: put me on ignore or become Catholic. You obviously have it in for me, and no matter what I say you're going to charge me with cooking up my own facts. Please put me on ignore rather than continue your insults...or just convert to the CC already.

I didn't know ignoring was an option. I will look into that. It is one thing to criticize the way in which someone said something; however you went far beyond this and referred to Pope Francis as "a pro-pan-sexual nutcase." Such a characterization goes far beyond what his statement warrants. I have no personal vendetta against you. I merely think that, time and time again, you make unfounded claims and exaggerations without any care for speaking the truth in love.

CNS STORY: 'Who am I to judge?' Pope's remarks do not change church teaching

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well, respectfully, I think you suffer from reading comprehension issues as of late, Columba. Here is what I said, brother...

He doesn't carry the clout he once did. In fact, this pope has allowed the LGBT Nazis to shape him into something I don't think he totally truly is--a pro-pan-sexual nutcase.

Did you read that closely? Go back and re-read the post. If you read it, you'll see that I state that he has allowed the LGBT nutjobs to make him seem to be in their corner. I never said THAT HE IS in their corner, right?

I find it offensive that he allows perceptions to float around unchecked. I will tell you this--if someone were calling me a heretic saying that Gurney is a gnostic or an Arian or a Nestorian, or that I believe in the filiioque, you can bet your tushie-buns that I would retort and make it extremely clear that it's patently false.

The Pope has done a poor job imho of conveying his messages time and time again. Am I impressed with this guy? Not in the least. I can see you are. You rush to his defense at the mere slightest breath of criticism. You've made it clear that you're enamored with Catholicism and weren't meant for Orthodoxy. All I can say is that you either need to re-examine your Orthodoxy, or put me on ignore if my criticisms offend so deeply. But in this case, I was merely saying that he's allowed others to make him seem to be something he's not. I think, as I said, you just suffered from a "hey, Gurney's talking! Get him!" rush to judgment rather than careful "close reading" as we teachers must now call it in the Common Core!

I didn't know ignoring was an option. I will look into that. It is one thing to criticize the way in which someone said something; however you went far beyond this and referred to Pope Francis as "a pro-pan-sexual nutcase." Such a characterization goes far beyond what his statement warrants. I have no personal vendetta against you. I merely think that, time and time again, you make unfounded claims and exaggerations without any care for speaking the truth in love.

CNS STORY: 'Who am I to judge?' Pope's remarks do not change church teaching

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes. And I've tried to say time and time again that his poor communication skills and wobbly speeches are easily manipulated by the media. And each time something goes unanswered or just poorly contested, well, it's an opportunity for Old Nick to do his dirty work via the media.

Can you imagine what would happen if Patriarch Kyrill or my bishop, Bishop Maxim were put on the cover of a "gay" LGBT magazine as their "man of the year?" Holy Lord! I'd be ducking for cover!

Hey, Gurney, I don't think Columba was trying to insult, I think he doesn't see what you and I see.

Columba, we get our information from the same sources that you do - the very privately-owned mass media. The Pope's now-famous statement on homosexuals ("Who am I to judge?") was disastrously misleading. That's exactly why it got wide-scale press attention, because, willy-nilly, speaking about our view that we may not judge the standing of others before God is of no help at all to people who do not even think sodomy sin - who renamed it into (first, "homosexuality", then) "being gay" so that they WOULDN'T think of it as such. And someone of Francis's stature ought to realize that.

The Pope is supposed to LEAD, not mislead. He had a great opportunity to, in a couple of sentences, to delineate that. And he blew it big-time. Yes, people DO need to be reminded that we are not personally judging their standing before God. But they just as desperately need to be reminded that we can, and ought to, say that wrong is wrong, and sin is sin. The tautology is necessary for those who have ceased to see the tautology.

 

[Columba7]

This assessment of how the media has twisted Pope Francis' words is more substantial.

Journalists editing Pope Francis: Who are we to judge?

 

[Columba7]

I find it offensive that he allows perceptions to float around unchecked. I will tell you this--if someone were calling me a heretic saying that Gurney is a gnostic or an Arian or a Nestorian, or that I believe in the filiioque, you can bet your tushie-buns that I would retort and make it extremely clear that it's patently false.

The problem is that, since the Pope is very muc a public figure, if he had to respond to every media report that twisted his words he would never get anything else done.

Am I impressed with this guy? Not in the least. I can see you are. You rush to his defense at the mere slightest breath of criticism.

I am more interested in criticizing exaggerations and bad arguments than I am defending Pope Francis. I am pretty neutral on him, really.

You've made it clear that you're enamored with Catholicism and weren't meant for Orthodoxy.

When? I think once again you make claims that reach far beyond what statements merit. You seem to do the same thing the media has done to Francis. I'll make sure to put you on ignore just as soon as I figure out how. I'm not too tech savvy.

 

[rusmeister]

I agree, totally, Columba, that the media twists the Pope's words. I've said that about all genuine Christian teaching, and it IS deplorable and unfair to the Pope and to Christians in general.

My remaining objection is that he doesn't even try to correct the errors of the wilful editing, and clearly express, in short and simple terms, the ancient Christian position on the issue - both its being sin, brokenness AND the distinction which can be expressed simply enough as a need to judge the sin and not the sinner, and that judging in the Christian context - "Judge not" means, not "not condemning evil", but "not to try to determine the standing of others before God".

It's that simple. I think the best excuse for him is that he tried to expound at length where he should not; where it is NECESSARY to speak succinctly and clearly - to be brief and clear. Not always an easy task. We prefer to explain things. But as can be seen, exposition backfired. Lack of clarity remained.

That wouldn't have been necessary 150 years ago. Ordinary people stood around for three hours listening to the Lincoln-Douglass debates trying to decide whether slavery ought to be tolerated or not. But in our time, people have been trained to have very small attention spans - so that those of us who strive to do better have to struggle to hold our attention even on fifteen minutes for a topic, let alone three hours. Francis is not speaking to a pre-Industrial audience, but to a modern audience that has been trained by public education and the modern media to be unable or unwilling to follow longer and more complete thoughts. He more than anyone ought to realize that.

 

[rusmeister]

I suggest we all try to be a little less ascerbic, and realize that we have come to the Church from different directions.

 

[pyramid33]

I suggest we praise God, the only one worthy to be praised, with glory and reverence.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I find it fascinating that you come on here, don't fully read my post, insult me by claiming I said something I didn't, and instead of apologizing as any good Orthodox Christian would, you say nothing but more but insults. You don't seem neutral where the Pope is concerned.

When I read your posts, I wonder if you'd have the courage at coffee hour to walk up to me and say the stuff you've said. I also wonder if you'd sit down at my table and say, "hey, I plan on ignoring you. How do you do that?" Yes, I was the one that offered, but I guess a part of me was hoping you'd reach out to another Orthodox Christian and perhaps try to make things work rather than just further the insults.

I find your argument woefully lacking, and unworthy of a guy with a Master's in Theology. The Pope doesn't have a million media folks to satiate, Columba. It was a major LGBT publication, right? Is it really too hard to issue a statement to ONE publication or just make a blanket statement to the world that you are opposed to the sin of active sodomy and same-sex intercourse? Is that really that much of a toughie?

But since you seem insistent on blasting me and making things personal, let the guy with the Bachelor's degree explain to the Master's Degree guy how to put someone on ignore

Go up to your User CP at the very top of your screen
Go the left middle side of your screen to "edit ignore list"
Type "gurneyhalleck1," that vile and repugnant man, into the box
Click "okay"
Click "save changes"

Despite your disdain for me, your revulsion, I wish you well and hope you stay an Orthodox Christian. If I in any way have been a detriment in your journey to stay Orthodox, I ask forgiveness. I hope you don't go Catholic, but that's all up to you. If that is where you feel the truth is, then go for it, but I don't recommend it.

I often wonder what good the internet really is. I often think that you and I would disagree at coffee hour, but try to find common ground, and not attack one another with barbs of arrogance. We might even laugh it off over a beer. It seems that the internet can bring out the worst in all of us, and the condescending desire to always be right, and to argue for the sake of hearing our own voices. I'm as guilty as the next man.

May God bless your journey.

The problem is that, since the Pope is very muc a public figure, if he had to respond to every media report that twisted his words he would never get anything else done.

I am more interested in criticizing exaggerations and bad arguments than I am defending Pope Francis. I am pretty neutral on him, really. When? I think once again you make claims that reach far beyond what statements merit. You seem to do the same thing the media has done to Francis. I'll make sure to put you on ignore just as soon as I figure out how. I'm not too tech savvy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The short attention span point is absolutely dead-on! And yes, it is a different age we live in with regard to how messages are sent, received, and digested. I have appreciated Pope Francis's desire to clean up corruption and make a better example. He has dumped the "pope mobile" to be closer to the people despite the risk. He has taken public transportation and has driven in bland vehicles rather than luxury. He has stayed in humble accommodations. He has fired bishops and archbishops living opulently. He has gone after scandals and messed with the Vatican bank. He has foregone some of the pomp and circumstance to get down to the nitty-gritty, and for some that is refreshing....

But I insist that not responding to false allegations attributed to the Pope is a passive endorsement of the lies. The guy loves Twitter and seems to want to use the papacy to get out the Gospel and focus on what matters. That's great, but he can walk and chew gum. And he could also put in some more time reforming that disastrous liturgy. It is still in tatters.

I agree that his attempts and discouraging our being judgmental on a person's salvation is laudable, but it needed more context. Why didn't this happen with Pope John Paul II? Why didn't this happen with Benedict? Why IS this happening with Francis? I have so many Catholic acquaintances at work and around town and it seems like all of them say the same thing---"boy this Pope Francis is a wing-nut isn't he? The guy seems ok with anything! I miss the last pope!"

Why do they say this? They say it because he's letting the worldly media run the conversation and not stepping up to make the entire conversation clear and rock solid.

I just don't see what's wrong with wanting a pope to have the stones to fight back and clarify? I would expect that in anyone, especially a pope!

I agree, totally, Columba, that the media twists the Pope's words. I've said that about all genuine Christian teaching, and it IS deplorable and unfair to the Pope and to Christians in general.

My remaining objection is that he doesn't even try to correct the errors of the wilful editing, and clearly express, in short and simple terms, the ancient Christian position on the issue - both its being sin, brokenness AND the distinction which can be expressed simply enough as a need to judge the sin and not the sinner, and that judging in the Christian context - "Judge not" means, not "not condemning evil", but "not to try to determine the standing of others before God".

It's that simple. I think the best excuse for him is that he tried to expound at length where he should not; where it is NECESSARY to speak succinctly and clearly - to be brief and clear. Not always an easy task. We prefer to explain things. But as can be seen, exposition backfired. Lack of clarity remained.

That wouldn't have been necessary 150 years ago. Ordinary people stood around for three hours listening to the Lincoln-Douglass debates trying to decide whether slavery ought to be tolerated or not. But in our time, people have been trained to have very small attention spans - so that those of us who strive to do better have to struggle to hold our attention even on fifteen minutes for a topic, let alone three hours. Francis is not speaking to a pre-Industrial audience, but to a modern audience that has been trained by public education and the modern media to be unable or unwilling to follow longer and more complete thoughts. He more than anyone ought to realize that.