The Papacy and Its Unholy State

[TrueHope]

Either, or, I don't trust anything written...there is always something deeper in meaning to fool the average....Anything can be written and anything can be debunked....Things like this are why the truth seekers can get sent on crazy roads....there is only one truth....

 

[Horizonol]

Either, or, I don't trust anything written...there is always something deeper in meaning to fool the average....Anything can be written and anything can be debunked....Things like this are why the truth seekers can get sent on crazy roads....there is only one truth....

If something sounds really shocking, to the point of repeating it because it is surprising- it is useful to do a little research on the subject in general. Although I often neglect to do so myself.

 

[Protoevangel]

Everything I have ever seen about the "Jesuit Oath" is by the rabid anti-Catholic protestants. I don't believe anything they have to say.

 

[TrueHope]

If something sounds really shocking, to the point of repeating it because it is surprising- it is useful to do a little research on the subject in general. Although I often neglect to do so myself.

You have an extremely good point there!

 

[nutroll]

I might even sell you a bridge in New York for cheap.

How cheap are we talking? New York real estate seems like a good investment to me.... In all seriousness, though, I want to go on record as being completely opposed to the kind of trash presented in the article of the OP. For me the problems go far past the tone of the author. I think there are some serious problems with the man's rational faculties. I think the thing that stands out to me the most is that the author conflates all Popes into one person. He acts as though Pope Benedict himself attacked Mt. Athos, as though he lured the Uniates away from Orthodoxy, and on and on. I myself am not enthralled with Pope Benedict, I think his statement was hurtful, but I disagree vehemently with the notion that once we have reproached the Pope (meaning all the Popes put together) twice that we should have nothing more to do with them. I think that there was dialogue with Pope John Paul II that was constructive, I'm sure that there has been some dialogue even with Pope Benedict that has been constructive. I think that we should continue to try to reach out to Popes of the Catholic Church for the sake of reconciliation. If there is a Pope that spits in our faces repeatedly, then we should wait for the next Pope to come along and pray that he will be more open. This is not to say that I think the Orthodox Church should sell out and be absorbed into the Catholic Church, but we shouldn't ever assume that God wants us to right the Catholic Church off as a total loss. I can't imagine for a minute that the God who receives back the prodigal son would want us to speak in this way about anyone, even if they are in the wrong. We ought to hold fast in our beliefs, but we should never forget to reach out to others in love.

 

[paleodoxy]

For me the problems go far past the tone of the author. I think there are some serious problems with the man's rational faculties. I think the thing that stands out to me the most is that the author conflates all Popes into one person.

I honestly didn't receive this impression from the article. I didn't receive the message that all popes should be conflated into a single person, but that all popes should be conflated into a single office. Crucial distinction here. All Roman popes since 1014 or so have willfully occupied a non-Christian office. Predictably (and inevitably) this sort of tyrannical usurpation has led to periodic persecutions throughout the history of the Church against other Christian bodies. (Not to mention many other problems.)

The papacy replaces Christ as the Head of the Church on earth. And as such, the papacy should be condemned for what it is.

 

[paleodoxy]

And to briefly address the point just made by our Catholic friend:

Our point is not that Roman popes are corrupt and Orthodox bishops are not. In fact, Orthodoxy vociferously supports the recognition that all men (including her own) are inherently fallible, and thus capable of corruption, especially when vested with more power than they ought to have. This is precisely why we condemn the papacy.

Let's please not oversimplify our critiques.

 

[livingword26]

Rome gets a taste of her own medicine.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

The author surprised me in going off on the same tired and dishonest tactics of protestant anti-Catholic writers. This includes making statement against something that implies the Catholic Church believes it to be so.

I was going to say earlier that the author's tone is reminiscent of Jack Chick and the kind folks at jesus-is-savior.com.

I have major problems with the papacy myself (obviously), but there are far better ways of expressing them than by sounding like some hateful anti-Catholic protestant.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Rome gets a taste of her own medicine.

Yes... is adding gasoline to the flame really necessary?

 

[nutroll]

I honestly didn't receive this impression from the article. I didn't receive the message that all popes should be conflated into a single person, but that all popes should be conflated into a single office. Crucial distinction here. All Roman popes since 1014 or so have willfully occupied a non-Christian office. Predictably (and inevitably) this sort of tyrannical usurpation has led to periodic persecutions throughout the history of the Church against other Christian bodies. (Not to mention many other problems.)

The papacy replaces Christ as the Head of the Church on earth. And as such, the papacy should be condemned for what it is.

Though I agree that the author is indeed condemning the papacy, his words make it clear that he hangs the transgressions of all Popes on this Pope. Look at one section of what he says:

The Pope’s desire is one: to seize us and place us under his dominion and authority and thus succeed in robbing us of our freedom in Christ. He has said that he will seek a new way to exercise his authority as a robber who tells you that he will find a new way to rob your house.

which Pope? the current Pope? Why not say, the Papacy's desire is one? Because he wants to further indict this Pope beyond his actual words. Then the paragraph immediately following this:

The Pope has always sought to spiritually plunder and rob Orthodox Christians of their true Faith. He has demonstrated this many times, especially during the Fourth Crusade, when the Papists sacked the City, raping and slaughtering its inhabitants. Later, his soldiers of fortune violated the Holy Mountain and massacred many monastics. What was the monastics’ crime? They refused to pray with the Papists and pay homage to their unholy leader, the Pope. The Pope went on to invent Unia, wherein Orthodox Christians receive significant material help from the Pope and keep all their traditions, but lose their Orthodoxy, for they were forced to commemorate “the (un)Holy Father, the Pope of Rome.” These ex-Orthodox traitors became know as “Uniates.” What is their goal since abandoning the true Faith? They join the Pope and wage war against the faithful Orthodox—a war that continues to this day. The instant they accepted this offer and fell into the trap, they lost the grace of the Holy Spirit as well as their eternal salvation, for they chose the Pope in preference to Jesus Christ. They are despised by Catholics and shunned by the Orthodox Christians; they have accordingly surrendered their eternal inheritance found only within the true Faith, the Orthodox Faith. This is what will happen to all Orthodox Christians who join the Pope. It is spiritual suicide, for Christ will place them among the goats.

Again, he makes no attempt to clarify that he is now talking about Popes rather than one Pope in particular. He could easily identify individual Popes, and further clarify that he is intending to show a trend within the Papacy. That argument I would not have a problem with. But again, he wants you to see Pope Benedict as personally embodying these transgressions so that no one will have any dialogue with him. And to show this, I quote the next two lines:

The Pope Provides Clarity of His True Position

The Pope has indeed cleared the air.

This is now referring directly to Pope Benedict and his words. He is intentionally trying to point to all the previous Popes as being one and the same as this one so that the statement that he made immediately preceding all of this will make sense to the reader:

Dialogue with this heretical enemy is forbidden by Holy Scripture. A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonishment, reject, knowing that such a man is subverted and sins being self-condemned. (Tit 3:10-11).

I think it is true intellectual dishonesty, and the sad thing is that there are legitimate cases to be made concerning the Papacy, and the author chooses instead to make a dishonest attack.

 

[paleodoxy]

If we're going to have a problem with the author, then let's have a substantive one. Anyone who is worried about the author's "tone" needs to re-read the polemical writings of the Fathers against the heretics. They make this author look like child's play.

nutroll, I'd like to interact with your post, but I have a project to get back to. I'll get back with you in a bit.

 

[Horizonol]

And to briefly address the point just made by our Catholic friend:

Our point is not that Roman popes are corrupt and Orthodox bishops are not. In fact, Orthodoxy vociferously supports the recognition that all men (including her own) are inherently fallible, and thus capable of corruption, especially when vested with more power than they ought to have. This is precisely why we condemn the papacy.

Let's please not oversimplify our critiques.

The Pope, just as the orthodox bishops believe, that every man is fallible. The Pope is fallible, the Pope's statements are (generally) fallible. However, the Pope has, just as other apostles and their successors (Bishops) have, the ability to speak infallibly on matters of faith when inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox Church does not condemn the See of Rome because of a shared belief. If they did, the bible would be fallible as would its seven ecumenical councils.

 

[Horizonol]

If we're going to have a problem with the author, then let's have a substantive one. Anyone who is worried about the author's "tone" needs to re-read the polemical writings of the Fathers against the heretics. They make this author look like child's play.

nutroll, I'd like to interact with your post, but I have a project to get back to. I'll get back with you in a bit.

I don't think my post or nut's took issue with the 'tone' as the main, much less sole, objection.

 

[nutroll]

Ouch.... my name just got shortened to nut.... boy that hurts.....

But yeah, I don't think the tone is nearly as objectionable as the content....

 

[Horizonol]

I was going to say earlier that the author's tone is reminiscent of Jack Chick and the kind folks at jesus-is-savior.com.

I have major problems with the papacy myself (obviously), but there are far better ways of expressing them than by sounding like some hateful anti-Catholic protestant.

Exactly- there are honest ways of criticizing the See of Rome. But this is done by actually taking the statements in context and contrasting them with patristic writings, ecumenical councils or other historical statements.

This author was completely dishonest in both facts and through implications about what the Catholic Church believes. Coupled with its title and Jack Chick rant, it just doesn't offer the opportunity to be taken seriously.

 

[paleodoxy]

Horizonol,

Here I was specifically addressing Kjell Bjarne's concern re: the tone of the article.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

If we're going to have a problem with the author, then let's have a substantive one. Anyone who is worried about the author's "tone" needs to re-read the polemical writings of the Fathers against the heretics. They make this author look like child's play.

This is a substantive one. I don't buy your comparison to the Fathers, because this man is not a Father. And this was not written in the same context as the Fathers, either - the Roman church has been in schism with us for almost 1000 years now. Why did the author write it? And furthermore, why did he choose to write it in a style so similar to certain hateful protestant writers?

The tone of a piece matters. Whether someone is convinced or tosses a piece of writing in the trash can hinge upon how a piece is written as much as what it actually says. Don't tell me tone isn't a substantive complaint, because I can't take this guy seriously if the first thing I think of when I read it is "THE DEATH COOKIE."

 

[paleodoxy]

The Pope, just as the orthodox bishops believe, that every man is fallible. The Pope is fallible, the Pope's statements are (generally) fallible. However, the Pope has, just as other apostles and their successors (Bishops) have, the ability to speak infallibly on matters of faith when inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Apples and oranges. Orthodoxy (as you know) does not challenge ecclesiastical infallibility; it challenges non-conciliarism. We believe in conciliar infallibility, Rome doesn't. Rome severed the 'head' (the Pope) from the Body (the rest of the Church).

Our Head is Christ. And the Body (Orthodoxy) is still attached, leaving intact the fullness of conciliar infallible teaching from the Seven Ecumenical Synods.

You should have no problem with schism from the Pope. You taught us schism when you added the filioque. We're just following your lead, right?

The Orthodox Church does not condemn the See of Rome because of a shared belief. If they did, the bible would be fallible as would its seven ecumenical councils.

And precisely which Nicene Creed are we talking about here? I mean... ya know...while we're now talking about counciliar infallibility.

 

[paleodoxy]

nutroll,

You're stretching.

The quotations you've cited are historically accurate, and his comments about the current Pope are in keeping with his general attitude about the papacy. Nowhere does he insinuate that Benedict the XVI is personally guilty of any of the earlier atrocities mentioned.

Symbolically, the Pope is one man. That symbolic figure is the same, as evidenced by the familiar papal tiara he wears on his head.

The author's point is that this Man (this Pope-fugure) is still seeking to subjugate the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as witnessed on July 10.

This is all much ado about nothing. You should be more concerned about the insulting words of a heretic leveled against the Body of Christ.

Though I agree that the author is indeed condemning the papacy, his words make it clear that he hangs the transgressions of all Popes on this Pope. Look at one section of what he says:

[/font][/color]



which Pope? the current Pope? Why not say, the Papacy's desire is one? Because he wants to further indict this Pope beyond his actual words. Then the paragraph immediately following this:



[/font][/color]



Again, he makes no attempt to clarify that he is now talking about Popes rather than one Pope in particular. He could easily identify individual Popes, and further clarify that he is intending to show a trend within the Papacy. That argument I would not have a problem with. But again, he wants you to see Pope Benedict as personally embodying these transgressions so that no one will have any dialogue with him. And to show this, I quote the next two lines:





This is now referring directly to Pope Benedict and his words. He is intentionally trying to point to all the previous Popes as being one and the same as this one so that the statement that he made immediately preceding all of this will make sense to the reader:



I think it is true intellectual dishonesty, and the sad thing is that there are legitimate cases to be made concerning the Papacy, and the author chooses instead to make a dishonest attack.
[/size][/color][/font]