Jack Chick's View on Catholicism

[prodromos]

What I posted was in reference to what Paul himself said about "bearing in his body the marks of Christ".

I agree that that is what Paul is referring to, not that he bears the specific wounds of Christ.

 

[outlawState]

Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy”​

OTOH 1 Cor 5 tells us that there is no mercy within the church for sexual immorality except by full repentance. That is a message that is being flouted by the current Pope who claims that the church should not "judge" homosexuals. They have already been judged and they have no place in the church.

 

[ViaCrucis]

OTOH 1 Cor 5 tells us that there is no mercy within the church for sexual immorality except by full repentance. That is a message that is being flouted by the current Pope who claims that the church should not "judge" homosexuals. They have already been judged and they have no place in the church.

I believe Pastor Bonhoeffer has some valid points to be made about those who believe grace is a commodity that the Church can dole out as it so pleases, making it a cheap grace.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[outlawState]

I believe Pastor Bonhoeffer has some valid points to be made about those who believe grace is a commodity that the Church can dole out as it so pleases, making it a cheap grace.

-CryptoLutheran

True, yet "cheap grace" is not real grace for the church is only the channel, not the bestower of grace. If the church claims to dole out grace, then it is setting itself up in place of Christ. It is for the church to recognize those who have received the grace of God, and to admit. Sinners who have not yet received the grace of God should not be admitted as members of the church, whatever their baptismal state.

This has ramifications for whom the "man of lawlessness" is in 2 Thess 2;3. He sets himself up in place of God. This is surely a reference to his claim to dispense the grace of God other than in accordance with God's own dispensation.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

OTOH 1 Cor 5 tells us that there is no mercy within the church for sexual immorality except by full repentance. That is a message that is being flouted by the current Pope who claims that the church should not "judge" homosexuals. They have already been judged and they have no place in the church.

Just realize what is beings said in media as "being flouted" is no more reliable than the youtube videos showing aliens and UFOs. To copy their lead on matters is a bit disrespectful unless one has special knowledge that anyone is flouting something. The idea that sinners should be kicked out of Churches would leave them rather empty, so Christian charity rather demands something less than that, which God's message to us that we not judge others is also in line with. That is a much different expression that being able to show that someone actually argued we should embrace the sin as well as the sinner. Making or allowing active homosexuals Pastors for example is not and never will be a Catholic thing, anymore than it is still a very obvious and active grade school "thing" today. These are cultural issues and the sinners in this culture are the members of all Churches, and Christians are not suppose to judge. That right belongs properly to the Persons that judge all Christians for their ongoing sins.

The cultural adoption in higher learning institutions (everywhere) that apparently not only allowed but encouraged such men to pursue becoming Catholic Priests, along with a hierarchy that was in the majority anyway predisposed to protecting those Priests has been dealt with within the Church. There is no indication with this Pope or any other of a desire to bring those men back. The media historically either condemns the Pope/Church for positions never changing (abortion, homosexuality, marriage, contraception, condoms..etc) or selectively distorts a message given to then applaud loudly the alleged "change" or "modernization" they think the distorted message which they created proclaims. Jack Chic was no different in this regard in being severely judgemental towards the Church and Catholics as a whole.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I read on youtube that a true christian wouldn't be attacked the way Pio was because God would protect them-the comment was implying that Pio wasn't saved.

While I don't give too much credence to you tube, Padre Pio was saved. He was operating in the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

For instance, there were many times that people would go to him for confession, and HE would tell them their sins. (That would be the word of knowledge). He did this many times.

People who had started rebuilding their lives after World War I, began to see in Padre Pio a symbol of hope. Those close to him attest that he began to manifest several spiritual gifts, including the gifts of healing, bilocation, levitation, prophecy, miracles, extraordinary abstinence from both sleep and nourishment (one account states that Padre Agostino recorded one instance in which Padre Pio was able to subsist for at least 20 days at Verafeno on only the Eucharist without any other nourishment), the ability to read hearts, the gift of tongues, the gift of conversions, and the fragrance from his wounds. (Wikipedia)

Now, with those kinds of things going on, we can be sure that he was saved, and filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Monk Brendan]

That isn't a literal verse about the marks of Jesus.

That's the problem with most "Christians." They expect you to believe in everything as literal. But when you come across a passage that goes against their theology, it isn't literal. I would rather believe the Bible, thank you.

 

[Albion]

OTOH 1 Cor 5 tells us that there is no mercy within the church for sexual immorality except by full repentance. That is a message that is being flouted by the current Pope who claims that the church should not "judge" homosexuals. They have already been judged and they have no place in the church.

Unfortunately, the current pope, like the previous one, is more interested in building the size and influence of the institutional church than in promoting the faith.

 

[outlawState]

The idea that sinners should be kicked out of Churches would leave them rather empty

This is the very issue that underpins the message that Chic desires to inculcate. If the Roman church cannot distinguish different types of sin, the "sin that leads to death" from the "sin that does not lead to death" 1Jo 5:16 i.e. between the sin of the unsaved and unregenerate, which clearly continues amongst even its priests, and even amongst its entire hieararchy if you take the view that mariolatry that was not taught by Jesus is idolatry and so a sin that leads to death, from the sin of the repentant, then you are in no position to be called a church at all.

I concede that Roman priests who have committed flagrant adultery and other sins in the past have on occasions been excommunicated, but it it very rare. The scandals continue (just see youtube), and are only abated by confounding mortal and venial sin. It is intolerable. The apostle Paul clearly gave a list of what sins are to be accounted mortal sins, in 1Ti 1:9, 1Co 6:9, 10 but they are disdained.

When the Roman church starts getting serious about sin, then we might take the Roman church seriously.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Unfortunately, the current pope, like the previous one, is more interested in building the size and influence of the institutional church than in promoting the faith.

Yeah the media loves the "change" they "see" in the Church, like adopting active homosexual priests - oh wait that is not the RCC. My point is what the media says this or that Pope, or this or that Bishop says is not equal to the Magisterium of the Church. That is true even if it is true the person being quoted has actually said and could be found to have believed what the media suggests they do. We even have Catholic media sources going along because they too would like to see changes more "modern". "Pope promotes condom use" is a classic modern example. None of those claims makes it true that any Pope or Bishop has actually said what they claim is to be understood as them saying it.

I spend considerable time in social media with family re-assuring Catholics unwilling to actually go read in context a statement regarding homosexuality for example, that the media proudly applauds the Pope or past Popes over. I have yet to find one such statement that in context suggests anything like what the media wants a selective quote to mean, and in fact quite the opposite of it. The difficulties are often also compounded by translations from the original spoken or written language that contain in the translations statements which are made less clear by that translation effort, especially with English being often less expressive or precise in words.

It is like recent CF threads were someone is quoting a Church Father suggesting from the single quote they did not believe in a soul being present at conception, when clearly other statements by same man indicate such a position would be incompatible with other statements he made - will see all the dead from conception forward at the resurrection of the dead for example. Not to mention that in context conception was the prevailing position in society and in the Church when the quote selected for appeal was made. So the media and people frequently are very wrong about what has been said by a Catholic. It is rather humorous to see them bounce from applauding Popes/the Church one day when liking what is "want to be understood" and then the next even harshly condemning them when the media is unable to twist things said/written the way the media (and modern society) would like the Church/Pope to be understood.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

This is the very issue that underpins the message that Chic desires to inculcate. If the Roman church cannot distinguish different types of sin, the "sin that leads to death" from the "sin that does not lead to death" 1Jo 5:16 i.e. between the sin of the unsaved and unregenerate, which clearly continues amongst even its priests, and even amongst its entire hieararchy if you take the view that mariolatry that was not taught by Jesus is idolatry and so a sin that leads to death, from the sin of the repentant, then you are in no position to be called a church at all.

I concede that Roman priests who have committed flagrant adultery and other sins in the past have on occasions been excommunicated, but it it very rare. The scandals continue (just see youtube), and are only abated by confounding mortal and venial sin. It is intolerable. The apostle Paul clearly gave a list of what sins are to be accounted mortal sins, in 1Ti 1:9, 1Co 6:9, 10 but they are disdained.

When the Roman church starts getting serious about sin, then we might take the Roman church seriously.

Jack Chic would be as proud of his offspring as they are obviously of him.
adding - something about pride comes before................

 

[Albion]

Yeah the media loves the "change" they "see" in the Church, like adopting active homosexual priests - oh wait that is not the RCC. My point is what the media says this or that Pope, or this or that Bishop says is not equal to the Magisterium of the Church. That is true even if it is true the person being quoted has actually said and could be found to have believed what the media suggests they do. We even have Catholic media sources going along because they too would like to see changes more "modern". "Pope promotes condom use" is a classic modern example. None of those claims makes it true that any Pope or Bishop has actually said what they claim is to be understood as them saying it.

Sounds like a knee-jerk defense against something that you thought might have been said or intended but was not.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Sounds like a knee-jerk defense against something that you thought might have been said or intended but was not.

Hardly. Someone making the unsubstantiated claim that a Pope "is more interested in building the size and influence of the institutional church than in promoting the faith." has clearly both bought into and offered a very distorted view of those men, the lives they have led and teachings they have promoted.

 

[Albion]

Hardly. Someone making the unsubstantiated claim that a Pope "is more interested in building the size and influence of the institutional church than in promoting the faith." has clearly both bought into and offered a very distorted view of those men, the lives they have led and teachings they have promoted.

LOL. Well, even if that were so, I'd expect the response to address what was actually written rather than some all-purpose rebuttal. Say, that IS what "knee-jerk" means, doesn't it?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

LOL. Well, even if that were so, I'd expect the response to address what was actually written rather than some all-purpose rebuttal. Say, that IS what "knee-jerk" means, doesn't it?

The rebuttal addresses why someone today might make any number of claims against Pope's and the Church, of which your unsupported claim would be just one of many common claims today. And without support, I see no distinction being made between that comment and the claims of the deceased Jack Chic.

The thread is rather to the general point that many such claims are made and obviously many people believing them, all offered without valid support or as in the case of media today - erroneous support. So I would think a general all-purpose rebuttal is warranted in this thread to claims made supporting Jack Chic method of critique. Especially to something stated as if it were true without backing it up as actually being true.

Which to me is rather the whole intent and purpose of Jack Chic comics, to promote such unsupportable claims against the Church and Popes. Those comics appeal to and endorse unsubstantiated views and the comment in your post was promoting an unsupported claim. Was it not?

 

[Albion]

The rebuttal addresses why someone today might make any number of claims against Pope's and the Church

That's pretty much what I said.

of which your unsupported claim would be just one of many common claims today.

Well, I'd think that addressing my own comment would be preferable to throwing the same kitchen sink at me that you'd throw at Jack Chick.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That's pretty much what I said.


Well, I'd think that addressing my own comment would be preferable to throwing the same kitchen sink at me that you'd throw at Jack Chick.

An unsupported claim is an unsupported claim, whether it attributed to Jack Chic or yourself. Am not sure why we should not treat both the same, especially if we are attempting to address the thought and not the poster of the erroneous thought.

adding - that is not what was said in the original post. What was said was an additional false claim about Pope(s) given in support to another poster making equally false and unsupported claims against the Pope and the Church.

 

[Albion]

An unsupported claim is an unsupported claim, whether it attributed to Jack Chic or yourself.

So why go on and on about other people's unsupported claims rather than responding to what I wrote? I'm willing to hear it, if you have something relevant to say.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So why go on and on about other people's unsupported claims rather than responding to what I wrote? I'm willing to hear it, if you have something relevant to say.

The thread was an invitation to comment on Jack Chic's unsubstantiated claims and why one feels however one feels about those claims. I did not view that as offer for people to add their own unsubstantiated claims to the mix for others to then discuss those. My initial reply to your post was an attempt to turn the focus back from any particular poster's opinions, to the thought that media in general (and Jack Chic publication's version in the specific particular for this thread) makes a mockery of the actual teachings of both the Church and Popes for a reason.

If you really want to discuss why your personal unsupported opinion is any better than anyone of many Jack Chic claims, I could start another thread and I would be happy to carry on there with that. In fact, since you seem rather bent on expressing your opinions here to continue derailing this thread, lets see how willing you are indeed to discuss your claim. Starting it in Current News and Events.

 

[J-Man70]

So you agree that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can pray for us?

No. They're not omnipresent. They can't hear us.