The Papacy and Its Unholy State

[paleodoxy]

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?

Oh, so that's the new rule now? When a heresy manages to survive for over a thousand years, it finally earns some respect?

This makes it all the more deadly and formidable, Kjell Bjarne. The greatest threat to Orthodoxy in the history of the Church since Arianism (in terms of power and numbers).

To answer your question: the guy wrote the piece because the current Pope recently and publicly called Christ's Body "defective" .

In war, you never lay down your weapons until the enemy does first.

 

[nutroll]

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.

I don't think I'm stretching at all. If the author really wanted to be honest, he would have cleared all of that up, and place blame squarely where it belongs. I am offended by what Pope Benedict said, but I would never use such tactics to attack him. Ultimately it does more of a disservice to us than it does to the Catholic Church to engage in this kind of attack, and that is precisely why I am offended by this article. I think it makes us look like dishonest jerks instead of steadfast and faithful servants of the Lord.

 

[nutroll]

Also, not to belabor the point, but on what basis does he make claims like this?

Wherever he goes he longs repeatedly to hear the cry of the masses: “Viva il Papa.” Great effort is made by thousands to draw near the Pope. However, not much effort is exerted to draw closer to Christ.

And which Pope did this, and where was this recorded so that the author could quote it for his article?

The Popes theorizes: “Christ is not present but absent and invisible. Behold me! I have been appointed by Christ as your head. I am the visible Head of the Church, and only by unity with me are you in the church. Do not think that the Holy Spirit is your guide, for I am your guide and I will lead you into all truth, which I and only I will proclaim from Rome. For God has bestowed upon me alone, universal primacy and authority over the entire world. More than that, it is impossible for me to err in the faith for I alone am the reliable and infallible one! I alone possess the keys to heaven and hell. I stand before you as a humble and gentle man.”

Again, I am not against pointing out problems in Catholic theology and ecclesiology, I am not opposed to making a statement in response to what Pope Benedict said, but I am opposed to intellectual dishonesty and mean spirited attacks.

 

[paleodoxy]

Also, not to belabor the point, but on what basis does he make claims like this?



And which Pope did this, and where was this recorded so that the author could quote it for his article?



Again, I am not against pointing out problems in Catholic theology and ecclesiology, I am not opposed to making a statement in response to what Pope Benedict said, but I am opposed to intellectual dishonesty and mean spirited attacks.
[/font][/color]

For some reason, when you quote the article, the quotes themselves don't appear in my text responses. Oh well.

All I want to say about that is this: The popular expression, "actions speak louder than words" is also a biblical principle, and if it applies anywhere, it is right here.

The actions of the Pope speak louder and clearer than anything he may or may not have uttered with his own tongue. Deeds never lie. As such, the pope has stated precisely what the article has suggested. By occupying the papal throne, he is saying that he sits in the place of Jesus Christ.

But thankfully, we don't have to go merely off of what the current pope has done. We can also base it precisely on what he has said, and July 10 is irrefutable confirmation.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

.

 

[paleodoxy]

.

 

[nutroll]

For some reason, when you quote the article, the quotes themselves don't appear in my text responses. Oh well.

All I want to say about that is this: The popular expression, "actions speak louder than words" is also a biblical principle, and if it applies anywhere, it is right here.

The actions of the Pope speak louder and clearer than anything he may or may not have uttered with his own tongue. Deeds never lie. As such, the pope has stated precisely what the article has suggested. By occupying the papal throne, he is saying that he sits in the place of Jesus Christ.

But thankfully, we don't have to go merely off of what the current pope has done. We can also base it precisely on what he has said, and July 10 is irrefutable confirmation.

Again, I am not saying that what Pope Benedict said was anything less than offensive. I am also not defending the Papacy in any way shape or form. I am aware of the implications of the Papacy on ecclesiology. I have a serious problem, however with both what was said in this article, and how it was said.

 

[nutroll]

I have removed this post since it refers to a post that has been deleted.

 

[paleodoxy]

nutroll, if I have communicated poorly, I apologize. I do not think you are suggesting anything of the kind. I only think that you have read too much into the article.

Based on what the Pope believes about his office, then he has said that Christ is invisible and absent (per the quote); in addition, if he believes what he believes about himself, then he does love to be called "viva il papa"...

Brother, you may have the last word if you choose. Everything I needed to say has been said.

God bless. And thank you for making this a pleasant exchange.

 

[paleodoxy]

nutroll, I struck that post from the thread after Kjell Bjarne struck his from the thread. What's done is done.

 

[livingword26]

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.

Or some hateful ant-Protestant catholic, or some hateful anti-protestant Orthodox. They're all out there. And they all consider themselves the one true church.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Or some hateful ant-Protestant catholic, or some hateful anti-protestant Orthodox. They're all out there. And they all consider themselves the one true church.

Are you here for the sole purpose of trolling? Contribute something to the thread or consider yourself reported.

 

[paleodoxy]

Or some hateful ant-Protestant catholic, or some hateful anti-protestant Orthodox. They're all out there. And they all consider themselves the one true church.

I hesitate to remind you that the number of popes rose exponentially after the Protestant Reformation. Conversely, the Pope was the first Protestant. Papalism is a staple of all western ecclesiastical traditions.

 

[livingword26]

Are you here for the sole purpose of trolling? Contribute something to the thread or consider yourself reported.

Do what you feel is right.

 

[livingword26]

I hesitate to remind you that the number of popes rose exponentially after the Protestantism Reformation. Conversely, the Pope was the first Protestant. Papalism is a staple of all western ecclesiastical traditions.

So is what you are saying here is that your church is the one true church?

 

[vanshan]

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.

I have no idea what their oath may be, but that really doesn't matter. Think about St. Peter the Aleut, who was matryred at the hands of Jesuit priests in California for refusing to deny his Orthodox faith submit to the papacy.

Basil

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So is what you are saying here is that your church is the one true church?

You bet.

And if you wish to say otherwise. This is not the place.

Forgive me...

 

[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.

I have no idea what their oath may be, but that really doesn't matter. Think about St. Peter the Aleut, who was matryred at the hands of Jesuit priests in California for refusing to deny his Orthodox faith submit to the papacy.

Basil

I was not taking sides in the ongoing debate concerning the article itself. I spoke only relating to the posts regarding the "Jesuit Oath".

I do not disagree with you. I agree and support the overall message of the article that was posted. But I also agree with some of the criticism I have seen here regarding some of the details within the article. In the end, I think it was a good article written by a man almost as single minded and stubborn as me.

 

[vanshan]

The article was written by a laymen, which is not to say that it is in anyway an invalid or inaccurate view of the papacy. Although more diplomacy has been used to communicate with Rome in our efforts to reach out to those under the yoke of that organization, this article simply, in no uncertain terms, spells out the official and enduring Orthodox view of the RCC, not it's people, but the corrupt organism itself.

The hope is always to free captives, not cause division--that was done by the corruption that led to apostacy of Rome centuries ago. Healing comes from reconciliation between the ancient Church and each of us individually. This is our hope. This is God's commandment--that we all become One with Christ alone as our Head. Anything that challenges His Lordship is evil--there really is no other accurate way to put it! Individuals have their own struggle with sin, but the evil being spoken of is the evil of the position and heirarchical organization under the papacy, because it claims headship of Christ's Church, which as the article points out, attempts to dethrone and set itself up against our Lord in the position He alone can hold as our Head in the Body of Christ.

Basil

 

[paleodoxy]

Well now livingword, I suppose you think this somehow proves something. I hate to break it to you, but on this line of reasoning, you can't be sure Christianity is true, since most every world religion claims to be the true one.