My view of the Papacy is not exaggerated - it is the traditional, orthodox acceptation of the papacy.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, English translation, paragraph 882: The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
There's nothing in there about being a moderator or some mere first among equals.
Nor is there anything in there about random anonymous Internet malcontents having some kind of jurisdiction over him or some authority to judge him.
So what makes the fact you seem obsessed with the letter of the law a matter of bigotry?
Another sidestep. "You Latins" is, of course, the marker of your bigotry.
"You Mexicans", "You Jews", "You Negroes", "You Latins" - the bigot's usual way of addressing an entire class of people he has unjustly stereotyped.
In the Byzantine mind prayerfulness and liturgical orthodoxy is first and the law is secondary.
That's your own idealized picture of your own liturgical community. It would be nice if it were true, but Byzantines put their pants on one leg at a time just like we poor benighted Latins do. Sorry.
That's the error of the West.
LOL! Now the entire West is in error! All Latin Rite Catholics are heretics now!
You seem so overcome by your own personal pride to see this in yourself.
The man who proclaims himself equal to Saint Paul and entitled to judge Popes, a man who has the power to declare that the sin of detraction is not actually a sin, says that I am prideful.
I'll take that comment with as much respect as it deserves.
The fruits of the Vatican II era have been rotten to the core, and if you can't see that you're blind.
We've already established that I'm blind because I acknowledge that the Pope is my pastor and that he actually has just authority over me as my pastor.
If anything is lacking in you is a spirit of charity.
Says the man who characterizes Popes as authors of scandal and all obdedient catholics as "blind" and "papolators." Please, o charitable one, teach me the way of your charity!
Threatened aren't you.
If the even the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Barque of Peter, trust me, I'm not too worried about you.
Filled by hate, aren't you.
The man who begins a thread spewing insults feels that others are filled by hate? Fact: you move me to pity. Again, iatre, therapouson seautou.
My prayer is that Pope Benedict XVI will remove the barriers to the licit celebration of the Old Rites
That would be wonderful. I'd love to see the Tridentine Rite have a wider application. I attend it myself every Sunday and Holyday.
and that he will disband the office for interreligious dialogue.
Why would you want to do that? Are you (shudder) filled by hate?
Stop playing your "The King can Do No Wrong" game.
Yet another straw man. The question is not "can the Pope do wrong?"
Of course he can.
The question is whether or not you are entitled to treat your pastor like garbage if he says or does something that rankles your own personal sensibilities.
The answer, to a Christian, is obviously no.
You treat your pastor with respect, you give him the benefit of the doubt and you take a charitable attitude.
You certainly do not denounce him as a heretic because you are not educated enough to read what he actually wrote in the language he promulgated it in.
Let's call it a truce here and try dialoguing with each other instead of talking at each other.
While it may be Catholic dogma that the pope has universal power and authority as it has developed over the centuries.
How that power is exercised and the relations of the other local churches to the Pope's universal authority is still open for debate and discussion.
The Latin Church and Latin Catholics have always seemed obsessed with the letter of the law an externals rather than internal matters of spirituality. I see that primacy of law in how theology, canon law and liturgics have been approached since the Advent of scholasticism.
I didn't accuse Latin Catholics of heresy. I merely stated that I felt the Scholastic approach to theology inadvertently creates a dualism between theology and spirituality.
I see that in the nice little categories that scholastic theologians love to place everything, not to mention canon law. For example mortal and venial sin, the categories of grace, superogatory works, the approach to justification as opposed to the Eastern approach of theosis.
My theological training has been in the Byzantine approach to theology, not the Latin approach.
The Byzantine Church, by contrast, begins with pneumatology and looks at canonical matters almost as an afterthought. I am happy to see that Pope Benedict XVI is finally working to develop a more balanced approach to theology.
Frs. Meyendorff and Affanasieff have had a profound impact upon his theology and it shows. Deus et Caritas was in some respects more Byzantine than Latin.
I did not declare myself equal to St. Paul, you are putting words in my mouth. Besides, it's not Catholic dogma that it is a sin or improper to criticize the popes when they do things that create confusion in the minds of the faithful.
I pointed to St. Paul as an example of how he as an inferior to St. Peter rebuked him when he was wrong. St. Bruno stood up against Pope Paschal II almost 1,000 years ago when he backed lay investiture, and he was both a simple monk and a saint.
Paul VI had the legal right to promulgate the Novus Ordo, and I do not deny that. However, I believe his decision to suppress the ancient Roman rite, which in its essentials is traceable back to the time of St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century was a grave mistake.
Many others, who aren't in schism, have come to the realization that Paul VI's suppression of the traditional Roman rite was a mistake. I have no memory of the 1960s or 1970s, but it was shear iconoclasm from what I have heard.
Like a good general who accepts responsibilities for errant subordinates Paul VI should have done likewise when he lost control of the liturgical "reforms." He did nothing of the sort.
He also created an unnessessary additional issue with the Orthodox on an ecumenical level.
Saying that the pope made a mistake here is no different than what St. Bruno did when Pope Paschal II went off the deep end sanctioning lay investiture.
You began this mockery, and you were the one who judged me with the supposed sin of detraction. Faithful dissent is not a sin, when no matter of heresy is involved.
Instead of having a discussion on the merits of the arguments, you launched into a tirade of ad hominem assaults. If I lost my cool, I apologize.
Scripture and Tradition both say pagans, Jews and heretics are to be converted to the truth, not prayed with.
Schismatic groups such as the Orthodox and the SSPX, etc. need to be dealt with charity, so that we can work together for reunion.
The Vatican has to stop promoting and tolerating phony ecumenism. It's shear Liberalism, not Catholicism.
Extreme ecumenism in the form of the Assisi conferences is nothing but scandal that spits against Christ's command to
convert the nations.
The Office for Interreligious Dialogue is an affront to every missionary martyr the Catholic Church has ever produce. St. Isaac Jogues comes to mind or the Martyrs of Japan.
If dialogue has a missionary aspect, I say fine. If it's I'm you, your me then I have a problem because it betrays Christ.
Social ecumenism, however, is another story when it comes to protecting matters of morality or even feeding the poor.