The Other Pope (MAJOR BARF ALERT)

Informed Comment ^ | April 3, 2005 | Juan Cole

[Mad Dawg]

But, to me as a non-Catholic, I do not consider he was infallible.

To me, as a Catholic (and, what's worse, a convert), I neither am obliged by RC teaching to consider him infallible nor do I so consider him.

I take ALL his opinions with extreme seriousness and respect and I frequently return to those with which I disagree and re-examine my thinking and his.

Mind you, had he defined something as de fide, that would be a different matter.

[Mad Dawg]

If she was sinless why does she need a savior.

My daughter has never drowned. She has never even fallen into a swimming pool. But that is because her mother and I were vigilant. We saved her from drowning by not letting her get intot a situation where drowning was an option.

Jesus's saving act saved Mary by keeping her Immaculate. She needed Him to do that, as my daughter, on occasion, needed me to keep her from falling into a pool. But I kept my daughter safe, and The Son of God kept the woman chosen to be His mother safe.

I am Catholic by the way,...

ROMAN Catholic?

... not a Mary worshiper or a believer in Mary to mediate between man and Christ.

Well what a coincidence! I'm not a Mary worshipper either, and I'm a Roman Catholic.

As to the mediation thing, that's more complicated: My mother-in-law is a great woman of prayer. I don't understand why that is so, but my experience is that it IS so. Consequently, when something really troubles me or concerns me deeply, I will ask her to pray about it.

Does that mean I "worship" my mother-in-law? Cut me a BREAK! But, in a way, it DOES mean that I expect even my mother-in-law to mediate between me and God. Not in the way that Jesus mediates, but there is still an intercessory aspect to what I ask of her. And so it is with the Mother of my Lord: I ask her to pray for me, and I also pray for myself, through Jesus Christ.

After all, I pray for the world, but I don't think I'm some kind of cosmic mediator....

[johnb838]

He was like W in a way. There were people how voted for Pres. Bush who agreed with almost nothing he stood for but they voted for him because the KNEW WHERE HE STOOD.

[Shisan]

Thank you. That helps.

[rollo tomasi]

Give me point blank scripture of Mary being sinless, not Church doctrine.

Why was a sin offering required following the birth of Jesus? Was not Mary exempt from Original Sin?

'If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous' 1 John 2: 1

Obviously John did not know Mary's other alleged function as co-advocate with Jesus. (Extreme Sarcasm)

How come John, who cared for Mary until her death, never mentioned the alleged Assumption?

'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 Sorry, I did not read an exception for Mary, she was a Godly women but still was under original sin.

12 years of Catholic education plus studying this subject has taught me all the canned responses to the Mary doctrine that supporters speak but in the end hold no support at all.

[rollo tomasi]

One more thing, do you believe "Mary is Queen over all things"?

Where does God say this? Are the men who came up with this idea correct? I guess you believe the Catholic Catechism over the Bible. I would not take that bet no way no how.

[dangus]

When the Pope said "No to war," his solution was not acquiescence in the face of terror, as was reported by the American Press. To the contrary, he noted that at times, civization must confront evil. The news media, and that blogger took these quotes out of context. But he was teaching how to end war: "First, end abortion."

[FarmerW]

I believe you might have misread what I posted. I posted pretty much exactly what you said.

I was adressing the person that stated, "Everyone is agreed that John Paul was a wonderful man. But, to me as a non-Catholic, I do not consider he was infallible.". I felt that is a common, likely well intentioned misunderstanding of Roman Catholic doctrine.

I posted that I believed the pope, as a man, is with sin and error, aka not impeccable. That speaking ex cathedra is infallible.

My post:

As a Catholic, I do not believe the Pope as a man to be without error or without sin, often referred to as impeccablity. I do believe the Pope speaking ex cathedra to be infallible.

I appreciate the questions, as it obviously guides me to clarify my writing.

Therese

[Cronos]

But, to me as a non-Catholic, I do not consider he was infallible.

Catholic teachings are that the Pope is infallible ONLY on matters of Dogma and ONLY when he speaks ex-cathedra, i.e. from the Throne of Peter, that is when he is providing the final earthly authority, based on consultation with the Holy Spirit of a matter regarding church dogma.

If a Pope says he dislikes eggs, that's not an infallible saying!! :-)

[Cronos]

I also believe the whole Vatican stance on keeping the clergy celibate is ridiculous, I think the Eastern Orthodox church proves without doubt there is precedent for married priests and only sheer greed lead to the celibacy requirement in the first place [as in a single priest is cheaper to provide for than a married priest and his family]

You know it's customary for people to think before speaking. Do you KNOW the reason why the celibacy rule was put in place?? Or did you just make guesses -- I'd say that's what you did because the FACT is that the celibacy rule was put in place in the 10th to 12th century to COMBAT nepotism not to make things cheaper. It is also because at that time, the monks of the Franciscan and Dominican orders were creating a great impact on the Western world. People were moved by their piety, their discarding of all worldly ties -- including family. And they contrasted this with their parish priests who would have been married.

Now, I'm NOT saying a married man cannot be an honorary example as a priest. However, people will always talk -- how many Anglican parishes woudl gossip about the Vicar's wife? And how come the Vicar's children were able to wear such expensive clothes and go to such good schools.

The Orthodox church also allows married men only to be priests -- the Bishops MUST be unmarried. Perhaps that is a compromise, I don't know. I DO know that the Catholic church allows married priests in it's Maronnite, Uniate, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara rite branches -- and those ARE Catholic churchs.

So, to conclude, dear llama hunter, do read up before spouting statements that will upset others by their sheer mendacity.

[Cronos]

Xactly -- I would have been appalled if the Pope was someone cheering at pro-death penalty rallies. A Pope would always believe that there is redemption always even for the worst kind of sinner. However, he did respect the Christian concept of Church and State -- we have the death penalty because of legal needs, not religious. And that makes us a better society for the ability to separate the two.

Texas Cowboy once gave a description of an execution in Saudi A -- it was a carnival. We, here, in the Christian west, do not celebrate the death of even the worst reprobate but we treat it as something gruesome that HAD to be done, like the killing of rats

[Cronos]

Nor was he infallible on which horses would wint he Epsom derby either. /sarcasm. How many times to repeat it? The Pope is infallible on matter of Church dogma when speaking ex cathedra. That's it. He's not supposed to be infallible in everything -- that's God's role.

[Cronos]

Agreeing with the Arabs that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Arabs is not only wrong, it will only incite more terrorism...So one has to wonder what is the Pope's intention here???

The "Arabs" is such a generic term. He NEVER said it was the capital of ALL Arabs from Morocco to Iraq. I don't think he even said the statement made by Shisan (not sure about that), but would have said that the Palestinians have a right to live -- something Israel AGREES with. Israel says that Arabs who wish to co-exist peacefully with the Jews are welcome to keep staying there -- and there are many Druze Arabs who are in the Israeli army and there are many Christian Arabs in Israel.

[propertius]

LOL. Point taken.

[Mad Dawg]

Give me point blank scripture of Mary being sinless, not Church doctrine.

That the Bible is inspired, the nature and meaning of the inspiration, and similar issues are -- guess what -- Church Doctrine! What books are in the Bible and which aren't? Church Doctrine! I can't talk about one without talking about the other.

But you misunderstood me. I don't spend much time arguing doctrine. It's enough for me to try to articulate it clearly. I certainly wasn't trying to convince someone so much wiser and more learned than I. I'm sure my M.Div in 1976 and my study in the intervening 29 years is trivial in comparison to your learning. And that's fine. I nearly always enjoy coherent and friendly presentations of different points of view.

You seemed to suggest that the only people who needed to be saved from sin were sinners. So I tried to present, by analogy, a way that somebody could be saved from something without actually being "in" it.

Further, what you said about Mary's not being saved suggested that you do not understand what the Catholic Church says about the teaching. Certainly IF she is immaculate, it is only through the saving action of our Lord, just as every good thing every one of us enjoys is through His grace, one way or another. It's clear that you don't agree with the teaching, and I didn't hope to change that. But I hoped to address some of the misunderstanding.

As far as "canned responses" go, I never heard anyone make the analogy I made about saving my daughter from drowning. So while other and wiser people may have made it before me, it was not canned when I made it.

Am I right that you disagree with the conciliar teaching about the reliablity of the Pope's ex cathedra statements? Are you an "Old Catholic" or kind of an unofficially protestant person who wants to remain a kind of loyal opoposition within the Church?

[Mad Dawg]

Oh, what the heck! I'll bite:, do you believe "Mary is Queen over all things"?

Sure! Why not? The living mother of a king is usually styled "Queen" as a courtesy title. "In the UK "Queen Mother" is not an official title. The correct title for the mother of a reigning sovereign would be "Queen so-and-so"

So the mother of our Lord, the King of Kings, can be properly styled Queen of Heaven and Earth, as -- when she lived -- the mother of Queen Elizabeth II was called Queen.

I guess I don't see the problem.

What do you make of the pronouncement of the Apostolic Conference in "The Acts of the Apostles" where they say,"It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit...."? They shouldn't have presumed to think that their decision was inspired by God, nor should they have thought the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was something to rely on?

[rollo tomasi]

So you believe in the blasphemy of "Church Doctrine" written hundreds of years after Jesus Resurrection.


"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." Jeremiah 7:18

Lets look at the cult of Mary worship and her being the "mother of God. "Jesus was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." Heb. 2:9.

"..made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. 2:7-8.

"Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." 1 John 4:2
Since Jesus was not divine (Became a servant and a sacrifice) during his human time on earth, Mary was the mother of a human being, not the "mother" of God.

[Mad Dawg]

So you believe in the blasphemy of "Church Doctrine" written hundreds of years after Jesus Resurrection.

Well yeah -- except, of course, for the blasphemy part.

I didn't realize you were a Jehovah's Witness (or something similar). I wouldn't have wasted your time. Sorry. My understanding was that you said you were Catholic, but now it sounds like you're in the Arian camp, rejecting the Nicene Creed.

You're also not very open in your discourse. For example, you did not quote the beginning of the passage from Phillipians.

In fact, that's what made me think you were a JW. They rarely argue honestly, in my sad experience, though I was able to make friends with one. Generally, again in my experience, their discourse is like nothing so much as that of a used car salesman of the old school. Certainly the way you excerpt Phillipians places you outside the class of people with whom I carry on conversations. I like my conversations to be either polite or informative. This one is neither. God bless ...

[rollo tomasi]

JW are as whacked out as those who believe Mary is the "mother" of God. Try again.

As far as topic of Mary you seem to skirt issues by calling me a JW or regurgitating Doctrine while ignoring scripture. The passage in Phil dealt with the aspect of Jesus entering into solidarity with human beings and becoming fully one of them. Jesus was setting out to do the will of His Father.

Since the will of God was for Jesus to become human, God needed a surrogate mother. That is when Mary comes into play.

Try answering some of my previous questions too, like why did Mary need a sin offering for instance? Or point to scripture saying Mary was without sin and exempt from original sin?

Please quit the name games as well and accusing me of belonging to perverted Churches. I still go to Mass, only I study scripture and take Church Doctrine with a heavy grain of salt.

[Mad Dawg]

Let's see:

Try again.
you seem to skirt issues
regurgitating Doctrine

Still neither polite nor informative.

Now, what I wrote was:

---

That the Bible is inspired, the nature and meaning of the inspiration, and similar issues are -- guess what -- Church Doctrine! What books are in the Bible and which aren't? Church Doctrine! I can't talk about one without talking about the other.

---

And I say again: one of the things made a matter of doctrine centuries after the ascension of God the Son of God (if you're going to be contentious and intransigent, why shouldn't I?) was which writings made up the Bible, and what part the Bible should play in determining Doctrine. In other words, the Bible itself is a tradition -- a thing handed down. Consequently, your effort to set the Bible over against the other authoritative teachings and tradtitions of the body which authoritatively determined what the Bible was (and is) can not oblige me to respond in the way you want me to.

Further, not only do I not agree with your interpretation of the passage from Philippians, but I say again that you misrepresented the portion you cited. Consequently I do not think that exploring Scripture with you will serve my needs or any good I can imagine

Finally, you write

I still go to Mass, only I study scripture and take Church Doctrine with a heavy grain of salt.

As far as I can tell that makes you a dishonest and disobedient Catholic. At virtually every Mass the congregation says a creedal formula asserting, inter alia the Divinity of Christ. I'm not saying it's dishonest not to believe that. I AM saying that it IS dishonest to act like a member of an organization and to take part in its services, all the while withholding assent from matters which the organization considers central. The Church rejected Arianism more than a thousand years ago. It seems weird to persist in being a member of a body which so wholeheartedly anathematizes what you believe while you consider its beliefs and customs blasphemous.

Basta! Find somebody else to play with. I don't like this game and I think it's bad for you.