Is the POPE really HOLY?

[sojourner]

I Don't buy it.

Its unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Its religious politics nothing more.

Of course you don't "buy it." You're not religious. God's call, while unsubstantial in any empirical way, is a central component of the Christian life. It's a theological construction dealing with purpose and meaning (as has been brought out in another thread). It's part of the mythic component that puts legs on the intuitive, creative work of the religion. As Christians, we believe that we are all called by God. Ministry, as is basis, is a baptismal ministry to which all Christians are called. That's why the church is "holy," because the church (body of people) is "called by God" to this baptismal ministry, and "set apart" from the general populace for God's work of reconciliation in the world.

As each Christian is called to a baptismal ministry, each of the religious, each deacon, each presbyter, each bishop is called to a yet more specific ministry. The Pope is called to a yet more specific ministry. I suppose, in the same way, the president is "holy," since he's been called out by a mandate of the people for a specific job.

Not affirmed. Voted on is nothing more then fallacy with no credibility.

You and Cephas -- you both hide behind this facade of "credibility," as if every aspect of theological thought must conform to some scientific litmus test in order to be valid. I have a great deal of respect for you, but there seems to be a level of disdain here that's emotionally-based. Why can't you simply let the church have its mythos and be good with that? It's as if you think that there's some aspect of entitlement that goes with being Pope that you perceive as dangerous. The RCC is the largest body of the largest religion in the world. Of course the Pope is going to be an important figure, and his word does carry some political clout. But the whole "called by God" thing is perceived with humility (at least these days) and not with entitlement. The vote by the cardinals is perceived as their confirmation of God's call. The vote is real, and it carries a great deal of credibility within the group for whom such a call is important.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If a mere human can be holy, then everyone should probably lower their standards about what their god is by a lot.

 

[sojourner]

If a mere human can be holy, then everyone should probably lower their standards about what their god is by a lot.

Every human is holy, by virtue of being the imago dei.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Every human is holy, by virtue of being the imago dei.

Which means we have to lower our standards for who/what god is.

 

[sojourner]

Which means we have to lower our standards for who/what god is.

How do you figure? "Holy" doesn't mean "better than" or "higher than." it means "other than."

 

[Glaurung]

If a mere human can be holy, then everyone should probably lower their standards about what their god is by a lot.

Holiness comes in degrees, and one is holy insofar as they are in conformity to the will of God because God is holy. The office of pope (bishop of Rome) is holy because it was instituted by Christ (Matthew 16:18) not because the man who happens to be pope is inherently holy or infallible in and of himself.

For over 1 Billion people this man, given this position as pope, is the final word for them.They treat him like he is a god.

No we don't. Your post is nothing more than wilful lies and misrepresentations.

The last pope; Benedict, was an abymsal failure

No he wasn't, he was a great pope demonised by the secular media and liberal elements. He did a lot of good for the Church in a difficult time.

 

[YmirGF]

Given the history of the office of the pope over the centuries I would not be inclined to say that the office holder is "holy". I'd say some naked "savages" running around in the rain forest are considerably more "holy", as it were. But, that's just me...

 

[JoStories]

No he wasn't, he was a great pope demonised by the secular media and liberal elements. He did a lot of good for the Church in a difficult time

I strongly disagree. Else, why then would the RCC force his retirement. A very unusual thing for a pope, to be retired from office. He was entirely too conservative in a time when people had been leaving the RCC in droves. I see that changing with the current pope who is much more fair and listens to people now.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I believe that no he is not, but I respect other beliefs that he is.

 

[Glaurung]

I strongly disagree. Else, why then would the RCC force his retirement.

What are you talking about? No one forced his retirement, he resigned because he felt that had become too infirm for his role.

A very unusual thing for a pope, to be retired from office.

Indeed, in fact there was question whether or not he could retire.

He was entirely too conservative in a time when people had been leaving the RCC in droves.

He was not too conservative, he taught the Catholic faith. (Heaven forbid!) No one is advocating that we go back to 1500, but that the liberal element has gone way too far in the destruction of Catholic liturgical and cultural tradition. People leave the Church not because it's conservative (liberal churches are bleeding members much faster) but because people live lives of disbelief and hedonism. They have lost the sense of the divine and therefore cannot see the relevance of religion. Watering down the faith only emphasises this irrelevance. There's a reason why traditionalism is growing, because people thirst for depth and substance which sappy, watered down "let's all clap our hands and love each other" Catholicism has failed abysmally to provide.

And those that simply won't be happy until the pope green lights gay marriage and abortion, while giving weekly school lectures on effective condom use are already apostates even if they hold the pretence of Catholicism.

I see that changing with the current pope who is much more fair and listens to people now.

Ah yes, Pope Francis who was going to overturn everything and steer the Church to an "enlightened" mindset of secular humanism. It hasn't happened and will not happen. It's better for the Church to be small and devout, than large filled with people who are disbelievers in all but name. Hell, even if the Church went all out liberal it wouldn't help. It'd go the way of the Episcopalians. If there's no sense of sin, then there's no point to Christianity; there's no need for reflection and prayer because liberal Christianity demands nothing from you. If it demands nothing, there's no investment and therefore there is no relevance. Why attend Church and seek God if you're perfect just the way you are?

 

[sojourner]

It'd go the way of the Episcopalians. If there's no sense of sin, then there's no point to Christianity; there's no need for reflection and prayer because liberal Christianity demands nothing from you. If it demands nothing, there's no investment and therefore there is no relevance. Why attend Church and seek God if you're perfect just the way you are?

This is an unfair statement. Liberal Xy does, in fact, demand certain things from people. it demands that they act in love, that they "seek and serve Christ in the least among us." it demands that people be honest with themselves and the mask of sin behind which they tend to hide. It demands that they seek out the inherent good within themselves and within others.

Liberal Xy doesn't insist that people are perfect; it does insist that we are perfectly human. We attend church, reflect, pray, and seek God, because we want to seek out the Christ within us and claim our wholeness within our humanity.

"if there's no sense of sin, then there's no point to Xy." Bah! Jesus had no "sense of sin" within himself. Xy isn't predicated upon a "sense of sin," but upon a sense of love. Love for God and love for neighbor as self.

 

[Glaurung]

This is an unfair statement. Liberal Xy does, in fact, demand certain things from people. it demands that they act in love, that they "seek and serve Christ in the least among us." it demands that people be honest with themselves and the mask of sin behind which they tend to hide. It demands that they seek out the inherent good within themselves and within others.

But what is this love? Is it the love that has the sinner's eternal interest in mind? That tells the sinner bluntly that he must renounce sin and pick up his cross or he will not be saved? That he must forego fornication, homosexual acts, drunkenness, cohabitation, indifferentism, relativism, observe his obligations to the Church including service attendance and fasting? Or is it the love of sentimentality, that it doesn't matter how one lives, or how heretical one's views so long as one "loves and accepts" and does good deeds it will all be in good standing with God?

Liberal Xy doesn't insist that people are perfect; it does insist that we are perfectly human. We attend church, reflect, pray, and seek God, because we want to seek out the Christ within us and claim our wholeness within our humanity.

So long as this humanity is not used to justify a wilfully sinful lifestyle.

"if there's no sense of sin, then there's no point to Xy." Bah! Jesus had no "sense of sin" within himself. Xy isn't predicated upon a "sense of sin," but upon a sense of love. Love for God and love for neighbor as self.

Christ clearly warned of the sheer gravity of sin, and said in no uncertain terms that the unrepentant sinful will not be saved. Matthew 5:29-30 Matthew 7:13

Don't misunderstand me. A proper sense of sin does not mean falling into the extremes of scrupulosity. But the reality of sin can never be overemphasized because your very soul is riding on it. If you don't acknowledge sin and its consequences, what exactly are you being "saved" from?

Of course Christ is merciful and we can always have confidence in his mercy for the truly contrite. Yes we are to love our neighbours, but a true Christian love is not a relativistic sentimentality of "acceptance" that downplays sin and doctrine for the sake of false unity and fuzzy feelings.

 

[sojourner]

But what is this love? Is it the love that has the sinner's eternal interest in mind? That tells the sinner bluntly that he must renounce sin and pick up his cross or he will not be saved? That he must forego fornication, homosexual acts, drunkenness, cohabitation, indifferentism, relativism, observe his obligations to the Church including service attendance and fasting?

Love isn't a "feeling." Nor is it an archaic devotion to an institution or doctrine. Love is a position one takes toward life. Sin isn't a laundry list of actions -- it, too, is a position one takes toward life. Sin is a position where one perceives a fundamental separation from God, from life, from other people, from self, because love is not present. It has nothing to do with one's orientation, and little to do with whom one chooses to be physically intimate, or when and where one is called to "go to church." Your statement reduces righteousness to a list of acts, not to its rightful definition as a state of being.

Or is it the love of sentimentality, that it doesn't matter how one lives, or how heretical one's views so long as one "loves and accepts" and does good deeds it will all be in good standing with God?

Love does matter how one approaches one's life -- and that of others. To live in love is to be honest about oneself, and honest about others. But it is also to realize that honesty in a non-judgmental way. To live in love is to hold ourselves -- and one another gently. IMO, the only "heretical views" are those that foster dishonesty, fragmentation, and dehumanizing bondage, as opposed to honesty, wholeness, and freedom.

One who loves, who seeks wholeness, and who fosters freedom is in "good standing" with God.

So long as this humanity is not used to justify a wilfully sinful lifestyle.

When we experience wholeness, we, by definition, cannot be "willfully sinful," because the state of sin is the state of fragmentation. When one is whole, one is not fragmented.

Christ clearly warned of the sheer gravity of sin, and said in no uncertain terms that the unrepentant sinful will not be saved.

Yes, fragmentation is a grave state for humanity.

Don't misunderstand me. A proper sense of sin does not mean falling into the extremes of scrupulosity.

That's precisely what you're falling into in your first statement in this post.

But the reality of sin can never be overemphasized because your very soul is riding on it.

I believe that the reality of wholeness can never be overemphasized, because our very soul is riding on it.

If you don't acknowledge sin and its consequences, what exactly are you being "saved" from?

If we don't acknowledge wholeness and its consequences, what, exactly, are we being "saved" for?

Of course Christ is merciful and we can always have confidence in his mercy for the truly contrite.

We can have confidence in his mercy for all humanity, because it is the "little ones" -- the "fringe" -- to whom the kingdom belongs.

Yes we are to love our neighbours, but a true Christian love is not a relativistic sentimentality of "acceptance" that downplays sin and doctrine for the sake of false unity and fuzzy feelings.

Love isn't about sentimentality or fuzzy feelings. Nor is it about falseness. Love recognizes the inherent oneness of all creation, just as it recognizes the false divisions that we create which only serve to sunder creation (or, to put it in a theological term, "serve to create sin within creation"). Love recognizes the wide variety and diversity of all life -- and especially human life, and celebrates that diversity with respect and care. Doctrine? What doctrine is more basic than 1) Love God, and 2) Love neighbor as self?

 

[Glaurung]

Love isn't a "feeling." Nor is it an archaic devotion to an institution or doctrine.

Yeah no, I'm not budging. Christ established a Church as a visible institution and vested teaching authority to the Apostles and their successors. It does matter to which church you belong and it does matter what you believe.

Love is a position one takes toward life. Sin isn't a laundry list of actions -- it, too, is a position one takes toward life. Sin is a position where one perceives a fundamental separation from God, from life, from other people, from self, because love is not present. It has nothing to do with one's orientation, and little to do with whom one chooses to be physically intimate, or when and where one is called to "go to church." Your statement reduces righteousness to a list of acts, not to its rightful definition as a state of being.

Sin is anything that is in contrast to the standards expected by God. Sin is indeed a state, it is the state of moral guilt incurred by the failure to live up to the standards expected by God. It has everything to do with how you live your life including your actions. Human beings are free to their own choices, but they are not free from God's judgement. To live in a state of conscious sin and maintain unrepentance 'till the end will result in reprobation.

Love does matter how one approaches one's life -- and that of others. To live in love is to be honest about oneself, and honest about others. But it is also to realize that honesty in a non-judgmental way. To live in love is to hold ourselves -- and one another gently. IMO, the only "heretical views" are those that foster dishonesty, fragmentation, and dehumanizing bondage, as opposed to honesty, wholeness, and freedom.

Christian love is the acknowledgement that every human being is a child of God and therefore deserves respect and good-will. Christians ought to strive to develop benevolence and ultimately bring all to Christ. But this means being honest about the human state and the real darkness of sin. Mere good-will and humanism do not suffice as Christian love. One can display both without any notion of religious obligation.

When we experience wholeness, we, by definition, cannot be "willfully sinful," because the state of sin is the state of fragmentation. When one is whole, one is not fragmented.

Sin is a state of moral guilt before God. (Whether or not that guilt is acknowledged). Your notion of sin is vague bordering on meaningless, because you want to avoid "judgementality". And to be sure we should never presume to know a person's soul, but we can definitively determine what a sinful lifestyle is. Such lifestyles are rampant today even among so called Christians. This is by in large the reason for the decline in belief. I ultimately believe that God will address this sooner or later, and when he does it will hit the world very hard.

We can have confidence in his mercy for all humanity, because it is the "little ones" -- the "fringe" -- to whom the kingdom belongs.

God's mercy is infinite (there is no depth from which God cannot pull us) but it is conditional. It is conditional on contrition and the acceptance of what God demands from us in terms of virtue.

Love isn't about sentimentality or fuzzy feelings. Nor is it about falseness. Love recognizes the inherent oneness of all creation, just as it recognizes the false divisions that we create which only serve to sunder creation (or, to put it in a theological term, "serve to create sin within creation"). Love recognizes the wide variety and diversity of all life -- and especially human life, and celebrates that diversity with respect and care. Doctrine? What doctrine is more basic than 1) Love God, and 2) Love neighbor as self?

Words, mere words and platitudes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

More anti-Catholicism on RF. What else is new?

 

[Glaurung]

More anti-Catholicism on RF. What else is new?

Think of it as an opportunity to practice patience.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Think of it as an opportunity to practice patience.

I'm trying!

 

[viole]

What are you talking about? No one forced his retirement, he resigned because he felt that had become too infirm for his role.


Indeed, in fact there was question whether or not he could retire.


He was not too conservative, he taught the Catholic faith. (Heaven forbid!) No one is advocating that we go back to 1500, but that the liberal element has gone way too far in the destruction of Catholic liturgical and cultural tradition. People leave the Church not because it's conservative (liberal churches are bleeding members much faster) but because people live lives of disbelief and hedonism. They have lost the sense of the divine and therefore cannot see the relevance of religion. Watering down the faith only emphasises this irrelevance. There's a reason why traditionalism is growing, because people thirst for depth and substance which sappy, watered down "let's all clap our hands and love each other" Catholicism has failed abysmally to provide.

And those that simply won't be happy until the pope green lights gay marriage and abortion, while giving weekly school lectures on effective condom use are already apostates even if they hold the pretence of Catholicism.


Ah yes, Pope Francis who was going to overturn everything and steer the Church to an "enlightened" mindset of secular humanism. It hasn't happened and will not happen. It's better for the Church to be small and devout, than large filled with people who are disbelievers in all but name. Hell, even if the Church went all out liberal it wouldn't help. It'd go the way of the Episcopalians. If there's no sense of sin, then there's no point to Christianity; there's no need for reflection and prayer because liberal Christianity demands nothing from you. If it demands nothing, there's no investment and therefore there is no relevance. Why attend Church and seek God if you're perfect just the way you are?

I think the Catholic Church started its decline, at least in church attendance, when the latin liturgy has been abandoned. The reasons are obvious.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think the Catholic Church started its decline, at least in church attendance, when the latin liturgy has been abandoned. The reasons are obvious.

Ciao

- viole

That's a good point.

 

[viole]

I'm trying!

Think of the martyrs. They died for their beliefs, allegedely. So, a bit of heat on a forum is nothing compared to be killed in horrible ways.

You are a Saint, after all.

Ciao

- viole