|
|
|
|
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 1:17:35 AM | just note that my POV here is just that--my POV.
with all the latest hype of a new pope in the Vatican, how is it that society still judges men in powerful positions to be akin to gods?
this man is a mere mortal--as we all are, regardless of our religious beliefs, and yet thousands will gather to get a glimpse of a mere mortal man.
has he or anyone of note, actually have contributed some knowledge of theirs (curing cancer and AIDS as severe examples) and aided on a grand and mutually beneficial scheme of things to better mankind, other than preaching good will?
as an atheist (not that it matters), I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the very idea of millions of people worshipping a mortal person as a god, one that has never really experienced the same crazy up and downs as we have as people just wanting to exist.
it amazes me that the masses still tenaciously cling to the idea of a single person as a holy and divine person, above all scrutiny.
how does that happen?
is my cynicism clouding my view & understanding of why this happens?
I don't and never deny that humans often seek a higher-being to acknowledge and derive solace from. I really just don't care. it's never been an issue with dating potentials or my social & work life for me anyway, if it did, then we were not going to mesh anyway.
tell me why, pls. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 3:52:51 AM | mz taken said:
with all the latest hype of a new pope in the Vatican, how is it that society still judges men in powerful positions to be akin to gods?
I've had the opposite experience.
Ever since Pope Benedict XVI was elected to the Papacy, I've had to put up with a never-ending litany of accusations and slanders from all sorts of people about my Pontiff as "a Nazi", "a hardline arch-conservative", "an intolerant bigot", or even "child rapist". In some circles such as in fundamentalist Protestant churches, the Pope, regardless of who is in office, is called "the Antichrist" or "the beast of Revelation". I love the Pope and it annoys me to see so many people think my pastor that way.
this man is a mere mortal--as we all are, regardless of our religious beliefs, and yet thousands will gather to get a glimpse of a mere mortal man.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
has he or anyone of note, actually have contributed some knowledge of theirs (curing cancer and AIDS as severe examples) and aided on a grand and mutually beneficial scheme of things to better mankind, other than preaching good will?
I have nothing but the utmost gratitude and respect for Pope Benedict for his spearheading of reform within the Church, especially for liberating the Tridentine Latin Mass, and for issuing his letter to the Catholic Church in China.
Obviously, his job isn't to better mankind in the sense of inventing a cure for cancer. His job is to shepherd the Catholic Church. What he represents to non-Catholics should be irrelevant, since he's not part of the same religion.
as an atheist (not that it matters), I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the very idea of millions of people worshipping a mortal person as a god
Speaking as a Catholic, the idea of worshipping the pope would be idolatry and/or heresy. The only god in the Catholic religion is the Trinity (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). The theme that Benedict XVI chose for his journey to the U.S. is "Christ our Hope". In other words, he came to America to talk about the God of the Catholics, and it's certainly not himself: it's Jesus of Nazareth.
one that has never really experienced the same crazy up and downs as we have as people just wanting to exist.
Benedict didn't grow up in a comfortable world. He grew up in Germany during the Second World War and was drafted into the German military.
it amazes me that the masses still tenaciously cling to the idea of a single person as a holy and divine person, above all scrutiny.
how does that happen?
Again, a false notion of actual Catholic belief. At the floor of the Council of Trent in the mid-1500's, the Pope and the Catholic bishops of the world were gathered together to decide how to counter the Protestant Reformation and win back souls for the Faith. The theologian Melchior Cano summed this up very accurately in the Pope's presence:
"Peter [that is, the pope, who is the successor of St. Peter] has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations".
Even for faithful and devout Catholics, no Pope is "above all scrutiny". Even Benedict himself will tell you that much. I have quite a few criticisms about his predecessor's, John Paul II's, reign.
is my cynicism clouding my view & understanding of why this happens?
I think it's just clouding the fact that these beliefs you've listed don't actually exist; at least, not in the minds of orthodox Roman Catholics.
Also, I think you overestimate the Pope's popularity overall. Either that, or I've just had bad luck and everyone I meet just happens to think he's the Antichrist. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 5:41:02 AM |
has he or anyone of note, actually have contributed some knowledge of theirs (curing cancer and AIDS as severe examples) and aided on a grand and mutually beneficial scheme of things to better mankind, other than preaching good will? I think you underestimate the power of good will. Ghandi didn't cure cancer. He didn't discover relativity or the motor car or solve world hunger. All he preached was good will to all men. Yet he changed the lives of 300 million. Also, the one prayer that everyone I know loves, the prayer of St Francis of Assisi, that is quoted by everyone from recovering gamblers to women learning how to love, to philosophers and spiritualists, is really only about good will.
You can cure a thousand diseases tomorrow. But the people who will remember you fondly, are the people you smiled at.
it amazes me that the masses still tenaciously cling to the idea of a single person as a holy and divine person, above all scrutiny.
how does that happen? I guess it depends on what you consider a holy or divine person. I was always taught that a holy person was just like you and me, but they actually do what we claim we should do for others. Even when you talk about a "righteous man", the word righteous actually comes from the word Tzedek, which means just or fair. So a "righteous man" just means a fair man. Why are righteous men & women talked about so highly? Because it is so rare to find someone who will always be fair.
is my cynicism clouding my view & understanding of why this happens? Possibly. A couple of years ago, I kept ranting at my friends that everyone from my ethnic group were all selfish and only interested in what they got out of life, and would do anything to get what they want, even pushing people to suicide. My friends kept pointing out to me that loads of people from my ethnic group had helped me time and again, when they didn't need to for themselves, and I kept denying it. I now know that I was being incredibly cynical, because it was a lot easier for me to believe that everyone would hurt me and that it wasn't my fault, than only a few people hurt me, and that I had a hand in enabling those people to hurt me, because I could have just said "no", or walked away. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 6:16:29 AM |
has he or anyone of note, actually have contributed some knowledge of theirs (curing cancer and AIDS as severe examples
This type of response always amazes me too.
Every christmas or easter we have all the various christian leaders pompously taking centre stage and telling us we must love more or stop fighting or respecting each other etc etc ad nauseum.
In the meantime mr and mrs average have been going about their lives doing just that, while secular society in general has been finding treatments or cures for childhood cancers, removing landmines, working on more humane laws to protect wildlife, fighting for human rights, the list goes on.
They've had 2000 years to get it right, can someone let them know they're not needed anymore. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 6:23:56 AM | They've had 2000 years to get it right, can someone let them know they're not needed anymore
Sure they are, by churchgoers. The church has missionaries who help the poor
| |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 7:15:12 AM | -"this man is a mere mortal--as we all are, regardless of our religious beliefs, and yet thousands will gather to get a glimpse of a mere mortal man."
-"it amazes me that the masses still tenaciously cling to the idea of a single person as a holy and divine person, above all scrutiny. "
how does that happen?"
I'm not sure how or why this happens but I put it on equal footing as the masses who gather to catch a glimpse of Lady Di or
Elvis or the Beatles or Britney or The New Kids on the Block or Oprah or [insert your own latest attraction/star/celebrity].
And you don't even have to be a mortal to be worthy of this phenomenon. The Cabbage Patch Doll and Tickle me Elmo are two
non mortals that immediately comes to mind - not to mention the masses who regularly flock outside electronic stores for days
on end, with some literally killing each other, in order to "catch" the latest video game(s) each Christmas season.
Now I realize that words such as sheep, lemming and herd to describe such behavior might bring about a negative reaction from some people, but it seems to fit perfectly in these type of situations IMO. And it applies to anyone, religious or not, who falls victim to the latest hype and hysteria and who simply follow the masses with their "must have must see must do" mentality - again in my opinion.
And even though I was raised Catholic, I've never understood ( or accepted) how one man - a mere mortal - could be seen as infailable. I know why "they" say he is. Doesn't mean it makes any sense to me - but that's me and this is just my opinion - to
each their own.
JMO | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 11:21:42 AM | I watched footage of the Pope visiting America on News 24 lasnite and noticed that he looked really short at the side of George Dubya Bush who I don't think is a particularly tall person. I felt slightly disappointed. This was surely an occasion when he should have been suitably attired in platform heel shoes and one of his tall "poping" hats with a cross on the front.
As regards his holy nature and infallibility - we can be sure from his unmarried status that he doesn't beat his wife - that alone weighs in his favour and reinforces any claims to sainthood. Also being single there can never be any argument in his household over who's in charge of the TV remote - a fact that in my view makes him virtually infallible, at least in his choice of TV viewing.
The TV broadcast I was watching also showed some footage of the Popemobile zipping holily around the US streets. The sight of this vehicle and how it encloses the Pontiff in a four sided glassbox, couldn't help but bring to mind images of British artist Francis Bacons' paintings of Popes screaming away silently whilst enclosed in a painted "space frame". I have no idea what these paintings mean but they seem to portray the pontiff, helplessly constrained by the relentless and irrefutable pointlessness of existence, giving out a final existential howl of despair as he vanishes ghostlike into the background.
I realise I could be completely wrong in this and Bacon could have been portraying a religiously attired person expressing exasperation over deciding what to have for tea. .....Come to think of it, what was Bacon trying to convey with his series of Pope paintings? I must do further research in this area... | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 1:19:52 PM | oldsouls said:
I'm not sure how or why this happens but I put it on equal footing as the masses who gather to catch a glimpse of Lady Di or Elvis or the Beatles or Britney or The New Kids on the Block or Oprah or [insert your own latest attraction/star/celebrity].
And you don't even have to be a mortal to be worthy of this phenomenon. The Cabbage Patch Doll and Tickle me Elmo are two non mortals that immediately comes to mind - not to mention the masses who regularly flock outside electronic stores for days on end, with some literally killing each other, in order to "catch" the latest video game(s) each Christmas season.
That's a good way of putting. However, it's not necessarily bad to want to catch a glimpse of Oprah, or the Pope. A lot of people who have come to see His Holiness know that they'll never be able to see him again, because they won't be able to afford a trip to Rome or because this is likely his only visit to America (old age). I missed him when I went to Rome and I would have driven to Washington or New York to see him if I had gotten a ticket to one of the papal liturgies. I wouldn't go so far as that just to see him in the Popemobile, though.
And even though I was raised Catholic, I've never understood ( or accepted) how one man - a mere mortal - could be seen as infailable. I know why "they" say he is. Doesn't mean it makes any sense to me - but that's me and this is just my opinion - to
each their own.
Maybe this analogy would help:
The U.S. government has the Supreme Court established in order to interpret the Constitution. The justices of the Supreme Court are ordinary men, although admittedly they've studied and practiced law for a long time. Still, they're ordinary and mortal. BUT, when they make a verdict from behind the Bench, they no longer speak as themselves. They speak as the voice of the United States, or even as the voice of the Founding Fathers. Their interpretation of the Constitution becomes law, and cannot be challenged except by a future Supreme Court decision, or if Congress amends the Constitution itself. In a word, they speak infallibly.
The Catholic Church has the Magisterium (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him) appointed to interpret Scripture and oral Tradition. The Pope and the bishops are ordinary and mortal men, although studied and weathered in theological and religious work. BUT, when they speak from the Chair of St. Peter, they no longer speak as themselves, but under the inspiration (per our belief) of the Holy Ghost. We believe that, in times of doctrinal confusion or crisis (such as the Arian controversy or the PRotestant Reformation), it's necessary for the Magisterium to put the smackdown and invoke the Holy Ghost to help define some matters infallibly. This is because we believe Christ said, "behold I am with you, even to the consummation of the world", and that "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Normally, this charism of infallibility is invoked during an Ecumenical Council, such as the Council of Jerusalem described in the Acts of the Apostles which determined the question of circumcision, or the Council of Nicaea in 325 which determined the question of Arianism and the date of Easter, or the Council of Trent in the 1500's which determined the question of Protestantism, or the First Vatican Council in 1870 which determined the question of papal infallibility.
What the First Vatican Council determined was that the Pope, being the successor of St. Peter, does not need to act with all of the bishops together in order to speak from the Chair of Peter infallibly. In a way, this can be compared to the U.S. President's "executive orders". The charism of papal infallibility without other bishops is quite rare and has been exercised only twice in history (to define the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and the to define the Assumption in 1950).
Other than in those two specific cases, though, the Pope is an ordinary man, although sitting on an extraordinary office. People seem to not be able to distinguish "infallibility" from "impeccability". This is obviously not true because the Pope himself goes to confession every week. That's a lot more often than ordinary Catholics, to be sure.
So, I hope that helped. If not, at least I tried, eh? | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 1:26:53 PM | clarence clutterbuck asked:
The sight of this vehicle and how it encloses the Pontiff in a four sided glassbox, couldn't help but bring to mind images of British artist Francis Bacons' paintings of Popes screaming away silently whilst enclosed in a painted "space frame". I have no idea what these paintings mean but they seem to portray the pontiff, helplessly constrained by the relentless and irrefutable pointlessness of existence, giving out a final existential howl of despair as he vanishes ghostlike into the background.
I realise I could be completely wrong in this and Bacon could have been portraying a religiously attired person expressing exasperation over deciding what to have for tea. .....Come to think of it, what was Bacon trying to convey with his series of Pope paintings? I must do further research in this area...
From what I understand, that's pretty close to Bacon's intent (although interpreting artists is always a very subjective thing). I don't think Bacon much liked our papal beliefs, so he painted Popes as being dinosaurs of the past, resisting being swept away by the future.
Well, I have an answer to that.
One of my favorite American Catholic hymn from the 1920's St. Gregory Hymnal, in all its kitchy, triumphalistic, Jesuitically-subversive glory.
"Long Live the Pope"
Long live the Pope
His praises sound again and yet again
His rule is over space and time
His throne the hearts of men
All hail the Shepherd King of Rome
The theme of loving song
Let all the earth is glory sing
And heav'n the strain prolong.
Beleaguered by the foes of earth
Be set by hosts of hell.
He guards the loyal flock of Christ
A watchful sentinel
And yet amid the din and strife
The clash of mace and sword
He bears alone the shepherd staff
This champion of the Lord.
His signet is the fisherman's
No scepter does he bear
In meek and lowly majesty
He rules from Peter's chair
And yet from every tribe and tongue
From every clime and zone
300 million voices sound
The glory of his throne.
Then raise the chant,
With heart and voice,
In Church and school and home:
"Long live the Shepherd of the Flock!
Long live the Pope of Rome!"
Almighty Father bless his work,
Protect him in his ways,
Receive his prayer, fulfill his hopes,
And grant him length of days!
That's what I'm talkin' about. Viva il Papa.
By the way, I've been watching the papal liturgies. The papal Mass in Washington was a painful eyesore, and the choice of music was terrible. I hope His Holiness fires and/or excommunicates whoever picked Kumbaya for the repertoire. On the other hand, the Vespers that Benedict had with the American bishops in the crypt church of the National Basilica on Wednesday was AWESOME. Beautiful Latin polyphony, Gregorian chant, the incensing of the altar during the Magnificat.... it was inspiring. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 2:20:36 PM | Who ever said the pope is more than mortal or infallible??A diety? What are you talking about? Or am I misreading you?
I may be agnostic now but I was raised by serious Basque/Spanish/catholic family upbringing and all the pope is supposed to be is the head of the Roman Catholic Church (vicar of Christ) and "spiritual leader" and head of the Vatican state. Nobody is supposed to pray or worship him.
Oh, and atheists can be just as or MORE annoying (re: conceited) than religious people in my book. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 2:47:52 PM | Believe it or not Jacobus, I appreciate not only your knowledge of the Catholic doctrine, but also what appears to be your sincere dedication to something you obviously both love and believe in. And I also appreciate the time and effort you put in trying to help me understand - thank you:).
By the way, I've known about the Pope going to confession since I was a kid ( my mom told me when I was still young - maybe
it's ALL her fault I'm this way...lol!)
The thing is perhaps I'm jaded. Or maybe I just stop trusting (having faith) in all authority a long LONG time ago.
All the Supreme Courts in the world could tell me that X is wrong and I would still want to make up my own mind as to whether I think X is wrong or not.
Laws *to me* are there as a mere guideline to keep us, the masses, in line. Many times, laws and final decisions have nothing to
do with what's right or wrong in my opinion.
And I hate to use the same analogy over and over again, but Rosa Park had to break the law in order to effect a change in the very laws she refused to obey. So technically under the high and mighty law, Rosa Park became a criminal.
And so is my uncle Harry a criminal. My uncle Harry (fictional character) has devoted his entire life working with Doctors without Borders, throwing away a chance at a lucrative career over here - but uncle Harry likes to indulge once in a while . So
under the high and mighty law, my kind, compassionate and devoted uncle Harry is nothing but a dirty pot smoking criminal.
Where one might see beauty and order in conformity and obedience, I see danger. And where one might see nothing wrong in the adoration of certain human beings such as movie stars, prominent sports figures, famous signers, starlets just for the sake of being starlets ( the Paris Hiltons and the likes) or someone like The Pope, I see huge danger signs in anyone putting so much "worth" in one human being.
One more example and I'm done...lol! I'm an avid reader (at least I used to be) and one of my great disappointment as a mother was that my eldest daughter hated reading as a child and carried that disdain of books into her teens.
At one point, my ex and I had 11 bookcases full of books in our home - I read to her since birth - she saw my ex and I with our noses buried deep into a book on an almost daily basis. Yet she hated reading and thought books were for "nerds". Dang!
Then one day, she started watching Oprah. And she fell in love/became infatuated with that woman I swear. Which is fine - my daughter had weight issues at the time and she felt she could relate to her.
I myself don't watch Oprah - I don't watch TV period. So I had no clue that she had started promoting a Book Club on her show.
So I thought I heard wrong when one day my daughter asked me if I could get this book for her....a book...YOU want ME to buy
you a book??!?? Okay then!!!
And off we went and that's when I noticed that the book store we went to had this Oprah recommenced list of books to read and that they were selling like hot cakes. Most of them good books I have to say.
And from that day on and with that very first "Oprah recommended" book, my daughter became not just a reader, but a ferocious reader. She bought and read every book that Oprah promoted. She's 34 now and while she no longer watches Oprah, she still enjoys reading:)
And while I'm grateful that a "celebrity" could instill a love of reading in my daughter, I can't help but wonder what would have happened had my daughter been influenced and become infatuated with someone promoting a sinister agenda ???? What if that celebrity had promoted racism or [............]???????
I guess I am jaded. I don't know. I sometimes think I was born jaded. I don't believe or trust anything nor do I adore anyone or anything. Even as a kid, when my friends had posters of David Cassidy or The Beatles on their walls, it got on my nerves.
And when Pierre Elliot Trudeau ( a young and "sexy" prime minister) came to our town and all the young women were fanning themselves and screaming their heads off over him, I thought they were stupid and I felt embarrassed for them.
I just don't "get" this adoration that some people seem to have for someone who's famous . And I'm serious - I'm not simply being obtuse - I don't get it and I guess at this point it's safe to say that I never will.
The thing is....is it because I don't "get it" and have never had faith in much of anything that caused this extreme cynicism I seem
to suffer from or is it my extreme cynicism that caused my lack of faith? Haha!
Anyway...I also suffer from verbal diarrhea galore for which I apologize once more. All I know for sure about the visit
of the Pope is that my mom and dad and most of my relatives will have taped His visit on their VCR's because it's important
to them and they respect and revere Him - and that's all that matters. Meh...to each their own I say:)
*Just my long winded opinions*
| |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/18/2008 3:29:37 PM | Hey, oldsoul. I think your post was very reasonable and respectful, and as long as that's maintained, you can be as long-winded as you like. 
With the Supreme Court analogy, maybe it works for me better since I'm a paralegal, aspiring law student and my patron saint (Thomas More) was also a lawyer. Go figure, huh?
I think I can share some of your frustration when the family of a friend of mine are all gathered to watch "American Idol". I think it's lame. But, I've decided to stop judging them. I mean, I've been glued to EWTN to watch the papal events all week and I'm sure there a lot of people who think I'm being lame for it.
The last thing I'll add for now, on a general note about one reason why many Catholics will flock to catach a glimpse of the Pope..... we don't believe he's divine or a god or anything like that. But, we do call him the "successor of Peter" because we believe that, as the Apostle St. Peter was the first Pope, the current Pope bears some representation of him. Hence, we actually call the Pope "Peter" sometimes. When the Pope enters a foreign church on a visit, the traditional hymn to sing during his processional entrance is Tu es Petrus ("Thou art Peter"), from Matthew 16:18.
In other words, for us, to catch a glimpse of the Pope is like catching a glimpse of Peter himself. And that's why, even if I were to meet a Pope who I really hated and thought was an evil heretic in disguise, I would tell him such to his face.... but only after kissing his ring, because I can distinguish the sacred office from the man. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/19/2008 9:30:27 AM | "I guess it depends on what you consider a holy or divine person. I was always taught that a holy person was just like you and me, but they actually do what we claim we should do for others. Even when you talk about a "righteous man", the word righteous actually comes from the word Tzedek, which means just or fair. So a "righteous man" just means a fair man. Why are righteous men & women talked about so highly? Because it is so rare to find someone who will always be fair."
It is much the same with Christian saints. It also seems to be the case with the people of Asian religions who have reached 'enlightenment', and also great philosophers as well.
"Laws *to me* are there as a mere guideline to keep us, the masses, in line. Many times, laws and final decisions have nothing to
do with what's right or wrong in my opinion. "
The relationship between law and ethics and justice in a general sense, is a fairly difficult question. I think ethics and moral decisions are extremely important in the legal field, and any aspiring lawyer generally needs to take an ethics course before they are admitted to the bar. What is just and what is unjust is a question which touches on law but also in wider areas such as politics, philosophy, and theology.
I think law is more than about keeping people in line, though ensuring society is well ordered and free of things like criminal activity and behaviours is certainly one function of law. But law also involves relationships between people and centres of power, and also the structures of society in general. Law is also often the formal expression through statutues what a organisation or community wills in terms of what it agrees the basic norms of conduct should be amoung its members. With the Catholic Church, the Canon Law can be said to be the statutory basis of what the church as a whole believes its members should abide by in terms of rules, and similarly the Constitution, Civil and Criminal Laws of any country can be said to be a formal expression of what the people and the leadership of that country through history believe to be the basic principles people should adhere to in their conduct.
Because people often disagree about complex moral, ethical and political issues, sometimes what one person may see as just or unjust will differ from that of another person. I don't subscribe to the view this means we can never reach an agreement about what justice is or what a good law and a bad law is. But, to a certain extent, law is bound a lot by tradition (through court precedent) and also in written statutes, which makes it inflexible in some ways. But this also gives a stability which helps the law avoid being arbitrary and too dependent on the changing personal views of individual people.
The law does need to always reform and change, but also maintain a certain level of coherence and continuity over time. This is the challenge which occurs when we come up to the question of changing personal views on ethical issues and decisions and the formal statutues and case law which may rule otherwise. This brings up the question of whether it is right to follow one's conscience over the law of the land or the community which is binding on your conscience.
In my view, one is obliged to follow a law laid down by one's community unless it is manifestly wrong or unjust to one's conscience, once one has decided according to the best information available on the matter in question before the judgement of one's own conscience, and your decision is made on the basis of reason rather than selfishness, impulsiveness, or extremely intense emotional sentiment.
| |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/22/2008 12:15:52 AM |
Sure they are, by churchgoers. The church has missionaries who help the poor
I thought western society had welfare to help the poor. You know, we all pay our taxes and some of it goes to the less fortunate. Or do you mean third world countries?
For the last century Australian God Botherers have been sending missionaries to Papua New Guinea and helping them contract western diseases and helping them discover booze and tobacco. They also helped them to move on from an evironmentally friendly way of life to a tree felling, petrol driven, money hungry utopia.
I think it was Charles****ns who said;
"Missionaries are perfect nuisances and leave every place worse than they found it" | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/22/2008 12:26:37 AM | As I watched the Holy Father's visit to young people at Dunwoodie Seminary in NY, I was a little surprised at the amount of attention paid to in different sections. For example, there was a concert of rock music before the Pope's arrival, and only about a fifth of the crowd of thousands of young men and women were paying full attention to that. But when the Pope gave his address to them, although it was very long (longer than his address at the UN) and almost crammed with a wide range of theological topics, almost everyone was fully engaged in the speech.
So, the Pope is a demi-god? Certainly not. But a rock star? You better believe it. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/22/2008 12:28:28 AM | Or do you mean third world countries?
Yes, sir, that's what I meant :)
| |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 4/22/2008 12:51:36 AM |
But a rock star? You better believe it.
Can't wait to see him do a power slide | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 5/7/2008 10:12:50 AM | Where mz_taken wrote:
with all the latest hype of a new pope in the Vatican, how is it that society still judges men in powerful positions to be akin to gods?...is my cynicism clouding my view & understanding of why this happens?
Society may judge men in powerful position to akin to gods, but devout Catholics (whom The Pope represents and serves) believe that this would be a sin and guard ourselves against such error.
Number One in our list of 10 commandments forbids us to place any strange gods (Popes included) before The Almighty.
Perhaps it benefits one to reflect upon the actual intent of the office of Pope:
POPE (Ecclesiastical Latin papa from Greek papas, a variant of pappas father, in classical Latin pappas -- Juvenal, "Satires" 6:633).
The title pope, once used with far greater latitude, is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.
Though the power of the pope is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. "The pope", as Cardinal Hergenröther says,
"is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges....He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy -- to "feed" -- and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations ("Cath. Church and Christian State", tr., I, 197)."
So, it should be clear to the reader that, while not a vain or idle worship of a man as "akin to gods (or as I would have it God - singular), devout Catholics are most justifiably going to direct their reverence to the visible head of our Church.
To see a list of the unbroken line of Bishops who were Popes from the time of Christ's appointment of Peter to Pope Benedict XVI see:
http://www.transporter.com/fatherpeffley/Apologetics/deed.html
The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.
I don't and never deny that humans often seek a higher-being to acknowledge and derive solace from. I really just don't care. it's never been an issue with dating potentials or my social & work life for me anyway, if it did, then we were not going to mesh anyway. tell me why, pls.
I hope that the information I respectfully offer you here will be of some assistance in understanding that devout Catholics do not worship The Pope as you erroneously propose - and if anyone else does... it is likely a response to the fact that he is the visible head of The Holy Roman Catholic Church, which in and of itself commands respect beyond the normal range.
| |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:59:42 AM | oldsoul writes:
I'm not sure how or why this happens but I put it on equal footing as the masses who gather to catch a glimpse of Lady Di or Elvis or the Beatles or Britney or The New Kids on the Block or Oprah or [insert your own latest attraction/star/celebrity].
I recommend you read a book or two - or maybe talk to a Catholic before you start accusations of idol worship. Otherwise you make youself look terribly narrow minded and ill informed.
Now I realize that words such as sheep, lemming and herd to describe such behavior might bring about a negative reaction from some people, but it seems to fit perfectly in these type of situations IMO.
Yuck. You should also consider therapy. Although the people you are pointing your finger at do follow a 'shepard' - so may we please do so without your branding us?
And even though I was raised Catholic, I've never understood ( or accepted) how one man - a mere mortal - could be seen as infailable.
No you were not raised Catholic - or you would know the answer. Perhaps you didn't realize it was actually Epsicipallian or Lutheran and not Catholic?
Because all I know is that your rudimentary misunderstanding was fairly well cleared up in my Cathechism class.
FTW | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 5/14/2008 7:59:48 AM | Although the people you are pointing your finger at do follow a 'shepard' - so may we please do so without your branding us?
Please show me where in my post I branded anyone or any group of people in particular. This is what I said in my post in it's entirety:
"...not to mention the masses who regularly flock outside electronic stores for days on end, with some literally killing each other, in order to "catch" the latest video game(s) each Christmas season.
Now I realize that words such as sheep, lemming and herd to describe such behavior might bring about a negative reaction from some people, but it seems to fit perfectly in these type of situations IMO. And it applies to anyone, religious or not, who falls victim to the latest hype and hysteria and who simply follow the masses with their "must have must see must do" mentality - again in my opinion."
Please do NOT misquote me. By only quoting part of what I said, you misrepresented my words and their meaning, which is against the rules of the forums.
E) No Misquotations or Misrepresentations of other Posters. This is considered Libel.
And this \/ would fall under the following rules of the forums.
You should also consider therapy.
Bashing, Insulting, Slamming other Posters
Report Posters who post Messages that insult, bash and slam other POF Members.
Same goes for Thread or Messages warning others of previous Dates or Meetings you have had in order to embarrass, slam or humiliate them.
You can slam & bash the Topic or Subject under Discussion all you like, but you cannot insult, bash and slam other Posters.
Perhaps you should consider reading the rules? Because all I know is that a rudimentary misunderstanding of the rules can be fairly well cleared up by simply reading them.
JMO | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 5/14/2008 1:27:57 PM | QUOTE: Who ever said the pope is more than mortal or infallible??A diety? What are you talking about? Or am I misreading you?
I may be agnostic now but I was raised by serious Basque/Spanish/catholic family upbringing and all the pope is supposed to be is the head of the Roman Catholic Church (vicar of Christ) and "spiritual leader" and head of the Vatican state. Nobody is supposed to pray or worship him.
Oh, and atheists can be just as or MORE annoying (re: conceited) than religious people in my book.
^^ Yeah I feel that's true as well. Some become conceited about it (I'm thinking of -- although I actually liked picking up some of the facts in the last book of his I read --- the Brit turned American Christopher Hitchens; a former Marxist who's not so much atheist as he is anti-theist). I was raised in an old-fashioned Italian Catholic environment, which is basically the same as being raised in a Spanish Catholic environment, essentially, I'm sure. My parents still are practicing Catholics, though I would have to in all honesty call myself more like a ...somewhat spiritually-minded agnostic, if push came to shove and I were forced to say. But I still like certain elements about the faith I was born into. Personally, for me I like (what some people sometimes call) the "Marian" aspect(s) of Catholicism.
And, sorry but, IMO the non-Catholic Christians simply have nothing in their tradition approaching the Catholic tradition in art, religious pageantry that can actually make you FEEL something passionate (especially if you go to Italy, or Spain or Latin America, etc). And yes, OP, no Catholic in their right mind prays to a (living) pope. If anything most Catholics, even ex-Catholics in some cases, seem to have a sort of feeling roughly comparable to , IMO at least, an old grandfather whom you no longer see very often, whose opinion you will hear out (if not usually follow  ) and whose well-being you're at least somewhat occasionally curious about or concerned with (especially if you find out suddenly he's dying or what-have-you). | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:45:32 AM | xNEROx wrote:
QUOTE: Who ever said the pope is more than mortal or infallible??A deity? What are you talking about? Or am I misreading you? I may be agnostic now but I was raised by serious Basque/Spanish/catholic family upbringing and all the pope is supposed to be is the head of the Roman Catholic Church (vicar of Christ) and "spiritual leader" and head of the Vatican state. Nobody is supposed to pray or worship him.
You are absolutely correct from my direct first hand experience and my research regarding Vatican Councils.
So then, why do people post accusations such as these which attempt to misidentify The Roman Catholic belief system and does likening us to "groupies" constitute an attack on our faith, which we hold holy and sacred? Does it constitute religious intolerance and hatred?
Where you wrote:
Oh, and atheists can be just as or MORE annoying (re: conceited) than religious people in my book. ^^ Yeah I feel that's true as well. Some become conceited about it (I'm thinking of -- although I actually liked picking up some of the facts in the last book of his I read --- the Brit turned American Christopher Hitchens; a former Marxist who's not so much atheist as he is anti-theist).
Sounds like in the case of the Marxist the attack on God is more to give license to socio-political behavior without the encumbrance of religious doctrine. Similarly Darwinism is originally NOT about biological evolution but originally more about social stratification.
I was raised in an old-fashioned Italian Catholic environment, which is basically the same as being raised in a Spanish Catholic environment, essentially, I'm sure. My parents still are practicing Catholics; though I would have to in all honesty call myself more like a ...somewhat spiritually-minded agnostic, if push came to shove and I were forced to say.
Catholic is Catholic wherever the adherents are faithful.
If you read the works of Joseph Campbell you will find the mind of a person who coined the phrase "Follow Your Bliss" expounding on the world religions as they all roads lead to one God - yet when asked by Bill Moyers about his religious upbringing, he acknowledged being from a Catholic upbringing and stated: "I belong to The Catholic Church".
I see no reason to be ashamed of being Catholic and extending beyond the reach of what is taught in The Church, because even our Catholic Faith advises that we do not live exclusively by The Bible but The Bible and Tradition.
And, sorry but, IMO the non-Catholic Christians simply have nothing in their tradition approaching the Catholic tradition in art, religious pageantry that can actually make you FEEL something passionate (especially if you go to Italy, or Spain or Latin America, etc).
This is because after all Protestant sects spun off from our Catholic (meaning Universal) Church; they refused tradition in favor of the literal, legalistic approach to interpreting The Bible and calling anyone not with them Sinners.
...no Catholic in their right mind prays to a (living) pope. If anything most Catholics, even ex-Catholics in some cases, seem to have a sort of feeling roughly comparable to, IMO at least, an old grandfather whom you no longer see very often, whose opinion you will hear out (if not usually follow) and whose well-being you're at least somewhat occasionally curious about or concerned with (especially if you find out suddenly he's dying or what-have-you).
The Pope as a figurehead represents a father figure. What it comes down to is that our society is taught to secretly hate men. We are being taught to rebel against and not revere men and fathers. We know that all soldiers (beginning with the police on the corners) take their orders from the president, but we seem to love tearing at the fabric of his rule.
oldsoul writes:
Please show me where in my post I branded anyone or any group of people in particular.
Perhaps it is the insulting tone you took in reference to The Pope that was objected to? Remember, even our Hebrew forefathers will not say the word God because we do well not to place ourselves on par with the almighty.
Now I realize that words such as sheep, lemming and herd to describe such behavior might bring about a negative reaction from some people
So then you can appreciate who using such verbiage in relationship to someone's sacred religious observances might be construed as ... insensitive?
Please do NOT misquote me. By only quoting part of what I said, you misrepresented my words and their meaning, which is against the rules of the forums. E) No Misquotations or Misrepresentations of other Posters. This is considered Libel. And this \/ would fall under the following rules of the forums. Report Posters who post Messages that insult, bash and slam other POF Members. Same goes for Thread or Messages warning others of previous Dates or Meetings you have had in order to embarrass, slam or humiliate them. You can slam & bash the Topic or Subject under Discussion all you like, but you cannot insult, bash and slam other Posters. Perhaps you should consider reading the rules? Because all I know is that a rudimentary misunderstanding of the rules can be fairly well cleared up by simply reading them.
Clearly you have read and re-read all the rules, which I applaud. However it does seem a little OCD and off topic to recite them like you are here to police the discussion?
| |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 5/15/2008 11:33:57 AM | I see that I was misquoted again. The rules clearly say that a poster must either quote another poster IN CONTEXT or not quote
at all. The lemmings analogy was in reference to ANYONE, religious or NOT...it was NOT directed to anyone in particular. PERIOD.
But that's okay. Some things are simply not worth wasting your breath or your time over and this one of them;)
On topic...
I have no idea why some people place more importance on ANY human being more than they do others...it makes no sense to me.
I don't even believe in titles...in my opinion, we should ALL be called by our given names only, no matter what rank, position, class, or level of education you might have or belong to. But that's me and this is just my opinion...to each their own.
JMHO | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 5/16/2008 6:06:09 AM | OldSoul:
Hey baby, great to read your thought-provoking and ever enlightening string of... ideas.
Where you wrote:
"I see that I was misquoted again. The rules clearly say that a poster must either quote another poster IN CONTEXT or not quote at all."
You did seem to include "ANYONE, religious or NOT" in your remark comparing what is interpreted as "groupie-bahvior" to animal herd behavior. Since Catholic's are part of "ANYONE, religious or NOT" and since this thread is called "Pope vs deitism" and since the Pope is Catholic... don't you find it even a little understandable that a Catholic might take offense?
Because by standard course of logical deduction - the complaint against your posting derrogitory remarks about someone's religeous beliefes seems to hold water - not that this matters because you will never be reprimanded for attacking someone based on religeon or anything it appears.
Why don't you try following some of the rules you seem to want to club everyone else with - or at least show some class in the manner in which you put Catholic's down.
And so that, keeping it on topic, the reason that devout Catholic's revere The Pope is because he is the most recent in the unbroken line of The Apostolate, which Jesus bestowed upon Saint Peter.
I believe this was sufficiently answered in a post which read:
"POPE (Ecclesiastical Latin papa from Greek papas, a variant of pappas father, in classical Latin pappas -- Juvenal, "Satires" 6:633). The title pope, once used with far greater latitude, is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth. Though the power of the pope is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. "The pope", as Cardinal Hergenröther says,
"is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges....He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy -- to "feed" -- and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations ("Cath. Church and Christian State", tr., I, 197)." So, it should be clear to the reader that, while not a vain or idle worship of a man as "akin to gods (or as I would have it God - singular), devout Catholics are most justifiably going to direct their reverence to the visible head of our Church.
To see a list of the unbroken line of Bishops who were Popes from the time of Christ's appointment of Peter to Pope Benedict XVI see:
http://www.transporter.com/fatherpeffley/Apologetics/deed.html
The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17."
So now that we know "WHY" we can all move along to the real intent of this thread, being to slam the last religeous group that it is still considered cool to attack - The Catholics. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 5/20/2008 5:38:52 AM | I would like to believe that any percieved attack on The Catholic Church in this thread is happening by our non-Catholic friends and niehgbors through accidental misstatements which quite easily can be taken as a slight on our faith.
It is clear to anyone who dignifies their knowledge with inquiry, that Roman Catholics do not excercise the "groupie" attitude toward The Pope that some or our Protestant brethren do with tele-Evangelists who perform faith healings en mass through the tv waves of even some of our scular brethren in their worhip of hero-idols, money and other emblems of self-gratification.
Certainly the readers have looked into the true and accurate reason that Catholic's revere The Pope as being the duly appointed figure head of the Church which our Messiah founded on earth.
What would more justifiably demonstrate a reason for shock would be if every devout Catholic did not show reverence - as so many of our brethern, ignorant of these fact, display a lack of through their own misunderstanding. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
