Is Phatmass guilty of papolatry?

[Dave]

I've heard at least one traditionalist claim that Phatmass essentially worships the pope by acting like he can do no wrong and treating everything he says as though it were gospel truth. And yes, this person used to be on Phatmass. How shall we defend ourselves from that charge?

[dUSt]

[quote name='Dave' date='Apr 4 2006, 08:58 AM']I've heard at least one traditionalist claim that Phatmass essentially worships the pope by acting like he can do no wrong and treating everything he says as though it were gospel truth.  And yes, this person used to be on Phatmass.  How shall we defend ourselves from that charge?
[right][snapback]935155[/snapback][/right][/quote]

Ummm... Matthew 16:18?

[goldenchild17]

Does Matt. 16:18 say the Pope cannot ever make a bad decision?

[dUSt]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 4 2006, 09:10 AM']Does Matt. 16:18 say the Pope cannot ever make a bad decision?
[right][snapback]935161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No. It says, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

[goldenchild17]

Very true. I agree 100%. So would any Traditional Catholic. However, if the Pope can make bad decisions, especially on a non-infallible basis, why should we follow every little thing he promotes?

[Theoketos]

That is alot of inductive reasoning and generalization, an adhominem as well as an adhoc, I think, to be able to claim that.

It is way easier to knock a group of people with out giving specific examples or specific actions by specific people, then to say person x writing y has z implications which are disturbing.

It would be more reasonable and possiblely accurate to say that there are some that see the current Holy Father and the previous Holy Father as doing no wrong, or at least ignoring major faults.

To say that some worship him is false and sad, it sounds like an attempt to dismiss arguements with out using reason.

There were some (at least one) descisions made by the late John Paul II, which I do not understand. And there are certain things going on in the Church which I cannot account for. However, I will never know what would have happened if we had a lesser man as Pope.

As far as Pope Benedict goes, it is really too early in his pontificate to even begin to understand his program. I have heard it said however, that this pontificate will ratify the last one, and to be honest, I am ok with this. That being sad, it does not mean the last pontificate was perfect, it does however mean that is awesome and in general good for the Church.

However both were/are human and do make mistakes.

Therefore, Phatmass at least in the case of me does not commit Papolatry and so his/her statment is now both invalid and false, instead of just being invalid.

[Didacus]

There is nothing wrong with listening and loving our leader.

We may at times appear over-zealous. But we do no wrong, and we definately do not worship him (the pope).

Christ is the head of our Church, as it was in the beginning, as it is now, as it shall be for all time.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Didacus

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Dave' date='Apr 4 2006, 10:58 AM']I've heard at least one traditionalist claim that Phatmass essentially worships the pope by acting like he can do no wrong and treating everything he says as though it were gospel truth.  And yes, this person used to be on Phatmass.  How shall we defend ourselves from that charge?
[right][snapback]935155[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I would say he's a nimrod and not worth arguing with. His schismatic views skew his judgement and until Christ takes the scales off his eyes he is a barking dog that we should not waste our time with. Only thing that will help him is prayers.

[ironmonk]

Thank you, my God, for that love for the Pope you have placed in my heart.
-St. Josemaria Escriva: The Way 573

[Didacus]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Apr 4 2006, 09:16 AM'][snip]

There were some (at least one) descisions made by the late John Paul II, which I do not understand.  And there are certain things going on in the Church which I cannot account for. However, I will never know what would have happened if we had a lesser man as Pope.
[snip]
[right][snapback]935168[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And i can second your point of you Theos.

I believe a definate distinction needs to be clarified with this person as to the difference between being flawless (like Jesus) and being Saintly (JP the Great).

An d yes, although I loved him and still do, and firmly believe in his sainthood even though undeclared, I must admit I too do not understand several of JP the Great's decisions.

Has anyone mentionned to this person that the popes also have their confessors? That those confessors are not there 'for show' but to actually hear the pontiff's conffesions because they too not only make mistakes but sin as well?

[ironmonk]

More St. Escriva...


I do not understand how Catholics and even priests have for years advised, with an easy conscience, the use of the pill to prevent conception. [b]The teachings of the Popes cannot be disregarded just like that. Nor ought they to allege, as they do with incredible flippancy, that the Pope when he does not speak ex cathedra is simply a private theologian subject to error. To say nothing of the tremendous arrogance it supposes to affirm that the Pope makes mistakes, while they do not.[/b]

Besides, [b]they forget that the Pope is not only a teacher, and infallible when he says so expressly, but also the chief Legislator[/b]. In this case Pope Paul VI has laid down in unequivocal terms that all the dispositions of the much revered Pius XII in this very delicate matter are still binding and must necessarily be followed. Moreover, Pius XII only permitted some natural procedures — not the pill — to avoid conception in isolated and difficult cases. To advise the contrary is, therefore, a serious [b]act of disobedience to the Holy Father in a grave matter[/b]....

- Conversations 95



You established your residence in Rome in 1946. What is there about the Pontiffs with whom you have dealt that stands out in your memory?

For me, in the hierarchy of love, the Pope comes right after the Most Holy Trinity and our Mother the Virgin. I cannot forget that it was his Holiness Pius XII who approved Opus Dei at a time when some people considered our spirituality a heresy. Nor can I forget that the first words of kindness and affection I received in Rome in 1946 came from the then Monsignor Montini. The affable and paternal charm of John XXIII, every time I had occasion to visit him, remains engraved in my memory. Once I told him 'In our Work all men, Catholics or not, have always been lovingly received. It is not from your Holiness that I learned ecumenism.' And Pope John laughed with obvious emotion.

What more can I tell you? The Roman Pontiffs, all of them, have always had understanding and affection for Opus Dei.

-Conversations 46



The supreme power of the Roman Pontiff and his infallibility, when he speaks ex cathedra, are not human inventions. They are based on the explicit foundational will of Christ. How foolish it is, then, to confront the government of the Pope with that of the bishops, or to reduce the validity of the pontifical Magisterium to the consent of the faithful! Nothing is more foreign to it than a balance of powers; human moulds of thought do not help us, no matter how attractive or functional they may be. No one in the Church enjoys absolute power by himself, as man. In the Church there is no leader other than Christ. And Christ constituted a vicar of his — the Roman Pontiff — for his wayfaring spouse on earth.

The Church is apostolic by constitution. That which truly is and is called catholic, should stand out at one and the same time by the prerogatives of unity, holiness and apostolic succession. In that way, the Church is one, with a clear and perfect unity of the whole world and all nations, with that unity of which the principle, root and indefectible origin is the supreme authority and most excellent primacy of blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, and his successors in the Roman See. And there is no other Catholic Church, but that one which, built on the one Peter, rises up on the unity of the faith and on charity in one unique body, joined together and compact.

We help to make that apostolic continuity more evident in the eyes of all men by demonstrating with exquisite fidelity our union with the Pope, which is union with Peter. Love for the Roman Pontiff must be in us a delightful passion, for in him we see Christ. If we deal with the Lord in prayer, we will go forward with a clear gaze that will permit us to perceive the action of the Holy Spirit, even in the face of events we do not understand or which produce sighs or sorrow.

Loyalty to the Church - 13


Faithfulness to the Pope includes a clear and definite duty: that of knowing his thought, which he tells us in Encyclicals or other documents. We have to do our part to help all Catholics pay attention to the teaching of the Holy Father, and bring their everyday behaviour into line with it.
- The Forge 633


Read more here: [url="http://www.escrivaworks.org/result.php?page=1&search=Pope&point=&book=all"]http://www.escrivaworks.org/result.php?pag...point=&book=all[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 4 2006, 09:20 AM']I would say he's a nimrod and not worth arguing with. His schismatic views skew his judgement and until Christ takes the scales off his eyes he is a barking dog that we should not waste our time with. Only thing that will help him is prayers.
[right][snapback]935175[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And the Protestant schism is somehow infinitely better so that you can dialogue with them?

Not to mention the question of where in the world the idea of schism came from? Unless you know who posted the original statement.

Edited April 4, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Didacus]

As always I very much appreciate your posts IronMonk, but on that last post I have to side with Goldy here that you could be a little more charitable with regards to this person. Just because someone is a little mean with you, and perhaps even ignorant towards your beliefs (regardless what these are), this does not permit you to take a similar stance with them.



However I really like this little bit from your psot:

[quote]To say nothing of the tremendous arrogance it supposes to affirm that the Pope makes mistakes, while they do not.[/quote]

Which I would say is not uncharitable since it is, in many cases, quite accurate.



Back to you Bob...

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Apr 4 2006, 09:38 AM']However I really like this little bit from your psot:
Which I would say is not uncharitable since it is, in many cases, quite accurate.
Back to you Bob...
[right][snapback]935190[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

"To say nothing of the tremendous arrogance it supposes to affirm that the Pope makes mistakes, [b]while they do not[/b]."

Without arguing whether a layperson can make this determination: Can the Pope really not make a mistake?

[Didacus]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 4 2006, 09:53 AM']"To say nothing of the tremendous arrogance it supposes to affirm that the Pope makes mistakes, [b]while they do not[/b]."

Without arguing whether a layperson can make this determination: Can the Pope really not make a mistake?
[right][snapback]935216[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

By the luck of the draw I suppose it might be possible for a person to live an entire life without making a single mistake; however the odds would be astronomically low.

The above quote obviously do not aim to argue such details, it is obviously aimed at people who critize openly and without properly understanding, the teaching of the popes.

As far as morality goes, given the word of a pope and the word from someone on the streets or a 'common' person; I think I'll take the pope's words thank you very much.

Holiness, clergy, authority and all that good stuff aside;

Karol Wotjila and Josef Ratzinger are two individuals of great intelligence and talent who worked their entire lives in the field of morality and church teachings. They studied, they read all sorts of things, they have years upon years of experiences behind them, they have doctorate degrees and then some, and people simply brush aside what they have to say as though 'this old guy doesn't know anything'. This is common all over the place, and to pretend otherwise is simply playing devil's advocate.

To openly question the pope is to question their vocation, their integrity, their studies, their entire lives and I believe, all the 'good stuff' from being pope aside, that these people a near geniuses or ARE geniuses. To question disrespectfully as many catholics openly do is indeed a very grave matter in my opinion, and an affirmation of arrogance.



That said, do all people fit that category - of course not.