Oh, That Arrogant Pope

[davidv]

JF,

Thanks. Links would be appreciated.

I seem to recall once suggesting on CAF that Peter’s primacy was one of rebuke, as the “thou art Peter” passage is followed by “get thee behind me Satan” almost immediately. This suggestion wasn’t received with shouts of acclamation.

It may be that the accused arrogance is misplaced. There is a phenomenon that occurs when a leader surrounds himself with yes-men: he begins to believe his own propoganda. I recall from canon law that Catholics have duties towards clergy that possibly are typically ignored. One of those may be viewed as a duty of rebuke. While it takes courage to up and rebuke a priest with a forceful personality, perhaps even more so a bishop, let alone a cardinal or a pope. If everyone around a priest or a pope allows him to act in an arrogant manner, what happens? I can see a bumper sticker: Have You Rebuked Your Priest Today?

Since the College of Cardinals elects the Pope, how does the Pope surround himself with these so-called yes-men? Newly appoint cardinals do not replace existing ones.

 

[rpp]

I think the Catholic position is that he has every right to be an arrogant power hungry bully should he wish (like every other human being) but he is answerable only to God (unlike every other human being).

I get the feeling I hit a nerve with some people.

Please develop this argument.

It is not the Catholic position that the Pope be arrogant, power hungry or a bully. Those are all serious sins.

Instead, if we look at some of the Popes titles, such as “The servant of the servants of God” we see than humility and meekness, not arrogance and bullying is more consistent with the Catholic position.

It is true that not all popes have been good examples of holiness. Some have even been corrupt. Fewer than 1/3 of popes have been canonized as saints.

That does not mean that they and their office do not deserve a measure of respect.

As for “hitting a nerve with some people”, what did you expect? When you use pejorative and insulting adjective to describe a person who is respected, admired and loved by more than 1 billion people, you should not be surprised that people are upset by such gross lack of Christian charity.

It is not politically correct to say “this is right and that is wrong”. It is the politically correct crowd who are intolerant and defame people who do say the truth without compromise.

So many of your posts are seriously disrespectful and insulting to the Pope. People might actually listen to you if you were less insulting and mean.

 

[Spirithound]

Kindly provide examples of how Pope John Paul II was arrogant.

I’ve been thinking lately, always a dangerous thing, that if someone “really” wanted to learn the Catholic position on any given subject, they should do their best to put together the strongest arguement they can for that position BEFORE they start trying to prove it wrong.

I have no real interest in understanding the protestant position on this particular subject because frankly I think its just plain irational emotional bias, so maybe that’s exactly why I should argue that the Pope is just an arrogant power hungry bully.

It seems to me (provided i’m not missing some subtle sarcasm) that the OP is saying that the Pope is NOT arrogant, and is calling for some angry Catholics to say that he is…shrugs

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

It may be that the accused arrogance is misplaced. There is a phenomenon that occurs when a leader surrounds himself with yes-men: he begins to believe his own propoganda.

• False premise: Is the Pope surrounded with yes men?
• Faulty generalism: Because some leaders surround themselves with yes men, does that mean that the Pope surrounds himself with yes men?
• Faulty analogy: Is the Pope like any other leader?

Define propaganda please and apply it to your line of reasoning. Thank you.

Truthstalker:

I recall from canon law that Catholics have duties towards clergy that possibly are typically ignored.

Link please?

Truthstalker:

One of those may be viewed as a duty of rebuke. While it takes courage to up and rebuke a priest with a forceful personality, perhaps even more so a bishop, let alone a cardinal or a pope. If everyone around a priest or a pope allows him to act in an arrogant manner, what happens?

You are assuming that there are no folks ‘in’ the Church who oppose papal policy? Where have you been? Also, in terms of the bishops: are you not aware of the Cardinal Newman Society?

Truthstalker:

I can see a bumper sticker: Have You Rebuked Your Priest Today?

Really? Have you seen an opthalmologist about this?

One groundless criticism lodged against the Church is that it is monolithic just because it has the Magisterium, the Pope, and the Authority of interpretation. What many Reformers do not factor in is that Church has always had the benefit of heretics to provide dialectic.

Some heretics were more productive than others. Pelagius for instance, changed his mind several times. No harm in that. It got the Church thinking and praying and coming to conclusions about things.

Some heretics, unlike Pelagius, were not interested in dialectic. They were more into their way or the highway. Luther’s differences with the Church , for instance, resulted in widespread violence.

JP2 wrote on the encounter between secular science and the Faith in Ex Corde Ecclesia.

In a persecuted Church - a Church which started out being persecuted and continued being persecuted - there is no danger of being surrounded by yes men.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

I think the Catholic position is that he has every right to be an arrogant power hungry bully should he wish…

TS, you know better than to namecall. What has gotten into you of late?

Truthstalker:

I get the feeling I hit a nerve with some people.

Do you think it might be your own nerve you have hit?

 

[NotWorthy]

You aren’t really trying to say that Christ thought Peter was Satan, are you? If Christ’s utterance was not meant to caution Peter that no man must stand between Christ and the Cross, but rather, was literally to proclaim Peter Satan, why didn’t the other apostles drive Peter out? Why didn’t Christ throw him out, much less continue to deal with him, much less visit him when risen?

Just look at Jesus’ words to Peter in the Garden. Luke 22:31-32 tells us:

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

Yes, Jesus knew that Peter wasn’t Satan.

 

[Teflon93]

It seems to me (provided i’m not missing some subtle sarcasm) that the OP is saying that the Pope is NOT arrogant, and is calling for some angry Catholics to say that he is…shrugs

Hmmm…I certainly didn’t read it that way.

What’s the equivalent of sola scriptura for the Forum?

Sola OPura, maybe?

 

[Teflon93]

Just look at Jesus’ words to Peter in the Garden. Luke 22:31-32 tells us:
Yes, Jesus knew that Peter wasn’t Satan.

I had honestly never seen an argument before that Christ gave Peter the keys only to take them away from him because he was Satan!

 

[NotWorthy]

I had honestly never seen an argument before that Christ gave Peter the keys only to take them away from him because he was Satan!

I’ve heard it numerous time to point out he wasn’t pope (or that he was the pope with the shortest tenure ). But yeah, no one I’ve heard is dense enough to make that claim.

Now, granted, if you are thinking of this world’s ways instead of the ways of God then you are being used by Satan to further his whims.

I think that’s what Peter was being chastised by Jesus for doing.

 

[Teflon93]

I’ve heard it numerous time to point out he wasn’t pope (or that he was the pope with the shortest tenure ). But yeah, no one I’ve heard is dense enough to make that claim.

Now, granted, if you are thinking of this world’s ways instead of the ways of God then you are being used by Satan to further his whims.

I think that’s what Peter was being chastised by Jesus for doing.

Exactly.

The only other interpretation I’d heard was when our niece misread it as “Get thee behind me, Santa!”

Wonder what her theology would’ve become had we not corrected THAT mistake!

 

[mark_a]

The only other interpretation I’d heard was when our niece misread it as “Get thee behind me, Santa!”

Wonder what her theology would’ve become had we not corrected THAT mistake!

She would have thought that Jesus was chastising another Catholic.

 

[Truthstalker]

• False premise: Is the Pope surrounded with yes men?
• Faulty generalism: Because some leaders surround themselves with yes men, does that mean that the Pope surrounds himself with yes men?
• Faulty analogy: Is the Pope like any other leader?
  Define propaganda please and apply it to your line of reasoning. Thank you.

Link please?

You are assuming that there are no folks ‘in’ the Church who oppose papal policy? Where have you been? Also, in terms of the bishops: are you not aware of the Cardinal Newman Society?

In a persecuted Church - a Church which started out being persecuted and continued being persecuted - there is no danger of being surrounded by yes men.

How many people told JPII he was the greatest? How much adulation did he receive from crowds? I don’t know if he was surrounded by yes-men, but I can see it is possible that a pope could select advisors and promote people who agreed with and praised him, and punish those who don’t. It happens in the corporate world. Human beings are human beings regardless of whether they are the pope and he is subject to temptation and corruption like anyone else. Catholics argue that a pope is infallible only under narrow conditions. At all other times is he protected?

Propoganda involves what one says about oneself: image that one broadcasts. That can be reflected back and reinforced.

Links: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PU.HTM
see 212-3 and 218

I thought dissent was ruthlessly crushed in the Catholic Church. at least in theory, and submission is absolutely required. Dissent is at best tolerated and dissenters are not regarded as good Catholics.
What is the Cardinal Newman Society?

 

[Truthstalker]

TS, you know better than to namecall. What has gotten into you of late?

Do you think it might be your own nerve you have hit?

Read that post more carefully. I called him no such thing.

No.

 

[Truthstalker]

Hmm, so by that reasoning, Christ founded his Church upon Satan? That reading doesn’t seem to hold up. I know Protestants believe the Catholic Church to have been corrupted early on, but one would think it took more than a few minutes.

You aren’t really trying to say that Christ thought Peter was Satan, are you? If Christ’s utterance was not meant to caution Peter that no man must stand between Christ and the Cross, but rather, was literally to proclaim Peter Satan, why didn’t the other apostles drive Peter out? Why didn’t Christ throw him out, much less continue to deal with him, much less visit him when risen?

I know Christ offended the Pharisees by hanging out with prostitutes, but Satan?

I guess I have to spell this out.

Jesus did not found his church on Satan.
Jesus did not think Peter was Satan.

 

[NotWorthy]

I guess I have to spell this out.

Jesus did not found his church on Satan.
Jesus did not think Peter was Satan.

Just what are you trying to say…?

 

[ChristianVet]

ChristianVet said: “I think one major downfall our protestant friends have is failing to trust God with God’s Plan”

Truthstalker responded:.

This is profound. I think the same accusation could be leveled at any of us. However, the assumption is that whatever has happened is what is supposed to have happened, and thus we should not attempt to change it. This may be viewed more as resignation than as dealing with responsibility: “let us not feed the hungry, for God made them that way, and we do not want to interfere with His will” when He has called us to feed the hungry.

Truthstalker,

Please let me clarify: I was referring to God’s Plan with his creation of the Catholic Church, headed by St. Peter and his successors.

That is the Plan I was referring to.

 

[Teflon93]

I guess I have to spell this out.

Jesus did not found his church on Satan.
Jesus did not think Peter was Satan.

Okay, good—so then what was your point in referring to Jesus saying “Get thee behind me, Satan!” after Jesus announced he would found his church on Peter?

Was it simply too good a line to resist? I sometimes do that.

 

[Truthstalker]

Okay, good—so then what was your point in referring to Jesus saying “Get thee behind me, Satan!” after Jesus announced he would found his church on Peter?

The point under consideration was whether Peter’s primacy can be considered one of rebuke. Here we see Jesus rebuking Peter. We see Paul rebuking Peter in Galatians.

On this thread I am not contesting the historical primacy of Peter or the apostolic succession. The contest is rather on how justified those in the office are in the direction they have taken it as opposed to perhaps a better direction it should have been taken.

In reading the ECFs I see a church that developed into the Catholic/Orthodox church we see today. But it is a fallacy to read back into Ignatius, for example, and assume that what he meant by “bishop” is identical to what we mean by “bishop” today, or that “presbyter” means “priest” in an exclusively Catholic/Orthodox meaning. The range of meaning of the terms would have allowed for a development into Prebyterianism - that does not mean that Presbyterianism was God’s plan, or that the C/O model was never intended, it simply means you can’t force the documents to say something they actually do not say in favor of your predetermined position. That is a side note, but an example of a development that might have happened but did not happen.

And no, since someone will infer this, given the tenor of this thread, I do not mean to say that because the Popes are arrogant you are Catholic rather than Presbyterian. I mean to say that there is a complex relationship between providence and human sin and our responsibility to fix things. Things clergy do wrong need to be rebuked, as we have seen (thank you, JF, for one).

 

[Truthstalker]

ChristianVet said: “I think one major downfall our protestant friends have is failing to trust God with God’s Plan”

Truthstalker responded:.

Truthstalker,

Please let me clarify: I was referring to God’s Plan with his creation of the Catholic Church, headed by St. Peter and his successors.

That is the Plan I was referring to.

Is the plan done? Is everything perfect, so we dare change nothing? Are there no faults in the Church that need correcting, that you have no responsibility to work towards and pray for (not necessarily in that order)?

 

[ChristianVet]

I thought dissent was ruthlessly crushed in the Catholic Church. at least in theory, and submission is absolutely required. Dissent is at best tolerated and dissenters are not regarded as good Catholics.

Right. Dissenters from Catholic doctrine are not regarded as good Catholics. They are regarded as protestants.

JPII asked them in Los Angeles: If you are so dissatisfied, why don’t you leave?

Many are still asking the same thing.