Supporting the Pope

[Rubee]

after you google Prime witness to faith

waits patiently for rupee to google what the Pope represents.

I don’t need Google, lol. I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What on earth does the Pope being the prime WITNESS of the faith have to do with the invented duty on this thread that makes our PRIMARY role that of supporting him? I also wait for you to actually answer to the dispute and not dance around things VIRTUALLY NO ONE has disputed here.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I don’t need Google, lol. I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

we all have the catechism , its online, it doesn’t mean we understand what it means though does it.

so lets discuss the Pope as the prime witness to the faith, as the leader of the body of the church on earth.

as the body of the church what do you think our primary role is, ripping down the body of the church or supporting it and building it up?

strictly liturgical dancing to the indigenous strains of clap sticks

ONLY

 

[Rubee]

our primary role is supporting the Prime witness to faith.

Tell me where you got this, please! I can’t wait. Since this is actually my SOLE dispute in this whole thread and not a single of the things you’ve been bringing in. When have we ever been taught that as Christians our PRIMARY role is “to support the prime witness to faith”??? Not to become saints, not to serve Christ, Oh nooo, none of that. It’s rather “to support the prime witness to faith”. I would love more than anything to know where you got this idea.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

VIRTUALLY NO ONE has disputed here.

support your argument yourself. don’t rely on others to support you, after all , aren’t you claiming the primary role of a member of the body of the church is not to support its leader on earth.

so why are you looking for support

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I have eyes and the ability to read English

back it up with stats, saying you have eyes and can read english in no way validates your claim

 

[Rubee]

is your second name fred astaire? did you just remove the reference to dancing around the topic, tut tut… nope you left it there. tap dancing I see

That’s just silly. I’ve made a single consistent point here while you have been all over the place starting with “the sacrament of the priesthood”, an internet forum being apparently the same thing as Catholicism to you, now about the Pope being called the prime WITNESS, lol. All of this just to avoid the simple truth that our PRIMARY DUTY always and above all, is to God. So much that the church teaches we can’t disobey the conscience even in obedience to anyone in authority. It’s such a basic, simple thing that your tactics really do say so much that you’d rather do anything than admit that. It’s most intriguing.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

That’s just silly. I’ve made a single consistent point here while you have been all over the place starting with “the sacrament of the priesthood”,

now you are resorting to personal attacks. and thats just silly. its a catholic web site, we don’t apply personal attack, its uncharitable.

be thankful the Pope has your back and keeps you out of the dangerous currents. And he is there with the green whistle when you get broken.

swim between the flags mate…

 

[Rubee]

There was a pope who apparently toasted the devil from the high alter of St. Peter’s in the middle ages. Another kept slaves, yet another had mistresses and some committed murder in power struggles.

I wonder what people like @Roseeurekacross would have had those Catholics do that lived in those ages. What was their role when the Pope toasted the devil from an alter or kept slaves or committed acts of lust and even murder?

What does this primacy of this role to “support” him mean in that case? Would saying that is is gravely sinful be lack of support?

As far as I know, any Catholic’s duty to the Pope is to obey his infallible teaching and treat him with respect. When he sins publicly and gravely, it does NOT mean we can’t say “The Pope is sinning gravely and publicly”. So this “support” we owe the Pope is very much a conditional one.

 

[Rubee]

now you are resorting to personal attacks. and thats just silly. its a catholic web site, we don’t apply personal attack, its uncharitable.

No, this is called a lie, lol. Who has personally attacked you? This is is what’s silly, as I said:

is your second name fred astaire? did you just remove the reference to dancing around the topic, tut tut… nope you left it there. tap dancing I see

It is indeed very silly. What did I remove, for what, and what tap dancing? Youve been dancing and making bizarre points since yesterday and I did not call any of that silly. But this^…yeah that’s a silly statement.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

There was a pope who apparently toasted the devil from the high alter of St. Peter’s in the middle ages. Another kept slaves, yet another had mistresses and some committed murder in power struggles.

ah, you are going there.

and again

I wonder what people like @Roseeurekacross would have had those Catholics do that lived in those ages.

lets see if you want to know what i think, just ask, don’t be passive aggressive.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

want my opinion of slave owners, mistress keeping or murder in the rich powerful and famous?

 

[Rubee]

Whats passive aggressive? I’ve already asked and tagged you incase you’d left. It’s pretty clear.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Whats passive aggressive?

this is passive aggressive

I wonder what people like @Roseeurekacross

 

[Rubee]

Lol. I wonder what XXXX think about this is passive-aggressive? Ok. Lets do it again: What do you think?

want my opinion of slave owners, mistress keeping or murder in the rich powerful and famous?

No. I want your opinion on what the duty of catholics is to popes who do those, as I made clear.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

no you did not want my opinion, then why did you wonder about what my opinion would be?

My opinion is you need a stiff vegemite sandwich and a glass of milo. nourish yourself

 

[Rubee]

no you did not want my opinion, then why did you wonder about what my opinion would be?

Wondering is what is behind questions

My opinion is you need a stiff vegemite sandwich and a glass of milo. nourish yourself

Thank you! Now I hope things are clear to the mod or whoever you or someone may tag about who is personal. Lol.

I also hope its clear to anyone who may read this far into the thread that this is why you’re all over the place. You know the duty to the pope has its limits but have no desire to admit it. For these two reasons, I’m glad for your answer.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

No, please let us apply some common sense about the purpose of having a central leader and how large organizations are supposed to operate in order to provide some stability.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

St. Catherine rebuked the pope.

She didn’t tell the Pope to resign, nor did she accuse him of bad behavior in the press. She encouraged him.
There is no encouragement in what Vigano is doing, and he isn’t demonstrating the saintliness of St Catherine, so it’s hardly the same thing.

As for Chile, last I saw, the Pope was making all the bishops there resign because of the abuse situation, so not seeing how the Pope deserves to be admonished about that country either.

But people who don’t like the Pope will always find some way to justify their actions.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We can speculate all day on situations where we might not support a Pope. What if he were credibly accused of committing child sexual abuse or even murder. What if he showed clear signs of mental illness, like the past Pope who dug up a corpse of his predecessor and put it on trial. What if this and what if that.

However, none of these things have happened. So why bother thinking about them in the present scenario? Let’s stick to the facts of what actually has occurred.

 

[Genesis315]

As the traditional axiom goes, the Pope’s power is ad aedificationem non ad destructionem ecclesiae. Therefore, as the opportunity arises and based on our abilities and station in life, we support him in those things that are ad aedificationem ecclesiae and not those things that are ad destructionem ecclesiae.

More precisely, the office of the Pope exists to serve the following ends: the freedom, peace, and exaltation of the Church; the extirpation of schism and heresy (aka the unity of Christians, to put it more ecumenically); and the propagation of the Catholic faith.

Along those lines, what the Pope can do and should do are two different things. Confusing the “can” and “should” is one of the things that causes the separated brethren to see Catholic dogma on the the primacy as different from ancient praxis.

Catholic dogma on the Pope’s jurisdiction focuses on the abstract principles, because the “should” of every situation cannot be foreseen. But there are plenty of times, going all the way back, when many in the Church, including saints, did not support the Pope in some act, because in good conscience they believed it was contrary to those ends of the papacy and therefore he shouldn’t do it (one of the first of such instances–the Easter controversy involving St. Victor I and opposition from St. Irenaeus and many others–is a great example).

Obviously, just like we should with anything else, if the opportunity arises, we should also support him in his personal virtue and not support him in any sins.