"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history." -Cardinal Francis George

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Best. Argument. Ever: Vicar of Christ = Koran Kisser

you said:

Defending Spain is Spain's problem. I'm sure Spain had a competent king who could have asked France and Germany for aid. He could have even appealed to their shared Roman Catholic belief.

England, France, Germany - their all currently "under siege" by the Muslims again. Are we to expect another Crusade? If the Crusades were a good idea, I would expect to see them done again. Perhaps this time good Roman Catholics should come to the aid of the Iraquis or Afghans against the imperialist USA and our evil god of Materialism.

Again - Vicar of Christ = Koran Kisser (that jab will never get old :) ). Go google it, there are pictures and everything.

My response:
"I'm sure Spain had a competent king who could have asked France and Germany for aid. He could have even appealed to their shared Roman Catholic belief."

1. That is what the crusades were! The fact that the pope recognized who was on the right team is somehow bad to you though? When a dozen modern popes recognized the fact that communism was evil, does that mean they are stepping out of bounds? You really have not shown why that is wrong of them to take a stand. And you certainly have not shown that it disproves their claim of authority.
2. The term "Roman Catholic" did not exist until the Reformation in England. Google ANACHRONISM. Most of your complaints against the Church are dripping with it.

JP2 was dumb to kiss a Koran. Even the current pope has said as much. But what is dumber is that you think you have proven something by pointing it out. What does it prove? Just like your south African bishop example, it proves nothing I didn't already know: People are stupid and do stupid things. JP2 could have been a porn star and you could chuckle at pics all day, but in the end you have proven nothing. I take this stuff seriously dude, so meet Catholicism at its claims or don't bother. Pointing out a pope doing something scandalous is not the same as showing he taught error.

Also it proves that you like to get information from sensational sources on the internet. But again, if you reflect on what you are trying to prove by that example, you might find that you don't even know. I certainly don't. If you are trying to prove a pope can do stupid shit, then congrats, you win! But if this is the kind of thing that you are researching and think is important, then obviously you really don't care to investigate Catholicism honestly. Have you even read through the catechism?

I will tell you the answer: NO you have not.

It probably isn't sensational enough for your taste. You might as well find a site that describes Priests that have abused little kids. Get the graphic details and bring it up as an example for me of why the Catholic Church is bad. That seems to be your level of argument.

Actual Catholic Catachism... nah.

Sedevacantist websites... yeah!

I remember when I became a Calvinist a fundamentalist friend pointing out the whole Servetus thing in Geneva where Calvin killed a dude. I thought then and I still think now that that example simply does not prove whether Calvinism is correct or not. It proves (perhaps) that Calvin did something stupid, but it does not disprove any of the tenets of Calvinism. My friends argument was bad then, because he did not prove that Calvinism is inconsistent, and it is bad now. Just like your arguments.

If he would have proven to me at the time that Calvinism was internally inconsistent, (or even attempted to do so)  I would have given an ear, but he did not do so.

Also his continued form of that type of argumentation made it clear to me he was simply not interested in the truth, but merely jacking off.


  1. What people do matters - even more so when the "Vicar of Christ" does something. This isn't some shmuck of a person doing something dumb. This is the guy who is the "head of the church universal".

    The problem is that the Vicar of Christ through the ages has been worse than the every-day shmucks. I know better than to kiss a Koran, and I'm not the Vicar of Christ. Surely someone who has been catechized their whole life, risen up the ranks of the Church and been given special powers by the Holy Spirit should be able to avoid this snare of Satan.

    And it isn't just this current incarnation (using the term loosely) of the Vicar of Christ - it is most of them.

    Also, you define "teach" very narrowly. I am constantly "teaching" my kids, and I don't write anything down. I teach them in word and in deed - and they learn by copying me.

    The narrow definition is itself a cop-out. By slimming it down enough, you could even exclude anything he says - some popes haven't taught anything at all!

    Recognizing something is evil (Communism) and summoning troops to fight are two very different things. The Church was not given the power of the sword. Standing against powers is the job of the Church. Summoning Armies is the job of the State. It would not have been right for the Church to offer armed resistance against the Communists (the Orthodox church didn't - good for them), and the RC church in the middle ages should not have brought armed resistance against the Muslims (or sacked Constantinople, but that's another argument). Those functions when rightly ordered are performed by the state. Those popes got it wrong. Speak against them, fight with words and ideas. The sword is not to be born by the Church!

  2. RMBIV,

    How should we view St. Peter then in light of your remarks? He scandalized the Church by refusing to sit with the Gentiles in front of the Judaizers. I mean, if anyone should know that what he was doing was wrong it was St. Peter himself. He was the on who received a direct revelation from God that made this clear.

    St. Peter wasn't some schmuck of a person doing something dumb either. He was an Apostle directly chosen by God to feed His sheep.

  3. RMBIV:
    "What people do matters - even more so when the "Vicar of Christ" does something. "

    So does this mean that you will only follow a church lead by a impeccable pastor?

    Do you ever make mistakes being an example for your kids? Maybe judge things incorrectly? Overreact?

    People make mistakes. No one has ever claimed Popes are impeccable, outside of strawman arguments. Yes, Peter erred in his behavior. John Paul II erred in his behavior. Some Popes have erred atrociously.

    I make mistakes as a father. That doesn't negate my role of being a father. It doesn't change the fact that I have the authority to teach my children, make the rules and punish and reward them - within the limits of my authority as a father. It is the same with the Pope. The fact that in the area of behavior, and even personal opinions they make mistakes and that does not negate the authority of the office they hold.

  4. @ Anonymous
    As a non-Roman Catholic, I can give Peter a pass, not for his sin and his scandal, but because he never claimed to hold the office that the Roman Catholic church says he held (1st pope). The Biblical accounts of Peter paint him in a very wishy-washy light... and yet Christ's love perseveres and he does not leave his servant to drown in Galilee.

    @ Paul
    No, I will not follow a church lead by an impeccable pastor (doesn't exist). However, there are minimum standards that need to be upheld (at least in the Protestant world). The lack of these minimum standards and the resulting pass that you give the pope is what I find troubling.

    In an earlier conversation with the OP, I mentioned that the anti-christ himself could become pope... and do all kinds of abhorrent behavior... and there is nothing that can be done short of praying for lightning bolts. You can't leave the church, you can't do anything. The OP agreed - assuming the anti-christ didn't "teach" anything... again the cop-out narrow definition. He can murder, rape, pillage, simonize, koran-kiss all day and it doesn't matter.

    As for being a father, there are things that you can do to negate your role as father. There are sins so heinous that you loose your position. God keep you from them!

    The office itself gains and looses authority based on the morality of the person who holds it. It is the same with every other office in the world.

  5. RMBIV,

    The fact that you give Peter a pass despite his actions that contradict the very things he taught confirms the very point I was making. He was an Apostle chosen by Christ Himself.

    Do you believe that Peter ever formally taught heresy? Do you believe that the Apostles were protected from teaching heresy and were guided by the Holy Spirit when they wrote scripture? If the Apostles were not protected from teaching heresy than how can we trust what they said/wrote?

    You said:
    "The Biblical accounts of Peter paint him in a very wishy-washy light... and yet Christ's love perseveres and he does not leave his servant to drown in Galilee."

    This is the point I was making.

  6. "The lack of these minimum standards and the resulting pass that you give the pope is what I find troubling."

    No one is giving a "pass" to the pope. When a leader causes scandal, it is a shame to those he leads. We don't just roll over and put on our happy face like nothing happened. The Koran kissing picture/incident was one of the FIRST things I investigated last year when I was doing my research into the claims of the papacy. Believe me, orthodox Catholics know about it, don't like it, and dont give JP2 a "pass" for doing it. And yes, a scandalous leader, be they any bishop, pope or no pope, DOES lose something by the scandal. They lose some respect, they lose some trust, they lose some clout. But they do not always lose their office because any replacement is still just another fallible human being. What is the point of replacing worn tires with worn tires?

    Your standards are to high bro. If you can meet them yourself, perhaps you should be a bishop. Have you looked into what JP2 has taught using the authority of his office? It's great! Among other things he put to rest any remaining doubt about there ever being women priests.

    We teach things in different ways. When I get angry with my child because they drew crayon on the wall, I am teaching two things, one good and one bad. Respect for property, and teaching them that anger is OK. In the end, when they grow up, it they hopefully will realize that only what I SAID was really what I wanted to teach: Dont put crayon on the wall.

    It is similar with the magisterium. only what they say AS THE MAGISTERIUM is protected. That does not mean their other actions get a pass! They can cause real scandal and do damage to peoples faith. But, like Peter going back on his word and spurning the gentiles, those actions are not what is protected from error. WHAT IS PROTECTED is the Jerusalem council however. THERE we see Peter stand up and proclaim the truth from the Holy Spirit. The fact that he fails to live it later is sad, but you would not say it disqualified him from his office.

    Why is it different for bishops now?

  7. "I will not follow a church lead by an impeccable pastor (doesn't exist). However, there are minimum standards that need to be upheld (at least in the Protestant world)."

    Wrong. There are no minimum standards in the "Protestant world", And there is no such entity as the Protestant world. It is just too varied to make that claim. If we take all Protestant leaders in column A and Catholic leaders in Column B, I dare to bet they will have similar personal failings. As far as success in getting evil into church doctrine, there would be no contest though. Protestants would win that one hands down. Just ask the abortion hungry, practicing gay bishops of the Anglicans.

    What you might mean by "Protestant world" is what you personally consider to be the protestant world. So you might exclude the PCUSA for instance, or the ELCA, or Anglicans. You would have to boil it down to a handful of tiny denominations to find the purity you seek.

    And like I said, MOST Protestant denominations (like the PCUSA) that EXPLICITLY, from the pulpit and in their official documents support ABORTION, homosexuality and contraception. You cannot say these things about the Catholic Church, and in fact the opposite is the case.
    You might see a priest fall and cause scandal (as happened in the closest parish to me), or a pope make a bad choice and kiss a Koran, but you will not see the Catholic Church officially FAIL so horribly in what it teaches the way Protestants have. It will never TEACH people to love evil as nearly all the mainline Protestant Churches have done.
    I really wonder where you get your misconception about Protestantism? Perhaps in your circles things are the way you describe, but you have always chosen to go to very conservative evangelical churches, which are by far the minority. For instance, in your and my former denom the PCA, there are 350,000 members (children and adults). It is a southern, white, tiny denomination that broke off to live in its own ghetto of Reformed orthodoxy in the 1970's. It is a Protestant Potemkin Village!

    Statistically, worldwide, the Reformed and Presbyterians are mostly apostate by the standard of the PCA. That is JUST THE FACTS JACK. You can't look to your Potemkin village minority denominations and expect us not to look at the mainline disasters. Lets be fair dude.

    So, will you admit that nearly all the mainline Protestant denominations have ended up OFFICIALY TEACHING EVIL, while the Catholic Church has not?
    That Protestantism, as a whole, TEACHES evil (Aortion and contraception among others) while the Catholic CHurch does not?

  8. This is an exciting discussion! I am having a conversation with the OPC pastor next week for what I anticipate will be the last time we speak in the pastor-parishioner capacity. I'm trying to think of all possible objections to me leaving and I'm sure this will be one of them -- that the church is immoral or something to that effect. I'd write a letter to depart, but my wife told me to have some balls and face the music. It is the classy way to exit, too. I hope that after the discussion, I can still be his neighbor and friend, but I'm not holding my breath.

  9. You can still be friends. After everything is said and done in the Catholic/Protestant debate, we still have way more in common with each other than with most of the degenerating culture.

    Meeting is good. If you can do it, it will be good for you. Be prepared to be outgunned though. Reformed eldres take pride in being the smartest theologian on the block.

    If this is one of his arguments, then you will have it easy. This whole "naughty popes" line of reasoning is stuffed with straw.


  10. BTW, just last night my 8 and 6 year olds took their first piano lessons... at our former pastor Josh Moon's house, from his wife! In the end, Christians of all stripes are in this battle together. We just disagree on who the general is.

  11. I took your advice, and started reading the RCC Catechism. I'm pretty sure I found a place where the Roman Catholic Church is teaching error. It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it.

    In particular, the issue is the teaching of the 10 commandments. I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17.

    The RCC, however, in teaching their catechism does something quite sneaky. The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment, making it a footnote of the first and stripping it of any meaning. Instead of "You shall not make for yourself an image", the teaching is "images of saints are OK".

    All the other commandments then get bumped up a number... which leaves you with 9. Not exactly convincing, since at the very least people know that God gave Moses 10. To make up for this discrepancy, they split the true 10th commandment into 2 commandments - effectively "don't covet" and "don't covet v. 2".

    You can see this teaching quite clearly from the Vatican website - just scroll through the table of contents, it should jump out at you. The 10 commandments are in part 3 section 2.


    The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols. At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them. I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.

  12. Bob,
    I posted a new thread for this because I have heard it before from relatives and want to document my response.

    In short, nice try, no cigar, not even secondhand smoke from one.