The Pope and the lure of false idols
The full headline of the two-page spread reads “Pope warns against the lure of false idols”. By an unfortunate coincidence, when the spread is separated, the phrase ‘the lure of false idols’ sits conspicuously above a photo of Pope Benedict XVI, “resplendent in red silk cape” (to quote a reporter heard on the evening news), waving to crowds of hundreds of thousands as he walks down a red carpet.
Quotes down the right-hand side are also unfortunately positioned. (One suspects an editor with a sense of humor:)
“Everybody was screaming his name.”
“You just feel the Holy Spirit is with him, that he is no ordinary person. When you touch him it’s like your heart is burning.”
Several pages deeper, a letter to the editor sums it up:
“I’m getting a little queasy at the quasi-worship of the Pope. He is only a man, for goodness sake. As for his infallibility, he has obviously never argued with a woman.”
Comments
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
A mate and I were talking about this last night – the fact that he gets called “Holy Father” seems remarkably and dangerously blasphemous.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Yes, especially in light of Jesus’ words “do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”
I was going to post on that, but didn’t want to be accused of Pope bashing.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
You call Spurgeon ‘the man’ and admire Mark Driscoll like a teenage girl does a winner of Australian Idol.
Nice plank you have there.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Soren, on the one hand, you’re right. We ought not to boast in men. I’ve been rebuked on this issue by a sermon on 1 Corinthians 3.
Then again, notice that I call Spurgeon the man. Nothing more. Compare that to the quote in this post about the pope: “he is no ordinary person.”
I may indeed have a plank, we all have many, and I thank you for pointing it out. But it does not excuse the massive idolatry of the Catholic church. My plank is not so big as to prevent me seeing that.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
And just for completeness, I’d say my biggest false idol is myself.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Indeed, and I am no better. I dare not to even call myself ‘Christian’, for that honour does not belong to me.
You should write on how ‘remarkably and dangerously blasphemous’ the Roman Catholics are using Mt 23:9 as your prooftext. Give honour to your tradition and yourself by condemning others on the basis of a fundamentalist interpretation of this passage. Keep implying that RCs are dumbasses who wouldn’t know the difference between the Pope, God and a donkey.
When you’ve had your spray, perhaps consider what RCs may actually think. If you do this honestly it will be to your shame. Consider
http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a112.htm
Then maybe Romans 14:4 – “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” In the 1st century, to criticise someone’s servant was to criticise their master. In the case of RCs, their master is Christ, so you better come up with more than a ridiculous prooftext before you judge Christ.
I would not say this if I did not think you would learn from it.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
And yet if you truly did want me to learn from it you would not do the very thing you accuse me of.
Compare: “When you’ve had your spray, perhaps consider what RCs may actually think.”
with “Keep implying that RCs are dumbasses who wouldn’t know the difference between the Pope, God and a donkey”
If you truly did want me to learn, you would not attack me so. You might even speak the truth in love.
I’m sorry if I’ve offended you somehow. If you would care to draw my attention to where I have done this, I will gladly apologise, and even repent. But know this: if your aim is to defend RCism, you are doing it no favours by arriving on a blog and attacking its owner in spite and with little grace. (I confess I’ve been less than gracious in return, for that I am sorry).
Perhaps you might also consider applying Romans 14:4 to your own behaviour here in the way you apply it to me; and yet I don’t think you are wrong: I welcome your admonition, since we are repeatedly commanded to admonish one another. Perhaps I am trying, humanly and therefore imperfectly, to admonish my RC brother’s in Christ (for all who believe in Him are Sons of God).
August 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
How could I be an RC when I am not even a Christian? This isn’t about me, despite your attempt to make it so. Perhaps, you haven’t learnt anything.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I’m sorry – I made two assumptions that I shouldn’t have. Firstly, I thought that, since you were so vehement, you must have a personal stake – ie, be defending your own faith. The second was that you not calling yourself a Christian was because of some sort of piety.
“I dare not to even call myself ‘Christian’, for that honour does not belong to me”
So I’m sorry.
It’s very much likely that I’ve not learned anything, I’m a slow learner. Perhaps you could be so kind as to spell out the lesson you are trying to teach me.
I’m finding this a very difficult conversation – both since I’m finding it difficult to remain gracious, and also because I don’t think it is building up either of us. Can I please request that you reconsider the tone of your further comments?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Oh, and regarding my attempt to make this about you:
Is it inappropriate of me to request that the same standards which you apply to me (I refer to my previous reference to Romans 14:4) or that you conduct yourself graciously?
August 7th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Don’t put your hope in men, especially not me. (re: graciousness).
I’m not exactly sure what you are asking, do you want me to do ‘Jesus meek and mild’?
I leave it up to you to discern the lesson from the noise. My spirit is leaping with joy with the hope that you will.
To sum up…
All theology and doctrine is blasphemy, but let me pain you with a fruit theology:
Only the fruit (outcome) matters and we pick the wrong fruit when we think we have the right fruit. It is only when we recognise that we have the wrong fruit that we can be open to receive the good fruit. Upon being given the good fruit, we mustn’t think we have the right fruit, otherwise we will pick the wrong fruit. However, we endlessly think we have the right fruit and therefore pick the wrong. What’s the solution, if there is one? Seeing the outcome of our wrong fruit (which we think is right) smashing a good fruit (which we think is wrong) and then by God’s grace (not of ourselves) seeing the error and repenting, at least for a moment. Then we go on to smash the good fruit again. However, with grace, some of that good fruit may remain in us. We have no control over whether it does or not. That is why we should forgive those who trespass against us, because good comes from God’s grace alone, wrong is innately human. If we do not forgive, because we think we are right, we will not be given forgiveness and good. Good does not come from holy books, holy religions or holy teachings (or this painful theology). It cannot be bottled. We cannot stand in relation to it as a judge because we cannot possess it. The greatest trespass of religions is that they and their followers think they can possess it.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I’m not putting any hope in men, I’m asking for common courtesy.
I’m not sure that I quite follow your fruit theology. I know that I agree whole-heartedly with this statement:
“That is why we should forgive those who trespass against us, because good comes from God’s grace alone, wrong is innately human.”
Might I ask to which painful theology you refer?
Do you believe fruit theology? If you do, for what reason do you believe it?
Is it, too, blasphemous?
I know nothing of theology and doctrine, I know only that “to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12)
Let me pain you with Jesus theology:
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)
Someone else once spoke of fruits. They said:
“Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.”
August 8th, 2008 at 12:07 am
So you’re not Catholic, Protestant or even Christian at all. Why are you banging on about all this then?
August 9th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Luke C FTW!
August 9th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Luke’s question first…
Why would I only have an interest if I had such identities? One reason I may have an interest is a heart-felt human desire not to see others unfairly attacked and to see the attackers repent (change their mind for the future, not ’say sorry’). I think hayesy has repented.
Hayesy is right to point out that I should have spoken in a better manner, but I’m not sure what that manner is.
Just an aside (addressed to all), do you think Jesus was always the epitome of ‘graciousness’? e.g. “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire.” I don’t think Jesus’ audience would see such words as ‘gracious’.
Hayesy…
The painful theology was my own just written. I don’t believe in that theology and it too is blasphemous. The primary reason why it is blasphemous is that it does not do justice to God. Like all theology, it is the pretentious, arrogant attempt of the human to grapple with the divine (cf the Book of Job).
Yes, by their fruit you will know them. We cannot know people according to their doctrinal assertions, or whether or not they have a Pope, or whether or not they call themselves Christian. We can only judge according to the fruits (outcomes) of their behaviour.
August 9th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Luke, what is a possible reason why I might right this (see comments)?
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=8299