Bad Bishops: “Bad Pope, Bad Catholics”

Jimmy Mac sent me this link. After pondering that some prelates were maybe slugging down too much anise aperitif, I was thinking about 89 pages. Is that all?

To be truthful: once you’re on a roll, why stop with 10.79 schismatic years per page? If you’re trolling internet sites opposed to Pope Francis, if not Catholics in general, there are tons of material out there. And that’s just the electrons. Imagine committing all that spit to paper.

Nothing like a bracing shot of anti-ecumenism. Only a short step to the antigospel from there.

About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in Minnesota, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Commentary, ecumenism, Hermeneutic of Subtraction. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Bad Bishops: “Bad Pope, Bad Catholics”

  1. John McGrath says:

    The substance of what the Orthodox bishops said, after digging through the verbiage. Any truth to any of this?
    The fact that Papism is a heresy is revealed by the appalling false doctrines which you

    These are:
    I) the political existence and structure of the Vatican with ministries, bureaucracies and banks;

    II) the Filioque (the alleged procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son);

    III) created Grace;

    IV) the primacy of power;

    V) the possession of worldly and spiritual power by the Pope;

    VI) Papal infallibility;

    VII) the theories that the Pope is the ultimate judge and Archpriest, the supreme authority and monarch of the Church
    VIII) Baptism by sprinkling and the separation of it from the mystery of Chrismation;

    IX) the use of unleavened bread (Host);

    X) the transforming of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ with the words of institution rather than at the invocation of the
    Holy Spirit as well as the doctrine of transubstantiation;

    XI) the depriving of the Blood of Christ to the laity;

    XII) the depriving of Holy Communion to children;

    XIII) Mary-worship;

    XIV) the dogma of the “immaculate conception” and the “bodily assumption” of the Mother of God;

    XV) purgatory;

    XVI) indulgences;

    XVII) the so-called “superabundant merits” of Christ;

    XVIII) the “superabundant merits” of the Saints;

    XIX) the merits of the works of man;

    XX) statuary and the secularization of religious art instead of Orthodox iconography;

    XXI) the mandatory celibacy of the clergy;

    XXII) the recognition of murderers (Stepinac) as “saints”;

    XXIII) the doctrine of the satisfaction of divine justice (the result of confusion regarding original sin and the legalism which is prevalent in Papism);

    XXIV) the rejection of Holy Tradition and the taking advantage of it as a tool for Papal claims (the Pope is Tradition);

    XXV) the belief that the “infallible Pope” is the only guardian, judge and interpreter of Divine Revelation;

    XXVI) the so-
    called “Church Suffering,” which is allegedly made up of the faithful who are presently in purgatory;

    XXVII) the rejection of the equality of bishops;

    XXVIII) the Vatican’s centralized and despotic administrative system where the “Pope” is absolute monarch, which introduced Caesaropapism;

    XXIX) the social/humanitarian character of the monastic orders;

    XXX) the impersonal and juridical character of the mystery of confession;

    XXXI) and, finally, the accursed Uniate, the Trojan horse of Papis

  2. Devin says:

    Dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is very something dear to my heart. But it is a sad reality that there are many strong differences which diplomatic language cannot cover up. While these two bishops are at the extreme, a much calmer and more nuanced view of many of their positions has a strong following within the Orthodox Communion. This is as is it should be considering the vast and important theological/historical differences. The view of His All Holiness Bartholomew I is significantly warmer to Catholicism than most other Orthodox Bishops, priests and church going laity.

    I do wonder how the pontificate of Pope Francis will impact relations. In my local area, I have met Orthodox (mostly OCA), both clergy and laity, who have shown a deep respect and affection for Pope Benedict and still speak of him fondly. In terms of Pope Francis, they are a bit skeptical. They preface most of their remarks by stating they share the Pope’s concern for the poor but they are sadden by his disregard for tradition, even Roman tradition! Apparently, Pope Francis didn’t use a traditional vestment at the time of his first blessing and this caught a few of their attention (they are often more aware of the internal workings of the Catholicism than most Catholics). While the Orthodox speak of collegiality, they also value tradition and precise dogmatic definitions (at least in some areas). I doubt many of them have read Evangelii Gaudium, but I suspect they would need a lot of qualification before coming to to terms with his call for the “renewal of ecclesial structures and customs” but would be thrilled about his “conversion of the papacy”.

    In short, I honestly don’t know if this pontificate will be a step forward or step backwards in regards to our Eastern brothers and sisters and this concerns me. But perhaps my concerns are not God’s concerns and closer relations between the two Churches are not in cards at least for the time being.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s