Either you’re with us, or you’re with the Evil ones

Mar 16, 2013


Discussion by: The Buachaill
No this isn’t a discussion about George Bush and his McCarthyesque attempts to frame anyone who disagreed with him as a terrorist.

Rather this is a disappointing, and yet hardly unsurprising, look at the divisive and arrogant rhetoric delivered by this latest Pope from day #1. And this is the guy we’ve been told all week is so full of humility.

“He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

We had to wait no longer than his very first Mass as Pope to hear this reminder of why religions leave a trial of division and hatred around the world. What a way to kick-start his campaign, with such a beautiful message of love and tolerance to the youth of his Church.

Kids, you know those children with Buddhist parents who live up the road? They’re going to hell with the devil.
Those kids in your class from Muslim families? Going to hell with the devil.
Those kids at soccer with atheist parents? You guessed it, they’re devil worshippers and are gong to hell with the devil.

We’re right, everyone else is wrong, and in fact they’re so wrong…they’re going to hell with the devil

So much for humility.

90 comments on “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the Evil ones

  • 1
    Katy Cordeth says:

    Rather this is a disappointing, and yet hardly unsurprising, look at the divisive and arrogant rhetoric delivered by this latest Pope from day #1. And this is the guy we’ve been told all week is so full of humility.

    “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

    I dunno, it seems a pretty innocuous thing to say. If it were a lyric from a Johnny Cash song, I wouldn’t not listen to it on principle.

    Kids, you know those children with Buddhist parents who live up the road? They’re going to hell with the devil.
    Those kids in your class from Muslim families? Going to hell with the devil.
    Those kids at soccer with atheist parents? You guessed it, they’re devil worshippers and are going to hell with the devil.

    Unless Pope Francis mentioned Jesus specifically, I think Muslims do worship the Lord. Buddhist and atheist kids are still screwed though.



    Report abuse

  • There’s nothing new with such arrogance that only they have the “truth,” only believers are “good,” and only believers will be “saved.”



    Report abuse

  • 4
    Nodhimmi says:

    “I think Muslims do worship the Lord”

    The Lord being Allah, not the Christian God who is rejected because the concept of the Trinity is anathema to Islam. As is Jesus as the son of God- he is accepted only as a prophet in Islam and secondary to Muhammad.
    It has become fashionable for Islamic apologists to claim God & Allah are one and the same but this is actually al taqiyya, or kitman in effect, to ingratiate Islam with Christianity.



    Report abuse

  • So I’m told the new pope is humble. Granted, this is a label others are applying to him. When I ask Catholics how humility squares with infallibility (now on his CV), they ruffle up like a big wet geese. I’m invariably told, “he’s only infallible in some matters.” And I reply, “that’s your defense?”



    Report abuse

  • 6
    Alan4discussion says:

    @OP – “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

    I suppose those whose brains only work on prayer and the faith-addled-“right-reason” [1] of Pope Pius IX (not to be confused with evidenced logical reasoning) , have no concept of thought-out morals for the benefit of humanity, but instead have a Catholic morality which is only a god v devil, dogma rant-off – with priest-dispensed forgiveness for the cheating, bigotry and damage to persons, of the god-team!

    [1] “10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.” (Vatican Council I) Wiki



    Report abuse

  • 7
    canadian_right says:

    In reply to #1 by Katy Cordeth:

    [snip]
    Unless Pope Francis mentioned Jesus specifically, I think Muslims do worship the Lord. Buddhist and atheist kids are still screwed though.

    Sorry no. The Muslims are burning in hell. For a Christian “the lord” is the trinity: father, son, and holy ghost. The ONLY way to salvation is though the Christ Jesus. If you do not accept Jesus as your saviour you are damned. The Catholics do throw in a few “faint hope” clauses but these only apply to people who have not been exposed to the “true” teachings. Once you’ve heard the “good word” you have to accept or be damned.



    Report abuse

  • 8
    Zeuglodon says:

    Is this really such a surprise? He clearly has strong views on abortion, euthanasia, birth control, and homosexuality, all of which are in line with his predecessor.

    In reply to #1 by Katy Cordeth:

    “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

    I dunno, it seems a pretty innocuous thing to say. If it were a lyric from a Johnny Cash song, I wouldn’t not listen to it on principle.

    What do you mean by innocuous? It looks to me like you’re saying that dividing the world into two categories of “God-worshipper” and “satanist” – essentially impugning every atheist in existence – is harmless or inoffensive, but then this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve misunderstood one of your posts, so perhaps this is irony?

    Unless Pope Francis mentioned Jesus specifically, I think Muslims do worship the Lord. Buddhist and atheist kids are still screwed though.

    Well, according to Wikipedia, he’s been very active in interfaith communities and has no particular beef with muslims, so he’d probably agree with you there. It’s possibly justified by reference to a passage in the Quran. See here…

    Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.

    And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.

    But yeah, atheists are still getting the raw end of the deal with Islam anyway, as well as with Christianity.



    Report abuse

  • 9
    Jonathan_Bryce says:

    Anyone got the original source for this information?

    BTW, the BBC covered some of the accusations against the man, dating back to the ‘dirty war’ in Argentina in the 70s. Source is here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21794798)

    I was in the UK at the time of the 1982 Falklands war. Hopefully the new pope will keep his nose out of that side of things. The islanders vote last week (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21751716) was pretty unequivocal.

    He’s also been mentioned as a man for the poor – excellent. So he won’t be solicting donations/tithes from people with low incomes (and possibly the money may even flow the other way?). This correspondent awaits developments….



    Report abuse

  • 10
    Katy Cordeth says:

    In reply to #8 by Zeuglodon:

    What do you mean by innocuous? It looks to me like you’re saying that dividing the world into two categories of “God-worshipper” and “satanist” – essentially impugning every atheist in existence – is harmless or inoffensive, but then this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve misunderstood one of your posts, so perhaps this is irony?

    No, it’s not irony. All I was suggesting was that when our new pope said what he did, he may have been speaking in the wishy-washy sense so beloved of basically well-meaning religious types. If Pope Francis said what he did, within days of his attaining popehood, then we shouldn’t necessarily infer that what he was really saying was that all non-Catholics are destined for the flames.

    Besides, as hard as it may be to accept, when the new Bishop of Rome uttered these words… he was speaking mainly to Catholics. If you feel Francis has impugned you, Zeugy, then I feel bad for you. But did you think it was his job to stand up for you? We’re basically the enemy. It’s his job to impugn us.



    Report abuse

  • 11
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #5 by Sample:

    So I’m told the new pope is humble. Granted, this is a label others are applying to him. When I ask Catholics how humility squares with infallibility (now on his CV), they ruffle up like a big wet geese. I’m invariably told, “he’s only infallible in some matters.” And I reply, “that’s your defense?”

    That’s because hé isn’t infallible. Hé Only speaks infallibley on certains matters of doctrine, probably about à dozen or so times in the last 150 years



    Report abuse

  • 12
    Zeuglodon says:

    In reply to #10 by Katy Cordeth:

    Are you saying that his bark is worse than his bite? OK, I think I get what you mean.

    Also, I don’t feel that bad about being demonized by a homophobe in a dying church of bronze age superstition that hid and is possibly still hiding a terrible child abuse scandal and is probably the number one reason many immensely important medical and ethical improvements are being delayed, denied, and even reversed across the world. I’m just getting tired and tired and tired that there are so many ways atheists and their public image get screwed over by religious people over and over, even if it is “their job” (if it’s even that – it’s not like religious people can’t ignore their own tenets when it’s convenient). Not to mention it’s not like the guys couldn’t extend that “interfaith spirit” in our direction for a change, even if it was only for their PR. This is the age of tolerance, after all.



    Report abuse

  • 13
    crookedshoes says:

    Even in fairyland, a bit of logic would go a long way….

    I ask you this, what if the god thing who created all of the universe, has an agenda where he/she/it is actually allowing human beings the free will to study whatever it is they want to study? Being the creator god would be the ultimate engineer/scientist, so
    perhaps the test to get into heaven is a science test?

    God: “OK, so you lived 100 years on the planet I created especially for humans. Tell me in 500 words or less all you know about my creation.”

    Scientist: “I can answer in one word: EVOLUTION”.

    Believer: “God is good, the Bible I’ve never read is infallible, Yahweh is merciful, Muhammed bless his name…..etc”

    God: “Ok, one of you can enter heaven…. the other can GO TO HELL”.

    Even if there were only two sides, one evil and the other good, why do they insist, with their track record that they would be considered by any all knowing being as the ones that are good????



    Report abuse

  • 14
    Uriel-238 says:

    Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

    Every pope has to, early on in their papacy, decide what exactly this means. For Ratzinger, he extended salvation to the Orthodox churches, but none of the Protestants. Islam and Judaism were right out.

    Francis’ words around the “prays to the devil” line indicated Jesus’ way or the highway. I’m sure the Holy See’s PR will clarify fairly soon, who gets into the salvation club and who does not. I don’t expect much give either way from what was before.

    Interestingly, protestants can be more or less lenient depending on the denomination. Some believe that it is up to the individual while others demand allegiance to their specific parish. Usually the harder right and more fundamental a church, the tighter control they exert on passes to salvation.



    Report abuse

  • I don’t pray to any mythical beings because I don’t believe they exist and can’t therefore see the point in wasting my time praying to them.



    Report abuse

  • 16
    Alan4discussion says:

    @OP – “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

    Mmmmmm! Cognitive dissonance??

    You need to remember that his appointment was overseen in the Sistine chapel by the almighty one – with Italian appendages!

    “He who does not pray to the Lord …”.. prays to the statue of Mary as an alternative – on occasions, according to reports! (Thou shalt not make graven images????)

    As for the new Pope himself, Francesco (Francis) was up and out early this morning, maintaining his promise to visit the splendid Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore to pray to the Madonna.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/changed-times-at-vatican-as-pope-francis-makes-first-public-outing-1.1325645



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #11 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #5 by Sample:

    So I’m told the new pope is humble. Granted, this is a label others are applying to him. When I ask Catholics how humility squares with infallibility (now on his CV), they ruffle up like a big wet geese. I’m invariably told, “he’s only infallible in some matters.” And I reply, “that’s your defense?”

    That’s because hé isn’t infallible. Hé Only speaks infallibley on certains matters of doctrine, probably about à dozen or so times in the last 150 years

    You’re misunderstanding the claim or perhaps I should say I am not misunderstanding it. The pope claims the charism of infallibility. We can dicker about when and how he is infallible, but infallilbility is a unique attribute of the papacy.

    You are defending a straw man.

    Mike



    Report abuse

  • 18
    scottishgeologist says:

    “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

    What a load o’ wank. SO its one or the other is it? No such thing as not praying at all. Mind you, what would a prayer to the devil be like? This maybe:

    Our Father,
    Who art in metal,
    Lemmy be thy name,

    Thy hairs be spun,
    Moshpits to come,
    At Hammerfest as it was in Wales,

    Give us this day our daily death metal,
    And forgive us our bodyslams,
    As we forgive those who bodyslam against us,

    And lead us not into Christianity,
    But deliver us from Cliff Richard,
    For thine is Metallica, Megadeth and Gojira,

    Slayer forever,
    Amen.

    (Shamelessly nicked from some web site)

    There thats better!!

    m/ SG m/



    Report abuse

  • 19
    papa lazaru says:

    In reply to #13 by crookedshoes:

    Even if there were only two sides, one evil and the other good, why do they insist, with their track record that they would be considered by any all knowing being as the ones that are good????

    Because it says so in the books. Circular logic, see…



    Report abuse

  • 21
    Pauly01 says:

    it’s sad what can I say.

    Fear is unfortunately programmed into the human mind. Some are more predisposed to it than others. I scorn the fact that it’s there. If we could only liberate ourselves from it..

    Hell and the devil is a frame of mind. Enjoy your life.



    Report abuse

  • 22
    whiteraven says:

    “He who does not pray does not risk being confused with the unmedicated schizophrenic talking to the corner of the room.”

    … and I once met one who was … a nice enough fellow who was a guest on a nursing home floor for brain-damaged patients of various types.



    Report abuse

  • 23
    kcjones10 says:

    I am trying to resist the inclination to become mired in interminable conceptual analysis. The current pope succession situation may seem to present us with a new set of circumstances and ideas–but does it? There seems to be no marked difference between this succession and any other in my lifetime. Do others see a difference with reference to their own observations?



    Report abuse

  • 24
    Cairsley says:

    In reply to #11 by Lancshoop:

    That’s because hé isn’t infallible. Hé Only speaks infallibley on certains matters of doctrine, probably about à dozen or so times in the last 150 years

    Actually only twice: in 1854 by Pius IX to define the Immaculate Conception (of Mary) and in 1950 by Pius XII to define the Assumption (of Mary into heaven). Apart from those two occasions, no pope has claimed to be infallible.

    You are right to say the pope is not infallible – that is the Catholic view, which is misunderstood by many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Wikipedia has a reasonable entry on papal infallibility for those who are interested in understanding this aspect of Catholic theology. The exercise of this extraordinary magisterium by the pope is an extremely rare occasion. Infallibility in matters of faith and morals belongs to the Church, and the pope is believed to be able to teach with this infallibility under strictly defined conditions, which are set out in the Wikipedia entry. I know this is all superstition anyway, but, if we wish to discredit it, we need to focus on what it actually maintains and not carp on erroneously about what it does not maintain. Any well-informed Catholic will agree that the pope is not infallible.



    Report abuse

  • 25
    Cairsley says:

    “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

    I have never heard or read any of the new pope’s preaching before, so this comes as a disappointment. If this sort of self-righteous manipulation is what his preaching consists in, he is not worth listening to.



    Report abuse

  • 26
    susanlatimer says:

    “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

    You’d think a guy with a direct line to His Omnifabulousness would say something that means something.

    First, the statement is just not true. I know dozens of people who go about their daily business and never once stop to pray to anything at all. Lords and devils don’t even cross their mind.

    Second, the devil of the bible is such a minor character. He certainly isn’t the Great God of Evil that the catholic church and Hollywood have made him into. On the one hand you’ve got Yahweh with his insatiable demands for animal sacrifice, his mood swings, his warring and slashing and burning and enslaving and stoning and razing and flooding and earthquaking and woman-hating and man-hating and child-hating and with no concern whatsoever for the suffering of non-humans. Non-humans are just scenery that suffers. That’s all they are in Yahweh’s touching courtship with humans (his true loves who will be cast into eternal flames if they don’t love him back).

    Then, there’s the devil. Who’s the devil? No reason to think he’s the talking snake. Even if he was the talking snake, all the talking snake did was to talk two humans into eating a piece of fruit.

    God of Goodness: disease, famine, bloodthirst, genocide, stoning, slavery…. well… you get the idea….

    God of Evil: piece of fruit

    Then, there’s Job. The devil challenged Yahweh about the integrity of Job’s faithfulness, considering Yahweh was blessing Job left, right and centre. A fair challenge. Of course Job buys into the system. He’s part of the top one per cent. What if he wasn’t?

    So, Yahweh takes the bet. As am omnicient being, it’s not very sporting to take a bet, but Yahweh’s pride is at stake. As a perfect being, this seems kind of high school, but who am I to question Yahweh with my finite, sinful brain?

    The story ends nicely though. Job remains faithful and even though all of his children are dead, he gets some new ones. When he asks Yahweh: “Why?”, Yahweh says… “Why not? I’m Yahweh.”

    Then there’s the temptation of Jesus. The devil offers Jesus the world and Jesus isn’t having any of it. The world is an illusion that distracts us from the Superworld.

    From then on, it’s just accusations without evidence. The devil is the prince of lies. No explanation why. It’s all very foggy.

    The devil doesn’t hold a candle to the God of Goodness when it comes to doing evil things. He’s a complete rookie. It’s embarassing how unqualified he is for the job of God of Evil. His resume is pathetic.

    1) The pope’s statement is demonstrably false.
    2) It’s pretty obvious that Yahweh and the devil are not real. That’s why they call it praying. Praying seems to always mean talking to beings that don’t exist. When we talk to existing beings, we just call it talking.
    3) If there are people who believe there’s a real choice between praying to the Yahweh(s) of the bible or the Devil(s) of the bible, and they choose the Devil(s), the onus is on me to explain why that is a bad thing. I would be hard-pressed not to choose Al Capone over Yahweh.

    4) This is a man who plays along with the notion that wearing a tall, shiny, pointy hat lends authority to your position. The sad thing about that is that he’s right. That’s the only reason we’re talking about him. People take him seriously because of the robes and the hats. Put him shirtless in a pair of overalls, sling a five-string banjo over his shoulder, send him out onto the balcony and watch the bubble pop for a huge portion of the throngs.

    It’s 2013 and we’re still at it. Where are the journalists? They can’t be heard through the media.



    Report abuse

  • 27
    atheistengineer says:

    In reply to #8 by Zeuglodon:

    Is this really such a surprise? He clearly has strong views on abortion, euthanasia, birth control, and homosexuality,

    But not paedophilia or rape? How surprising.



    Report abuse

  • 28
    Zeuglodon says:

    In reply to #27 by atheistengineer:

    In reply to #8 by Zeuglodon:

    Is this really such a surprise? He clearly has strong views on abortion, euthanasia, birth control, and homosexuality,

    But not paedophilia or rape? How surprising.

    Well, he was apparently very vocal about human trafficking and prostitution back in Buenos Aires, as outlined in the Aparecida Document, according to Wiki. Of course, what he says and what he does are two different things – he apparently blames it on “a cultural tolerance of child abuse”, so his knowledge of human moral psychology and cultural mores isn’t exactly up to speed – and I haven’t found anything about his attitude to the child abuse scandal of the RCC. Sadly, I can’t say my hopes are high that he’ll improve matters, given he’s ticked a few “new old guy, same old ideas” boxes already.

    For now, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. I may be happily proven wrong – and I sure as heck hope so for the sake of the people under the church’s care – so I’m reserving judgement until I see actual measures being implemented or until the first reports hit the news.

    In reply to #26 by susanlatimer:

    God of Goodness: disease, famine, bloodthirst, genocide, stoning, slavery…. well… you get the idea….

    God of Evil: piece of fruit

    The devil doesn’t hold a candle to the God of Goodness when it comes to doing evil things. He’s a complete rookie. It’s embarassing how unqualified he is for the job of God of Evil. His resume is pathetic.

    The funny thing is that I went this long without realizing the implications of this set of facts. Honestly, I knew in a vague way that the god of the bible was absolutely terrible, but I never gave much thought about the popular myth of Satan-v.-God until people started pointing it out like this and raising my awareness of the incongruities present. Thank you for doing so in such a clear way! 🙂

    There’s the very Christian saga of good against evil, which has such a gigantic gravitational pull on popular culture, and they got the allocation of roles utterly wrong (at least, on the evil side of the ledger).

    I think the idea is that eating from the fruit of knowledge is supposed to be the most heinous act of all time because it was the cause of everything bad that followed. The Prime Cause of Evil, I suppose. So essentially anything that goes wrong can be blamed on the snake, who is then “interpreted” as Satan in disguise on the basis of what I presume is “revelation”.

    That is supposing the snake actually was the devil (no biblical evidence on this front, as far as I recall), and that still leaves us with a god who set up this preposterous scenario – apparently either knowing full well it would happen or not having a clue what he was doing – and then threw a six-thousand-year-old hissy fit when the inevitable happened. If it wasn’t for him, the whole sorry scenario wouldn’t have been put into place to begin with. Never mind the active role he plays in perpetuating and encouraging the ensuing evil.

    I could probably go into more detail with a bit of biblical study, but it boggles me why anyone would bother. It’d be like dissecting a postmodernist essay in the vain hope that there’s anything there other than pseudo-intellectual garbage.

    The devil doesn’t hold a candle to the God of Goodness when it comes to doing evil things.

    I am going to remember that for a long time. Perhaps pop culture will one day correct the inaccurate portrayal of both sides, and the portrayals of yesteryear will be met with incredulity and laughter.



    Report abuse

  • 29
    QuestioningKat says:

    “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

    What they are overlooking here is the majority of prayers – the give me, give me, help me, help me me me prayers. I’m such a little turd and can’t do anything without you giving me that job, God. I’m such a little turd, and need to win the lottery, God. I’m so ill, help me God. Make that stupid relative open his eyes as to how wrong he was toward me, God. Bring peace to those countries in conflict God (Real intention: Make those stupid people stop and follow the rules that the rest of the world does, God) Allow Romney to win the presidency, God. (Real intention: Not that black socialist guy.) Are there ever any prayers that aren’t really directed toward their view of Satan?



    Report abuse

  • 30
    The Buachaill says:

    So two follow-up points from my original post:

    Some people have taken their cue to debate what was implied by ‘The Lord’. If if referred to Jesus then Muslims are excluded, since their particular set of supernatural parchments refute the claim that Jesus is divine. If ‘Lord’ refers to “God”, then maybe Muslims and Jews are included.

    You’re missing the bloody point!

    Do we really want to get side-tracked here debating about who the Pope has magnanimously excluded from his “axis of evil”? How many devout Catholics will stop to consider the semantics of the Popes assertion?

    What we should be considering here is the impact this assertion can have on the societies we are all trying to live in and trying to raise our children in. We’re all living in a time when more and more peoples of different origins, faiths and traditions are trying to live side by side, and this clown comes out with a statement inciting such blatant discrimination and separation.

    That’s the point. To waste time squabbling over the semantics of any particular word is to be part of the problem by ignoring the real problem.

    The second point I want to make I think is key.

    I don’t know about any of you, but in Ireland we have Catholic commentators working hard recently to try to draw a line under the entire clerical rape scandals. The amount of times I’ve read about “fresh starts” this month beggars belief (that’s a fresh start for the Church of course, not its unfortunate victims).
    The strategy is clear. They want to leverage this Pope-swap event as a way to talk about ‘out with the past’ and ‘in with the brand spanking new’. Let’s forgive and forget and move on.
    And you know what, they may just get away with it.

    The point is that eventually, the clerical rape scandals will dissipate in the minds of many if not most of the public. BUT! the core problem of religions, illustrated beautifully by the Pope in his divisive statement this week, will always remain. Absolute certainty coupled with publicly demonizing any dissenters is precisely why religions continue to leave a trail of conflict and suffering around the world.

    We should never lose sight of this, nor fail to highlight it at every turn, lest we see the majority of skepticism of this religion dissipate along with the public attention on the clerical rape scandals.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #24 by Garrick Worthing:

    In reply to #11 by Lancshoop:

    That’s because hé isn’t infallible. Hé Only speaks infallibley on certains matters of doctrine, probably about à dozen or so times in the last 150 years

    Actually only twice: in 1854 by Pius IX to define the Immaculate Conception (of Mary) and in 1950 by Pius XII to define the Assumption (of Mary into heaven). Apart from those two occasions, no pope has claimed to be infallible.

    You are right to say the pope is not infallible – that is the Catholic view, which is misunderstood by many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Wikipedia has a reasonable entry on papal infallibility for those who are interested in understanding this aspect of Catholic theology. The exercise of this extraordinary magisterium by the pope is an extremely rare occasion. Infallibility in matters of faith and morals belongs to the Church, and the pope is believed to be able to teach with this infallibility under strictly defined conditions, which are set out in the Wikipedia entry. I know this is all superstition anyway, but, if we wish to discredit it, we need to focus on what it actually maintains and not carp on erroneously about what it does not maintain. Any well-informed Catholic will agree that the pope is not infallible.

    Hi Garrick Worthing,

    Has the papacy ever claimed to make infallible pronouncements? The answer is yes. Can Pope Francis claim to make an infallible declaration tomorrow if he so chooses? The answer is yes.

    Like you, I agree that many “Catholics and non-Catholics alike” do not understand the definition of papal infallibility. I’m not one of them.

    Feel free to point out where I am mistaken. I maintain you are attacking straw men, rather than my actual words.

    Mike



    Report abuse

  • Have you read what Francis said just last year on the 30th anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands?

    “We come to pray for all who have fallen, sons of the homeland who went out to defend their mother, the homeland, and to reclaim what is theirs, that is of the homeland, and it was usurped.”

    The new Pope is a fool.



    Report abuse

  • 33
    Mr DArcy says:

    I dunno, one Holy Joe goes out, and another Holy Jo comes in. Plus ca change.

    I must admit it is good news that the RCC still believes in the devil. The CoE rather plays down the (not so) bad guy, who only killed a handful of people, and then on direct orders from God ! But the RCC’s new Pope has now announced that we are all praying to the devil if we don’t pray to Jesus ! I never prayed to anyone in my life ! My God is Dionysus, Greek god of wine ! I willingly make daily sacrifices of part of my liver to him most days, and yet this new Holy Jo has temerity to suggest that I will be boiled forever in a lake of mulled wine ! Even Argentinian wine on occasion !

    Bring on Father Amorth, Ghostbuster General, to rid the Vatican of its evil spirits !



    Report abuse

  • 34
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #32 by Eliot:

    Have you read what Francis said just last year on the 30th anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands?

    “We come to pray for all who have fallen, sons of the homeland who went out to defend their mother, the homeland, and to reclaim what is theirs, that is of the homeland, and it was usurped.”

    The new Pope is a fool.

    But a calculating one! Supplier of usable expendable sheeples to the dictators!



    Report abuse

  • 35
    Lancshoop says:

    Just to put you all out of your misery, the original quote is by Leon Bloy, not Pope Francis and he was actually preaching to Catholics about Catholics and the Catholic Church.

    Here’s a little snippet.

    ………. We can walk as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord. When we are not walking, we stop moving. When we are not building on the stones, what happens? The same thing that happens to children on the beach when they build sandcastles: everything is swept away, there is no solidity. When we do not profess Jesus Christ, the saying of Léon Bloy comes to mind: “Anyone who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil.” When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness………….

    Here’s the full Homily

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130314_omelia-cardinali_en.html

    Enjoy



    Report abuse

  • If the new Pope had offered a prayer for all those who died on both sides of the Falkland war and stressed the importance of avoiding war in general I can’t imagine that anyone would object. But 30 years after the fact to be taking sides and the losing side at that just seems stupid.

    As I understand it veterans from both sides of that war have meet as friends and expressed their mutual regret over the lives lost. The Pope’s statements on the Falkland war are gratuitous at best and mean spirited at worst.

    In reply to #34 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #32 by Eliot:

    Have you read what Francis said just last year on the 30th anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands?

    “We come to pray for all who have fallen, sons of the homeland who went out to defend their mother, the homeland, and to reclaim what is theirs, that is of the homeland, and it was usurped.”

    The new Pope is a fool.

    But a calculating one! Supplier of usable expendable sheeples to the dictators!



    Report abuse

  • 37
    kcjones10 says:

    Please keep posting. And drinkin.
    In reply to #33 by Mr DArcy:

    I dunno, one Holy Joe goes out, and another Holy Jo comes in. Plus ca change.

    I must admit it is good news that the RCC still believes in the devil. The CoE rather plays down the (not so) bad guy, who only killed a handful of people, and then on direct orders from God ! But the RCC’s new Pope has now announced that we are all praying to the devil if we don’t pray to Jesus ! I never prayed to anyone in my life ! My God is Dionysus, Greek god of wine ! I willingly make daily sacrifices of part of my liver to him most days, and yet this new Holy Jo has temerity to suggest that I will be boiled forever in a lake of mulled wine ! Even Argentinian wine on occasion !

    Bring on Father Amorth, Ghostbuster General, to rid the Vatican of its evil spirits !



    Report abuse

  • 40
    kcjones10 says:

    It took 39 comments to get to this point. O ye of too much faith!
    In reply to #39 by Peter Grant:

    The basic fallacy in that statement is the assumption that everyone prays.



    Report abuse

  • 41
    kcjones10 says:

    Perhaps there is an opening in the employment field: How to teach an atheist how to really be an atheist. Or would that be an academic discipline? No. No. I think not. Only a few in the field could handle that. . . . I’ll think on . . . maybe somebody else could continue my line of thought . . .



    Report abuse

  • 42
    state_champ2000 says:

    It’s fairly common to claim exclusivity why bring it up like its new. Even atheists often separate their flavor atheism and claim exclusivity to the most reasonable set of beliefs. Shouldn’t we look at ourselves before criticizing others?



    Report abuse

  • 43
    OHooligan says:

    In reply to #5 by Sample:

    So I’m told the new pope is humble. Granted, this is a label others are applying to him. When I ask Catholics how humility squares with infallibility (now on his CV), they ruffle up like a big wet geese. I’m invariably told, “he’s only infallible in some matters.” And I reply, “that’s your defense?”

    Yep, he’s only infallible when he’s right.



    Report abuse

  • 45
    OHooligan says:

    In reply to #11 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #5 by Sample:

    So I’m told the new pope is humble. Granted, this is a label others are applying to him. When I ask Catholics how humility squares with infallibility (now on his CV), they ruffle up like a big wet geese. I’m invariably told, “he’s only infallible in some matters.” And I reply, “that’s your defense?”

    That’s because hé isn’t infallible. Hé Only speaks infallibley on certains matters of doctrine, probably about à dozen or so times in the last 150 years

    So it’s no use looking to him for racing tips, I suppose.



    Report abuse

  • 46
    GoldenRule rules! says:

    The new Poop is not referring to the Muslim ‘lord’. He is only interested in promoting his particular version of the christian ‘lord’. He is saying that all people who don’t pray to his christian lord will be going to hell. This rotten church has only delusion and hatred to offer, I look forward to it’s complete collapse.

    In reply to #4 by Nodhimmi:

    “I think Muslims do worship the Lord”

    The Lord being Allah, not the Christian God who is rejected because the concept of the Trinity is anathema to Islam. As is Jesus as the son of God- he is accepted only as a prophet in Islam and secondary to Muhammad.
    It has become fashionable for Islamic apologists to claim God & Allah are one and the same but this is actually al taqiyya, or kitman in effect, to ingratiate Islam with Christianity.



    Report abuse

  • 47
    susanlatimer says:

    @Zeuglodon #28

    I could probably go into more detail with a bit of biblical study, but it boggles me why anyone would bother. It’d be like dissecting a postmodernist essay in the vain hope that there’s anything there other than pseudo-intellectual garbage.

    You’re right about that, of course. It’s a pointless waste of time. It’s all clearly silly and made up. Unless you assume it’s true, in which case, it disturbs me deeply that believers don’t bother. They have a responsibility to bother.

    It’s all very Orwellian. “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

    That’s why having members like IA and JHJ here at rd.net is so important. It’s also why it’s important that the discussion is a public one and bloody important that believers read their books critically. They call us “militant” for thinking and asking questions.

    While I’m mentioning Orwell, I think of him when people ask why atheists are so “obsessed” with religion. This when the media of the world had cameras pointed at that stupid chimney and talking heads nattering on about who was going to win the sash and crown, lending massive credibility to the outrageous pageantry of a delusional and morally decrepit institution.

    “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”



    Report abuse

  • 48
    susanlatimer says:

    Zeuglodon #28

    Perhaps pop culture will one day correct the inaccurate portrayal of both sides, and the portrayals of yesteryear will be met with incredulity and laughter.

    Wouldn’t that make sense?



    Report abuse

  • 49
    kcjones10 says:

    I am totally wrong. Everything.

    In reply to #44 by Eliot:

    I think we can safely say that Pope Francis the First will never be Pope Francis the Great.



    Report abuse

  • 51
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #50 by vytas:

    so, is the pope infallible when he speaks on contraception?

    There has been no infallible dogmatic statement issued on the specific subject of contraception.



    Report abuse

  • 52
    Ryan1306 says:

    God’s got the all time atrocity. It murdered every person on the planet who wasn’t in Noah’s little group. I know that the holy people of the world will tell me that all those millions of four, five, six year old children deserved their horrible deaths, but I just have a hard time going along with that line of thinking.

    You brought up Orwell earlier and I’m glad you did because it sometimes seems to me as if god looked into the future and took a page out of 1984. You just say that your benevolence and compassion incarnate and then you can order and be involved in as many genocides as you want without any of your followers batting an eye. I wouldn’t be surprised if god’s pet name for hell was The Ministry of Love.

    In reply to #26 by susanlatimer:


    The devil doesn’t hold a candle to the God of Goodness when it comes to doing evil things. He’s a complete rookie.



    Report abuse

  • 53
    JohnnyDee says:

    Of Course!!! Ony MY Church is right and all the others are on the road to Perdition!!! Even Churches who look like mine — they, THEY are especially going to hell, ha, Ha HA!!!



    Report abuse

  • 54
    susanlatimer says:

    It murdered every person on the planet who wasn’t in Noah’s little group. I know that the holy people of the world will tell me that all those millions of four, five, six year old children deserved their horrible deaths,

    I’m sure all those babies were evil and had it coming. God said so.

    But I could never figure out why he had to take out all the non-humans as well. What did they ever do? They were just innocent bystanders.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if god’s pet name for hell was The Ministry of Love.

    The Ministry of Love. I like that.



    Report abuse

  • 55
    Ryan1306 says:

    In reply to #54 by susanlatimer:

    I’m sure all those babies were evil and had it coming. God said so.

    >

    Yeah, it’s William Lane Craig’s Divine Command “Theory”. Whatever god says is moral. Hallelujah, finally one entity has stepped forward and given us it’s singular opinion on what is right and wrong according to it. Thank goodness, it by it’s self, has finally shown us a path beyond subjective, individual moral opinions.

    But I could never figure out why he had to take out all the non-humans as well. What did they ever do? They were just innocent bystanders.

    Although god could just snap it’s fingers and make anything happen it unfortunately seems to prefer the path of most suffering.



    Report abuse

  • 56
    susanlatimer says:

    Ryan 1306,

    Although god could just snap its fingers and make anything happen it unfortunately seems to prefer the path of most suffering.

    If a god torments a sentient being in the forest, and there is no one there to praise him, is he still a good god?

    (steals coat)



    Report abuse

  • I’m suspicious of how reliable this report is (though I like the bit where the guy interviewed suggests the Dali Lama should be Pope– problem is I think he’s serious). However, it would be interesting to find out more about “Communion and Liberation” a S. American group the interviewee compares to Opus Dei (and who may well have a similar number of conspiracy theories associated with them). I’ve heard (second hand, admittedly) that he was reported to be influenced by liberation theology by some media. That seems to be the opposite of the truth: he was part of a group that directly opposed it.



    Report abuse

  • 58
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #53 by JohnnyDee:

    Of Course!!! Ony MY Church is right and all the others are on the road to Perdition!!! Even Churches who look like mine — they, THEY are especially going to hell, ha, Ha HA!!!

    I guess you haven’t read paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium then.

    Basically it’s saying that the Catholic Church teaches that, although Christ is the Saviour of humanity, it is not necessary to know of him, or have a relationship with him, to be saved. This is because the Church teaches that the salvation of humanity takes place because of Christ’s death and resurrection, and that this salvation applies to all people whether or not they are aware of this act.



    Report abuse

  • 59
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #58 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #53 by JohnnyDee:

    Of Course!!! Only MY Church is right and all the others are on the road to Perdition!!! Even Churches who look like mine — they, THEY are especially going to hell, ha, Ha HA!!!

    I guess you haven’t read paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium then.

    Basically it’s saying that the Catholic Church teaches that, although Christ is the Saviour of humanity, it is not necessary to know of him, or have a relationship with him, to be saved.

    This does seem somewhat at odds with: “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

    This is because the Church teaches that the salvation of humanity takes place because of Christ’s death and resurrection, and that this salvation applies to all people whether or not they are aware of this act.

    I guess Johnny was talking about numerous sects, cult and religions, which regard themselves as the ONE Troooo religion,- . . . ..

    . . . . . whereas the RCC regards itself as THE UNIVERSAL only religion, but will make gestures of accommodation to other religions, – but only on its own terms according to its own dogmas – with creeds, confessions, absolution, last-rites etc. . . . . MMmmmm!



    Report abuse

  • 60
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #59 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #58 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #53 by JohnnyDee:

    Of Course!!! Only MY Church is right and all the others are on the road to Perdition!!! Even Churches who look like mine — they, THEY are especially going to hell, ha, Ha HA!!!

    I guess you haven’t read paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium then.

    Basically it’s saying that the Catholic Church teaches that, although Christ is the Saviour of humanity, it is not necessary to know of him, or have a relationship with him, to be saved.

    This does seem somewhat at odds with: “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”

    This is because the Church teaches that the salvation of humanity takes place because of Christ’s death and resurrection, and that this salvation applies to all people whether or not they are aware of this act.

    I guess Johnny was talking about numerous sects, cult and religions, which regard themselves as the ONE Troooo religion,- . . . ..

    . . . . . whereas the RCC regards itself as THE UNIVERSAL only religion, but will make gestures of accommodation to other religions, – but only on its own terms according to its own dogmas – with creeds, confessions, absolution, last-rites etc. . . . . MMmmmm!

    As I’ve previously stated; “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil” are rather strident words by Leon Bloy probably written around the turn of the 20th Century. Catholics believe that salvation has been granted, is being granted and will be granted and for Catholics in particular,is dependent as much on divine intervention through the sacraments as simply doing good deeds.

    The rest of your post starts with ‘i guess…….’ which is what it is rather than informed opinion, but that’s your prerogative.

    I hope The Buachaill researches his next topic before he writes. It’s always better to remove the gun from the holster before pulling the trigger.



    Report abuse

  • 61
    The Buachaill says:

    In reply to #60 by Lancshoop:

    I hope The Buachaill researches his next topic before he writes. It’s always better to remove the gun from the holster before pulling the trigger.

    You seem to be taken with the point of who first made the assertion, yet you’re missing the very obvious and more important point of the divisive impact of this statement coming from the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics.

    What do you think I should find in reviewing a reference to Leon Bloy that invalidates any point I made? Are you suggesting the Pope didn’t make the statement I quoted, or that the Pope left the impression they he disagreed with it? Did he qualify the statement in his speech to clarify that he was referring only to Catholics who didn’t pray?

    No none of it.

    The assertion was made that you’re either praying to their god or you’re praying to the Devil. This is blatant indoctrination; with the usual fear-factor thrown in to help the medicine go down. Worse, it demonizes anyone else who does not follow the Christian religion.

    As I’ve mentioned before, what we should be considering here is the impact this assertion can have on the societies we are all trying to live in and trying to raise our children in. We’re all living in a time when more and more peoples of different origins, faiths and traditions are trying to live side by side, and this clown comes out with a statement inciting such blatant discrimination and separation.

    This is the fundamental evil of religion, in its capacity to set people against each other. And we got a chilling reminder of it in this Popes very first mass.



    Report abuse

  • 62
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #60 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #59 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #58 by Lancshoop:-
    I guess you haven’t read paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium then.

    I guess Johnny was talking about numerous sects, cult and religions, which regard themselves as the ONE Troooo religion,- . . . ..

    The rest of your post starts with ‘i guess……’ which is what it is rather than informed opinion, but that’s your prerogative.

    Gazzzoinggg!! – With theist blinkers – load – fire – aim!
    >

    I hope The Buachaill researches his next topic before he writes. It’s always better to remove the gun from the holster before pulling the trigger.

    Does it matter who the pope quoted before going off to pray to the statue of Mary? It is what was said that matters! (“He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”)



    Report abuse

  • 63
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #62 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #60 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #59 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #58 by Lancshoop:-
    I guess you haven’t read paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium then.

    I guess Johnny was talking about numerous sects, cult and religions, which regard themselves as the ONE Troooo religion,- . . . ..

    The rest of your post starts with ‘i guess……’ which is what it is rather than informed opinion, but that’s your prerogative.

    Gazzzoinggg!! – With theist blinkers – load – fire – aim!

    I hope The Buachaill researches his next topic before he writes. It’s always better to remove the gun from the holster before pulling the trigger.

    Does it matter who the pope quoted before going off to pray to the statue of Mary? It is what was said that matters! (“He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil”)

    The difference was my ‘guess’ was based on incorrect statement of fact. which I then qualified by providing the source for the correct fact, whereas your ‘guess’ was just a hunch on what some else might have been thinking. – ricochet.

    I agree it is what was said that matters, So read the three readings, then read the Homily in full (including the reference to Bloy) Only then will you know what was said.

    Facepalm gif required here too



    Report abuse

  • 66
    susanlatimer says:

    In reply to #66 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #65 by susanlatimer:
    Hi Susan,
    Try this link

    http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News/Pope-s-First-Homily

    This was delivered to his Cardinals the day after his election.

    Thank you. That was a much better link.

    I read it a few times and tried to read it charitably. It’s hard to make sense out of it generally. It’s rcc chat. I was exposed to rcc chat for much of my chldhood and it makes less sense today than it ever did.

    I tried to find the context for Bloy’s quote as well, but I don’t know where to find it The only links I could find were in French and there were too many to know which one I’d find that particular quote in. I can hack my way through some written French but pretty incompetently so I’d miss any subtle nuances. Also, I can only stomach so much talk about “the cross” and “blood” when it’s based on made up stuff and is written in allusive language. After all, what other language can they speak when they’re basing their authority on unchecked mythology?

    I’m trying to understand what your issue is with the OP. As far as I can tell, it’s that your feller was addressing only catholics about their responsibilities as catholics, but the homily doesn’t make that very clear. It doesn’t make anything very clear, actually. Is it just catholics who are praying to the devil if they’re not praying to the catholic deity? Is that what you’re getting at?

    With the eyes of the world on him, a statement like that can give non-catholics the wrong impression. It can also give catholics who don’t interpret it in the context in which you see it the wrong impression. I know a lot of catholics. I’m not sure any of them have ever read Bloy and, as I mentioned, I still don’t know what Bloy’s original point was on the subject.

    I have no interest in attacking strawmen which is why I’m asking you to make explicit your concerns about Buachaill’s interpretation of your feller’s homily. In an early address to a world whose focus was on his words, he quoted: “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the Devil.” This, in a world where sadly, people live by sound bytes, catholics included.

    If I had read that homily yesterday, with no concern for looking for the context that you insist we should see, I would have had as visceral a reaction to it as Buachaill had.

    If there is something we need to know, it would be helpful if you left the guns and holsters references out of it and explained what we’re missing.

    In case any of it that sounds sarcastic to you, it isn’t. I hate getting things wrong and I get things wrong all the time. I want to learn. Please explain what I’ve missed.

    Thank you again for a link directly to the homily. That is very useful if any of us are going to have this discussion.



    Report abuse

  • 69
    susanlatimer says:

    The History of the Devil.

    I am neither a historian nor a scholar. Any critiques of this series by better educated people are welcome. I wondered where we got our modern day ideas of the Devil and this seems to explain it well.

    The Devil from Wikipedia, if you don’t feel like watching the whole series. It’s much less thorough but useful reading.



    Report abuse

  • 70
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #67 by susanlatimer:

    In reply to #66 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #65 by susanlatimer:
    Hi Susan,
    Try this link

    http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News/Pope-s-First-Homily

    This was delivered to his Cardinals the day after his election.

    Thank you. That was a much better link.

    I read it a few times and tried to read it charitably. It’s hard to make sense out of it generally. It’s rcc chat. I was exposed to rcc chat for much of my chldhood and it makes less sense today than it ever did.

    I tried to find the context for Bloy’s quote as well, but I don’t know where to find it The only links I could find were in French and there were too many to know which one I’d find that particular quote in. I can hack my way through some written French but pretty incompetently so I’d miss any subtle nuances. Also, I can only stomach so much talk about “the cross” and “blood” when it’s based on made up stuff and is written in allusive language. After all, what other language can they speak when they’re basing their authority on unchecked mythology?

    I’m trying to understand what your issue is with the OP. As far as I can tell, it’s that your feller was addressing only catholics about their responsibilities as catholics, but the homily doesn’t make that very clear. It doesn’t make anything very clear, actually. Is it just catholics who are praying to the devil if they’re not praying to the catholic deity? Is that what you’re getting at?

    With the eyes of the world on him, a statement like that can give non-catholics the wrong impression. It can also give catholics who don’t interpret it in the context in which you see it the wrong impression. I know a lot of catholics. I’m not sure any of them have ever read Bloy and, as I mentioned, I still don’t know what Bloy’s original point was on the subject.

    I have no interest in attacking strawmen which is why I’m asking you to make explicit your concerns about Buachaill’s interpretation of your feller’s homily. In an early address to a world whose focus was on his words, he quoted: “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the Devil.” This, in a world where sadly, people live by sound bytes, catholics included.

    If I had read that homily yesterday, with no concern for looking for the context that you insist we should see, I would have had as visceral a reaction to it as Buachaill had.

    If there is something we need to know, it would be helpful if you left the guns and holsters references out of it and explained what we’re missing.

    In case any of it that sounds sarcastic to you, it isn’t. I hate getting things wrong and I get things wrong all the time. I want to learn. Please explain what I’ve missed.

    Thank you again for a link directly to the homily. That is very useful if any of us are going to have this discussion.

    Thanks for your interest Susan and your considerate response. Whilst the eyes of the world may have been upon him and indeed the contents of the Mass broadcast and published, this was a private Mass with the Pope elect addressing his Cardinals about how he sees things. The RCC needs to reaffirm its identity otherwise it will become ‘just another pitiful NGO, as he said to the Cardinals ‘ When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, but not disciples of the Lord, putting it bluntly in the words of Leon Bloy ‘If your’e not praying to God you’re praying to the devil’ meaning in no uncertain terms – get your act together !

    For contrast this was the ending of his first public speech to the media.

    ‘I told you I was cordially imparting my blessing. Since many of you are not members of the Catholic Church, and others are not believers, I cordially give this blessing silently, to each of you, respecting the conscience of each, but in the knowledge that each of you is a child of God. May God bless you!

    Thanks again.



    Report abuse

  • 71
    The Buachaill says:

    In reply to #71 by Lancshoop:

    this was a private Mass …

    So you’ve been asked a number of times now to outline your problem with the topic, but still haven’t tried to refute any specific point. Though if the comment above is anything to go by, it’s clear you haven’t got much to add by way of substance.

    FYI, when the Roman Catholic Church wants to do something “in private”, it typically doesn’t come out in public without an inside whistle-blower, undercover investigators, or young children sworn to secrecy having the courage to speak out.

    So give us a break with the ‘it was supposed to be private’ rubbish. Your weak attempts to defend the indefensible only does more to highlight your lack of sincerity.



    Report abuse

  • 72
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #72 by The Buachaill:

    In reply to #71 by Lancshoop:

    this was a private Mass …

    So you’ve been asked a number of times now to outline your problem with the topic, but still haven’t tried to refute any specific point. Though if the comment above is anything to go by, it’s clear you haven’t got much to add by way of substance.

    FYI, when the Roman Catholic Church wants to do something “in private”, it typically doesn’t come out in public without an inside whistle-blower, undercover investigators, or young children sworn to secrecy having the courage to speak out.

    So give us a break with the ‘it was supposed to be private’ rubbish. Your weak attempts to defend the indefensible only does more to highlight your lack of sincerity.

    My problem with the topic is simply that it was a totally misleading headline of the content and the context of the event either deliberate or out of ignorance. I suspect a bit of both. Had your article been published in a bone fide publication, you’d have been looking for another job right now, even Sun journalists (UK gutterpress) write better than that.
    I don’t expect much from this particular website in terms of impartiality and balanced views, but it seems to have descended in the last few months (with some notable exceptions) into nothing more than a cesspit of bigotry and hatred of the kind it purports to be rallying against.
    Your last reply indicates to me (I’m ‘guessing’ and I could be wrong) you may have a very large chip on very small shoulders but whilst venting your supposedly informed opinion as a keyboard warrior possibly in a dark room somewhere may give you a modicum of satisfaction, there are many of us on all sides of the argument who are adopting a more positive and conciliatory tone in some vain attempt that somehow, if you can excuse the cheesiness, the world might just become a better place.
    And before you retort in the classical anti-religious way – Religion doesn’t poison everything – People do !

    Pax Vobiscum



    Report abuse

  • 73
    The Buachaill says:

    In reply to #73 by Lancshoop:

    So nothing to offer but more vague accusations, and the only substance you could muster comes in the form of some personal insults.
    All the hallmarks of a troll, and a troll likes nothing more than acknowledgment. You’ll be ignored from this point on.



    Report abuse

  • 74
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #74 by The Buachaill:

    In reply to #73 by Lancshoop:

    So nothing to offer but more vague accusations, and the only substance you could muster comes in the form of some personal insults.
    All the hallmarks of a troll, and a troll likes nothing more than acknowledgment. You’ll be ignored from this point on.

    I’m sorry you feel that way. I don’t think I personally insulted otherwise the mods would have pulled my post but I apologise anyway. However I suspect you may have taken exception to the word ‘ignorance’ and since the justification of your article is based on the importance of what is said rather than the context or meaning then I can see why you might have regarded it as an insult.
    I used the word ‘ignorance’ meaning ‘not in possession of all the facts’ or ‘not understanding the meaning’. This does not imply in anyway a personal disability on your part.
    It does strike me though that whilst susanlatimer and I are nearly as poles apart on the issue as you and me, we still managed to conduct our dialogue in a most cordial manner.

    Anyway if it’s not to be ‘Pax Vobiscum’ then at least ‘Pax Vobis’



    Report abuse

  • 75
    susanlatimer says:

    this was a private Mass with the Pope elect addressing his Cardinals about how he sees things.

    No. It wasn’t because

    the eyes of the world may have been upon him and indeed the contents of the Mass broadcast and published,

    If the church wanted it to be private, it would be private. They are not naive. This was broadcast to all the world. You can’t reap the benefits of pageantry and ask for that pageantry to be put in a private context at the same time. Don’t get me wrong. You can. This church is very good at it. They’ve been doing it a long time. But it doesn’t stand up in argument.

    Also, this idea of our lord or the devil goes back centuries with your church, so one reference to Bloy with an appeal that the context means “get it together”… well… I’m not sure you’ve supported your “no uncertain terms” claim.

    This is a very old and a very dangerous statement. It is the language of authoritarianism. “Are you with us or are you agin’ us?” If you click on this History of the Devil 2/5 link and start it at around 4:10 and watch it for a minute or so, you’ll see how long the church has been using this line. There’s nothing harmless about it.

    I’m glad you feel we’ve had a cordial exchange. So do I. I hope it can continue.

    I suspect the exception The Buachaill took to your post was not over the word “ignorant”. Most people here understand what that word means and don’t take it personally. It was probably triggered by this:

    you may have a very large chip on very small shoulders but whilst venting your supposedly informed opinion as a keyboard warrior possibly in a dark room somewhere may give you a modicum of satisfaction,

    Now, none of us has any idea about the size of anyone’s shoulders around here or where anyone is typing from, nor does that have anything to do with the points being made.

    I hope you can agree that appeals for cordiality should be cordial.



    Report abuse

  • 76
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #76 by susanlatimer:

    this was a private Mass with the Pope elect addressing his Cardinals about how he sees things.

    No. It wasn’t because

    the eyes of the world may have been upon him and indeed the contents of the Mass broadcast and published,

    If the church wanted it to be private, it would be private. They are not naive. This was broadcast to all the world. You can’t reap the benefits of pageantry and ask for that pageantry to be put in a private context at the same time. Don’t get me wrong. You can. This church is very good at it. They’ve been doing it a long time. But it doesn’t stand up in argument.

    Also, this idea of our lord or the devil goes back centuries with your church, so one reference to Bloy with an appeal that the context means “get it together”… well… I’m not sure you’ve supported your “no uncertain terms” claim.

    This is a very old and a very dangerous statement. It is the language of authoritarianism. “Are you with us or are you agin’ us?” If you click on this History of the Devil 2/5 link and start it at around 4:10 and watch it for a minute or so, you’ll see how long the church has been using this line. There’s nothing harmless about it.

    I’m glad you feel we’ve had a cordial exchange. So do I. I hope it can continue.

    I suspect the exception The Buachaill took to your post was not over the word “ignorant”. Most people here understand what that word means and don’t take it personally. It was probably triggered by this:

    you may have a very large chip on very small shoulders but whilst venting your supposedly informed opinion as a keyboard warrior possibly in a dark room somewhere may give you a modicum of satisfaction,

    Now, none of us has any idea about the size of anyone’s shoulders around here or where anyone is typing from, nor does that have anything to do with the points being made.

    I hope you can agree that appeals for cordiality should be cordial.

    Hi Susan,

    Thanks for your input again.

    Researching Bloy, I found that in his early years he was an atheist and a fiercely outspoken anti-catholic. He converted and became very devout. He remained very outspoken, turning his attention and rhetoric towards ‘lukewarm’ Catholics. Hence the Pope’s words directed at the Cardinals in the same way. I applaud him for that. We know that the upper hierarchy of the Church has become too corporatised, detached and even aloof from the laity but I’m confident he’s going to change things for the better with his meek and mild demureness underpinned by the fact that he is one of ‘God’s marines’.

    As for the ‘small shoulders’ comment – perhaps it was a cheapish shot (a bit like the ‘troll’ retort – lucky I’m thick skinned). But there was more than a bit of parody and satire in that as I imagine us all sat behind our keyboards in (in my case at least) dingy offices, all with our ‘beef’s and ‘chips on shoulders’ or whatever other analogy you care to use, which sometimes we let overpower what we are trying to say, distorting it and the actual truth of the situation. .



    Report abuse

  • 77
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #76 by susanlatimer:

    this was a private Mass with the Pope elect addressing his Cardinals about how he sees things.

    No. It wasn’t because

    the eyes of the world may have been upon him and indeed the contents of the Mass broadcast and published,

    If the church wanted it to be private, it would be private. They are not naive. This was broadcast to all the world. You can’t reap the benefits of pageantry and ask for that pageantry to be put in a private context at the same time. Don’t get me wrong. You can. This church is very good at it. They’ve been doing it a long time. But it doesn’t stand up in argument.

    Ah! But you are trying to argue using evidence based logical reasoning – and are not using “Catholic Faith-Reasoning”, Susan!

    “10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.” (Vatican Council I)

    This uses “right-reason” – Not to be confused with evidenced logical reason – which it “corrects” using “faith”!



    Report abuse

  • 78
    susanlatimer says:

    In reply to #77 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #76 by susanlatimer:

    Researching Bloy, I found that in his early years he was an atheist and a fiercely outspoken anti-catholic. He converted and became very devout.

    I’m not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

    He remained very outspoken, turning his attention and rhetoric towards ‘lukewarm’ Catholics. Hence the Pope’s words directed at the Cardinals in the same way.

    You haven’t convinced me that your interpretation of yer pope’s words is the correct one. What is a “lukewarm” catholic specifically?

    Did you watch that minute of the youtube link I provided? I would like a response to that.

    As for the ‘small shoulders’ comment – perhaps it was a cheapish shot

    It was.

    (a bit like the ‘troll’ retort – lucky I’m thick skinned).

    That wasn’t. Your comment was trolly and clearly directed at The Buachaill. Your follow-up that it was about all of us seems kind of iffy. Another case of hidden context? At any rate, let’s just move on and remain cordial.

    I won’t be back until later tonight but will check for your response.



    Report abuse

  • 79
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #79 by susanlatimer:

    In reply to #77 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #76 by susanlatimer:

    Researching Bloy, I found that in his early years he was an atheist and a fiercely outspoken anti-catholic. He converted and became very devout.

    I’m not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

    He remained very outspoken, turning his attention and rhetoric towards ‘lukewarm’ Catholics. Hence the Pope’s words directed at the Cardinals in the same way.

    You haven’t convinced me that your interpretation of yer pope’s words is the correct one. What is a “lukewarm” catholic specifically?

    Did you watch that minute of the youtube link I provided? I would like a response to that.

    As for the ‘small shoulders’ comment – perhaps it was a cheapish shot

    It was.

    (a bit like the ‘troll’ retort – lucky I’m thick skinned).

    That wasn’t. Your comment was trolly and clearly directed at The Buachaill. Your follow-up that it was about all of us seems kind of iffy. Another case of hidden context? At any rate, let’s just move on and remain cordial.

    I won’t be back until later tonight but will check for your response.

    Hi Susan,
    Just watched it now. Our work’s server blocks sites with streaming media which can be a bit of a pain and I’ve been busy this last couple of evenings (presentations to ‘lukewarm’ Catholics ironically).

    The clip you directed me to is quite poignant and has enlightened me even more on the character of the new Pope. In the clip we hear how the leaders of the early Church affirmed to the people that those who disagreed with them, especially those of other Christian groups were working for the Devil, and now we have Pope Francis turning the tables so to speak on their successors, perhaps with an irony that he may or may not intended, but that I certainly missed.
    I like this guy and I only hope that at 76 years old he’s got the time, stamina and backing to bring the Church back closer to the people and in doing so make it more accessible.

    Thanks again for the link to the clip.



    Report abuse

  • 80
    susanlatimer says:

    In the clip we hear how the leaders of the early Church affirmed to the people that those who disagreed with them, especially those of other Christian groups were working for the Devil, and now we have Pope Francis turning the tables so to speak on their successors, perhaps with an irony that he may or may not intended, but that I certainly missed.

    Irony? Really? Wow.

    Now remember that your frustration with the OP was that “the Lord or the Devil” was taken out of context.

    It is not up to the rest of the world to find context for this quote. This quote goes back a long way and it’s about power. Power based on mythological authority. Power they’ve used against their fellow humans for a very long time. I don’t even know how to respond to your interpretation at this point. I’m asking you to try to be objective for a second, not to just defend your position. I’m trying but you have to try too.

    Any chance that this quote is as ugly as it ever was? Or that even if it was meant “ironically” (your guess and not a unbiased one, certainly not a case you’ve supported) that it’s in bad taste and perfectly understandable that anyone outside of the circle, The Buachaill and the rest of us might still smell the burning flesh and that the reaction is a fair one? Think of all the ways yer pope could have asked his guys to get their acts together and he chose this line.

    Do you have an English reference to the Bloy work that contains this quote? Forgive me but my discussions with catholics often bring obscure references that even most catholics I know aren’t familiar with as though reference to those works lends gravitas to weak points. It’s a theological trick. I’ve looked up as many of the references as I could and found the thinking just as unconvincing and morally disturbing as any superficial inference I might make.

    What is a “lukewarm” catholic?



    Report abuse

  • 81
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #81 by susanlatimer:

    In the clip we hear how the leaders of the early Church affirmed to the people that those who disagreed with them, especially those of other Christian groups were working for the Devil, and now we have Pope Francis turning the tables so to speak on their successors, perhaps with an irony that he may or may not intended, but that I certainly missed.

    Irony? Really? Wow.

    Now remember that your frustration with the OP was that “the Lord or the Devil” was taken out of context.

    It is not up to the rest of the world to find context for this quote. This quote goes back a long way and it’s about power. Power based on mythological authority. Power they’ve used against their fellow humans for a very long time. I don’t even know how to respond to your interpretation at this point. I’m asking you to try to be objective for a second, not to just defend your position. I’m trying but you have to try too.

    Any chance that this quote is as ugly as it ever was? Or that even if it was meant “ironically” (your guess and not a unbiased one, certainly not a case you’ve supported) that it’s in bad taste and perfectly understandable that anyone outside of the circle, The Buachaill and the rest of us might still smell the burning flesh and that the reaction is a fair one? Think of all the ways yer pope could have asked his guys to get their acts together and he chose this line.

    Do you have an English reference to the Bloy work that contains this quote? Forgive me but my discussions with catholics often bring obscure references that even most catholics I know aren’t familiar with as though reference to those works lends gravitas to weak points. It’s a theological trick. I’ve looked up as many of the references as I could and found the thinking just as unconvincing and morally disturbing as any superficial inference I might make.

    What is a “lukewarm” catholic?

    Hi Susan,
    I’m back at work and it’s ‘manic’ Friday plus, as I’ve said, I’ve restricted access to the internet. I’ll try and sit down tonight (after Coronation St obviously) and write a full answer to your questions. Failing that, over the weekend. I’m grateful and obliged for the continued interest you are showing as it’s encouraging me into a deeper reflection of my faith (we’re all ‘lukewarm’ at times).

    Have a good day



    Report abuse

  • 82
    flipflop says:

    In reply to #71 by Lancshoop:

    this was a private Mass with the Pope elect addressing his Cardinals about how he sees things.

    Hello lancshoop. Well, I must say, this is a quite fascinating thread. Before I add my two cents worth however, I would like to clarify a few things.

    Could you expand on what you mean here, when you say it is a “private” mass?

    And would you be able to describe exactly how it is broadcast to the world? I’m assuming by live radio broadcast, followed by a published transcript?

    And finally, could you provide a little more historical context about the purpose, or function if you like, of this part of Roman Catholic tradition – that is, the delivery by a newly elected Pope of such a homily.

    I hope you can find a moment to respond. I have obviously tried to research answers this morning myself, but your thoughts would be appreciated.

    Cheers.



    Report abuse

  • 83
    pricey.1956 says:

    My step-mother believes this with all her heart.She attends her catholic church daily with her sister and mother.In her heart she believes her favourite grandson(my youngest,18),will go to hell because his dad taught him to think for himself and stay away from religion.This torments her in her final years,but the church seems to be OK with it.I’m sure this story can be repeated thousands,if not millions of times.Meet the new pope……



    Report abuse

  • 84
    Ignorant Amos says:

    In reply to #73 by Lancshoop:
    .

    I don’t expect much from this particular website in terms of impartiality and balanced views, but it seems to have descended in the last few months (with some notable exceptions) into nothing more than a cesspit of bigotry and hatred of the kind it purports to be rallying against.

    Spoingity, spoingity, spoing, spoing, spoing…a whole box all at once.

    Now that is true irony coming from an apologist for the RCC…I couldn’t make it up, honest I couldn’t.



    Report abuse

  • 85
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #83 by flipflop:

    In reply to #71 by Lancshoop:

    this was a private Mass with the Pope elect addressing his Cardinals about how he sees things.

    Hello lancshoop. Well, I must say, this is a quite fascinating thread. Before I add my two cents worth however, I would like to clarify a few things.

    Could you expand on what you mean here, when you say it is a “private” mass?

    And would you be able to describe exactly how it is broadcast to the world? I’m assuming by live radio broadcast, followed by a published transcript?

    And finally, could you provide a little more historical context about the purpose, or function if you like, of this part of Roman Catholic tradition – that is, the delivery by a newly elected Pope of such a homily.

    I hope you can find a moment to respond. I have obviously tried to research answers this morning myself, but your thoughts would be appreciated.

    Cheers.

    Hi flipflop, sorry for the delay – wall to wall football over weekend.
    The Mass is traditional as far as I know. The election of Popes is pretty rare anyway so I can’t remember the previous Masses. The Mass is ‘private’ in the sense that he was preaching to the Cardinals. Whilst it was broadcast on Vatican Radio and the text of his homily published in the media, we are on the outside looking in much in the same way as when we watch the goings on in the House of Commons for example. The language and rhetoric is completely different and therefore context and meaning can easily be misunderstood or misconstrued. Because we are more familiar with the goings on of Parliament we know the difference.
    In this instance the Pope made a reference Leon Bloy who to be fair I had never heard of before, having a dig at the Cardinals (Not the whole world or even the Catholics in the world). More juicier a quote was made the night before at the dinner when he toasted the Cardinals for electing him with the words ‘May God forgive you’ said humorously but with more than a hint of seriousness in the message. There’s no doubt that the Pope is going to make some changes at all levels withing the Church.
    As for ‘lukewarm’ Catholics (addressing Susan Latimer’s question) – basically those whose faith is incomplete,
    Someone perhaps whose going through the motions – probably most Catholics !
    I had planned a longer response but in the end CBA. I did google the comments expecting the whole world to be on the verge of all out war against the Vatican but very few sites seem to have picked up on it so I suppose it’s just a storm in a rather shallow teacup.



    Report abuse

  • 86
    Lancshoop says:

    In reply to #85 by Ignorant Amos:

    In reply to #73 by Lancshoop:
    .

    I don’t expect much from this particular website in terms of impartiality and balanced views, but it seems to have descended in the last few months (with some notable exceptions) into nothing more than a cesspit of bigotry and hatred of the kind it purports to be rallying against.

    Spoingity, spoingity, spoing, spoing, spoing…a whole box all at once.

    Now that is true irony coming from an apologist for the RCC…I couldn’t make it up, honest I couldn’t.

    Cheers Iggy, oh the irony of the irony of the irony



    Report abuse

  • 87
    Ignorant Amos says:

    In reply to #87 by Lancshoop:

    Well given your absurd comment, I thought it befitting.

    I don’t expect much from this particular website in terms of impartiality and balanced views,…

    Impartiality? You mean you this impartiality?

    Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.

    Heavens ta Murgatroyd. Please give some examples of that impartiality that you’ve come across in this cesspit over recent months? Unless you are referring to this sort of impartiality..

    THE DEVIL NEEDS FOOLS TO PERPETUATE HIS HATE FOR CHRIST EUCHARIST, BECAUSE HE NEEDS SOULS WHO REJECT CHRIST ETERNAL REWARDS IN HEAVEN, TO TORMENT IN HELL WHERE HE AND THE DAMNED REMAIN. ONLY FOOLS CHOOSE SATAN, BUT WISE CHRIST. W/JESUCRUX,MARY

    … but it seems to have descended in the last few months (with some notable exceptions) into nothing more than a cesspit of bigotry and hatred of the kind it purports to be rallying against.

    Religions are built on bigotry and hatred…particularly the RCC. Pointing that failure out isn’t hatred or bigotry of individuals though. Unless of course certain individuals set themselves up for individual criticism, and dare I say it, figures deserving of hatred. People like Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and priests who interfere with young children, or cover-up for those that perpetrate such vile actions. Surely even you can have no love lost for a piece of human waste that rapes children?

    Again, you’ll have little problem alluding to all this bigotry and hatred you’ve witnessed on this veritable cesspit of a place? Like this sort of thing I’m imagining you mean….

    UK Catholic bigot/bishop uses Christmas sermon to bash gay marriage

    You are getting a bit confused me thinks…let me assist…

    “Saying all black people, or all Jews, or all gays, are guilty of X because some of that group did X – that IS collectivization of guilt.”

    “However, saying that a self-organized, institutional entity is guilty of thing X, which it did/ sanctioned/contributed to is not. The institution is not its members. Which is why, when the [folk here] criticizes the RCC, it is not “Catholic bashing.”

    “Sucks being painted with a big fat brush, doesn’t it? The irony here goes so far beyond irony as to need a bigger vocabulary.”

    The names Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao are ringing in my ears.

    Of course this isn’t the RCC you know and love, but then it never is, unless you are the one on the recieving end.



    Report abuse

  • 88
    flipflop says:

    In reply to #86 by Lancshoop:

    Hi flipflop, sorry for the delay – wall to wall football over weekend.
    The Mass is traditional as far as I know. The election of Popes is pretty rare anyway so I can’t remember the previous Masses. The Mass is ‘private’ in the sense that he was preaching to the Cardinals.

    Hi Lancshoop. Although in your absence I have decided not to associate myself with this forum in an active sense, and therefore will not be elaborating further, it would be remiss of me not to log on and thank you for your reply. Suffice to say, your response tends to confirm what I had suspected. I enjoyed reading your posts.

    rather shallow teacup.

    Made me lol. Good luck.



    Report abuse

  • 89
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #89 by flipflop:

    In reply to #86 by Lancshoop:

    Hi flipflop, sorry for the delay – wall to wall football over weekend.

    Although in your absence I have decided not to associate myself with this forum in an active sense, and therefore will not be elaborating further,

    . . . .rather shallow teacup.

    Made me lol. Good luck.

    Gazzzoinggg!!! – Project much??? Those short sighted faith-blinkers don’t see into the depths of the evidence provided!



    Report abuse

  • 90
    OpenDebate says:

    The problem of being an intelligent atheist, is that, with time, you become more aware of words and more “emo” to what is being said. Interpretations and misinterpretations is the outcome. If you wanted to see the pope as bad, you will se him as bad, but I can assure you that if you wanted to see him as good, you will see him as good. The strange thing about reality is that you can be right about a man being bad, but you could be wrong at the same time, reality is that fragile. Be careful to analyze what the pope is saying before you have a mindset to see him as a good person.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.