And, as always pharaseeism equals leftism.
Avenging hand reminds us:
Each Pope must show himself more humble than the previous one. The truly humble thing to do would be to submit oneself to the tradition of the Church, to do just as one’s predecessor had done, and not to call attention to one’s humility.
Conspicuously demonstrating himself ever more humble, the pope must demonstrate himself ever lefter.
[…] for one, never doubted it. But I’ve already got one… i.e., a religion. And while it is often (sometimes justifiably) mistaken for the Bells & Incense Branch of Cathedral Central, it once was the most powerful reactionary institution on Planet Three, and I say easily can be […]
Concordat of worms introduced celibacy for the clergy. This was the first small step away from patriarchy and monogamy, for the New Testament specifies.
In other words, must personally exemplify godly monogamous patriarchy.
Considering the endless Roman Catholic sex scandals, this seems like a pretty good idea.
Also these sex scandals are selectively applied. The Cathedral looks the other way, or points the spotlight, depending on how cooperative particular Bishops and the Church as a whole is being.
Good point jim. I note that it is avenging hand, and the articles he refers to, which belabour the point of the popes’ supposed humility. The pope doesnt come out and say “this is a humble thing I am doing.” Often the actions described could be taken as outright displays of hubris. I am not saying either way whether they are humble or proud, just that they are open to interpretation.
For example, when Cardinal Bergoglio took the name “Francis”, he is actually doing something quite outrageous, something which as I understand it no pope has ever done: a pope either kept his own name, or chose the name of a previous pope, generally to indicate which way he intended to direct his papacy. So is it meant to indicate humility, or is it a bold statement that he intends to “rebuild the Church”, as the 13th century pope had dreamed about Francis? Hard to say.
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do what they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi.
So…because this Pope publicly humbles himself as he calls upon Christians to be humble; because this Pope refuses the trappings of wealth and privilege as he calls upon Christians to refuse the trappings of wealth and privilege…because this Pope practices what he preaches, you call him a Pharisee and a leftist.
What, exactly, would you have the Pope do? Better yet, what is God telling you that the Pope ought to do?
It sounds like what you want is for the Pope to not be Catholic. You would like to make his a political office, not a spiritual representative.
The Pope — this Pope or any other — is not “leftist” or “rightist” — he is Catholic. It is you who place labels on the holy father of God’s church. The 2nd Vatican did not make the Church more leftist — we became more leftist, and thus filtered the 2nd Vatican through our own leftist ideology. God doesn’t care about your politics.
The genuinely humble thing to do would to have been to follow the ritual of his predecessor.
Changing things is what his predecessors did. Therefore, by your argument, this pope is genuinely humble.
Each seeking to out humble his predecessor.
By your own logic, that would be the genuinely humble thing to do. But I actually suspect that what might truly be the case, is that neither of us know much about genuine humility.
this pope is genuinely humble.
No.
I wasnt claiming he is. How would we know, one way or the other, whether a person is genuinely humble? Is it even a good thing to be humble? I thought most fans of this site would think being humble was a bad thing, too altruistic or something.
If he makes a conspicuous spectacle of his humility, not humble.
I am not a Christian. But I am in favor of Christians being humble in a dignified fashion, because I am in favor of Christians being Christians, rather than being Pharisees and progressives.
For obvious reasons I am not in favor of Muslims being Muslims, but I would rather they were Muslims than “Moderate Muslims”, which is to say, progessives.
The regal trappings of the papacy are inconsequential to its role in Christianity. On the other hand, taking a name never held by a pope before could be interpreted as a remarkable sign of hubris. Or of courage. Many popes have changed traditions; in doing so, these popes just doing what previous popes have done.
Avenging hand and his readers (and yours jim) would be better off reading one of the Social Encyclicals of the last hundred years, than worrying about how to interpret a pope selling a crown.
Humility eaten, its underlying logic carved out and replaced with that of the status-game. Mass narcissism. How long now has the pope been a zombie of status? The rot dates back at least that long. Which means that the 60s, and maybe even the 20s, were but symptoms of the plague.
[…] The papacy goes pharasaic « Jim’s Blog […]
[…] the dock: Lincoln; Cuddly totalitarians; the Pope; dopey Assassins; and the (real) […]
Oh crap.