The most elementary skill in argument is to summarize an opponent's views in terms acceptable to him. Thus, to call worshippers of the God and Goddess "Satan-worshippers" and a Wiccan Priestess "the Queen of Witches" is monumentally stupid.
The speaker, anti-Pope Leo, will see to the instruction and baptism of the nine-year old prisoner, Rudi. Any respect for Rudi's intellectual and spiritual integrity, his ability to think and decide, does not get mentioned.
Rudi's options are:
to make a pragmatic conversion, like Hanno in Poul Anderson's The Boat Of A Million Years;
to affirm his committment to the God and Goddess;
to respect Christianity by not making a dishonest conversion.
But which Christianity would he be respecting? What is worthy of respect in this bogus Pope?
14 comments:
Paul:
It's an interesting question about the "bogus Pope," because of course there are almost certainly some who consider him to be the rightful One True Pope.
Real-world, in the comment-box of a news article within the last month or so, one commenter took exception to the opinions of Pope Francis, upon which the article had touched. Despite regarding himself as Roman Catholic, he flatly refused to accept Francis' authority. He stated, in fact, that Francis is a HERETIC, and that every pope elected in the last forty-seven years has been a heretic (this naturally means he felt the entire College of Cardinals was compromised as well). When asked what constituted a TRUE pope, this fellow said a true pope would agree with HIM on matters of dogma. As far as I could tell, he wasn't joking.
I've heard of people being facetiously described as "more Catholic than the Pope." This guy, it seems, literally believed it of himself.
David,
There's more. In the 1860's, the 1st Vatican Council declared the Papal Infallibility doctrine. Some Catholic congregations rejected it and became "Old Catholics." Theosophists took over some Old Catholic Churches and changed them into "Liberal Catholics." In Liverpool, the Metropolitan (Catholic) and Anglican Cathedrals are linked by Hope St. There is or was a Liberal Catholic chapel upstairs half way along Hope St. I have known a couple of practising Roman Catholics whose position was "Old Catholic." They accepted everything but Papal infallibility.
Paul.
Kaor, DAVID and Paul!
David: the gentleman you mentioned seems to be a "sede vacantist," a schismatic who denies the popes elected after Pius XII died in 1958 were legitimate popes.
And I get so exasperated how so many, many completely misunderstand the nature and extent of papal authority. A pope or ecumenical council presided over by him or his legates are infallible ONLY when they speak ex cathedra on matters of faith and morality. Pope Francis is NOT infallible when he speaks merely in his private, personal capacity. Casual, off the cuff, or careless comments spoken about anything are not binding or official statements.
Paul, but the Church has always believed it and the popes have infallibility when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. It was simply that it was not thought necessary to formally define this traditional belief DE FIDE till Vatican I.
I have heard of the schismatic "Old Catholics," but not that some of their congregations were taken over esoteric theosophists. I suspect they introduced some very UN Christian ideas.
Sean
Sean,
They certainly did. Leabeater, a leading Theosophist, was a Liberal Catholic Bishop. That Church had many clergy and few lay members.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Iow, more chiefs than Indians!
But I had more in mind wondering if some of these "Old Catholics" were going the way of the Anglicans in the India of Stirling's Angrezi Raj. That is, taking in pagan ideas.
Sean
Sean,
Yes, guys who liked dressing up. And they accepted the whole of Theosophy: the Pope is not infallible but there are Masters of the Wisdom who are. Krishna, the Buddha and Jesus were Vehicles of the World Teacher and another Vehicle is due or is here now.
On Papal infallibility: a leading British lay Catholic who supported contraception argued that the Pope did not speak ex cathedra against contraception because the Holy Spirit restrained him from teaching error.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Very disturbing, what you said about the "Old Catholics" you knew of lapsing into so many errors. It reminded me, in some ways of ancient Gnosticism. And some of these ideas, or similar ones, will be seen again in the Change timeline.
And, yes, the teaching contained in Paul VI's encyclical HUMANAE VITAE is infallible, according to the standards set by the Church. I've read that document twice and its calm reasonableness simply does not match up with the hysterical attacks made on it.
But, all this, while interesting, has caused us to be distracted from your comments about RUDI'S options. First, it is wrong to call neo-pagan Wiccans "Satan worshipers," because that is not what they are. Simply put, they are polytheists, people who believe many gods exist, or that these "gods" are "aspects" of one another. Truth to say, I don't think our current neo-pagans ACCURATELY reproduced what actual pagans of the past believed in.
Secondly, Norman Arminger's puppet anti-Pope "Leo XIV" was showing a complete lack of respect for Rudi Mackenzie's intellectual and spiritual integrity, free will, etc.
I'm not sure the comparison with Hanno, from Anderson's THE BOAT OF A MILLION YEARS, is valid. Because I never saw any mention of Hanno being THREATENED by anybody for not being a Christian. Rather, Hanno simply "went with the flow," and "converted" merely because doing so made him less conspicuous. I recall no mention of Hanno ever taking an interest in ultimate questions about God or "gods."
By contrast, Hanno's long time companion, Rufus, altho apparently less intelligent, did take an interest in such questions. I think Hanno mentioned Rufus as having believed in many different religions as centuries passed.
Yes, it would be an act of both self respect for himself and respect for Christianity if Rudi refused to make a dishonest conversion.
Sean
Sean,
I did not know that HUMANAE VITAE was regarded as ex cathedra. I regard contraception as a good thing for those who want it so this would be another obstacle to me being Catholic if I were Christian.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'll mention one point to illustrate why orthodox Catholics consider artificial contraceptives wrong. Some contraceptive drugs are actually ABORTIFACIENTS. That is, they directly attack or kill an embryo. And even many lapsed Catholics still regard direct abortions with horror.
And, unlike some, you are gentlemanly about why you no longer believe in Christianity. I admire and respect that.
Sean
CS Lewis coined a neat phrase: "Emperor and Pope of Pointland."
Kaor, Paul!
And I have to admit I don't understand what Lewis had in mind.
Sean
Sean,
David mentioned a guy who said that a true Pope would agree with HIM on matters of doctrine. Flatland is a 2-dimensional world. Lineland would be one-dimensional. Pointland would be a point without dimensions. Its Emperor/Pope would be right in his own opinion but would rule and influence no one else.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That does clarify what Lewis meant. Thanks!
In REAL Church history, doctrinal controversies, however passionately debated, would still involve analysis of the relevant texts from Scripture, the Fathers, acts of past councils, etc. Plus logical reasoning on their implications. Only after all that would a Pope or Council come to a decision.
Sean
Sean,
Any organization pools its sources and collective wisdom before pronouncing or deciding anything. An individual who thinks that he alone is always right is effectively a mental Pointlander.
Paul.
Post a Comment