This site has been approved by Kim Jong Un so please don't hack us.

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Pope Says He Is Not Abandoning Church

Pope Benedict XVI, on his last Sunday in the window, said he is not abandoning the Church.

"But this doesn't mean abandoning the church," he said, as many in the crowd looked sad at his approaching departure. "On the contrary, if God asks me, this is because I can continue to serve it (the church) with the same dedication and the same love which I have tried to do so until now, but in a way more suitable to my age and to my strength."

The phrase "tried to" was the pope's adlibbed addition to his prepared text.
Abandonment, I am sure, would look completely different.

*subhead*Last Sunday as Pope.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

17 comments:

Sophia's Favorite said...

So...are you saying he is abandoning the Church? Even if that were a legitimate position, which it isn't, it could be expressed without this pathetic whiny sarcasm.

Or was that somehow not sarcasm, and you're just not a good enough writer to know when you're going to sound sarcastic?

Either way, poor form.

Jeremy said...

Did you really read that as being sarcastic?

Patrick Archbold said...

SF
If your comment is an example of good form when disagreeing with someone, my writing is even better than I thought.

the mysterious said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
the mysterious said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sparrow said...

The Papacy is a ministry not a vocation, it's not vow taken until death but an office. The Church has many good cardinals and, most crucially, the Holy Spirit guides Her. Benedict has been wonderful as Pope, but I trust his judgement that a more vigorous Pope is needed. Have some respect. Undoubtedly he would have been criticized if he stayed on infirm and barely functioning.

I am not Spartacus said...

I wonder who will be the first to claim this revolutionary act of abdication is part of the hermeneutic of continuity?

I am not Spartacus said...

The abdication is not an abandonment and it is not at all similar to when Sarah Plain resigned the Governorship of Alaska all the while promising that she had not abandoned her fellow Alaskans and would still be working for them but that she did not need a title.

And the abdication is in no way transgressive of the nature of the Papacy and we can rest assured this revolutionary act will not cause even Catholics to start thinking of the Papacy as just like any other important job - like a CEO - with the expectations that future Popes will resign when the going gets tough, or they start feeling ill, and then settle into retirement with all of the benefits etc.

Nope. There NEVER is any act in the modern Church that will make Catholics sit-up and take stock; nope, even revolutionary acts masquerade as business-as-usual and they are knee-jerk reflexively defended even as the conservatives defended Sarah Palin when she quit.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

You know, I'm sorry that the Pope has to explain himself. Benedict is not resigning because the "going" got "tough." He is resigning because he no longer believes he has the physical, emotional or, perhaps, spiritual energy to fight the satanic forces in his own backyard that wish to destroy the Catholic Church. What is so wrong about that? It takes a tremendous amount of honesty, personal humility -- and, yes, courage -- to make such a decision.

In any event, I believe Benedict will be the last Christian pope -- not on the basis of any prophecy but on the basis of the utterly pervasive corruption within the College of Cardinals.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr. D'Hippolito. Off the top of my head I recall that the first 32 Popes were assassinated simply because they were Catholic -if any Pope had just cause to abdicate, Popes 2-32 certainly had a stronger case than Our Holy Father.

This abdication is revolutionary and the Catholic Church is about hierarchical stability throughout time - not revolution which is off those who deny Jesus or are atheists, or communists etc

As for Pope Benedict XVI being the last Pope due to corruption with the College of Cardinals; this is nothing new.

Here is the part of the Prayer to Saint Micahel the Archangel prayer composed late in the 19th century by Pope Leo XII after he experienced a vision:

IThese most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when
the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.


Jesus promised to be with His Catholic Church until the end of time and it is a Dogmatic Truth (see Vatican I) that there will always be successors to Peter

Sarah L said...

To "I am not Spartacus": Thank you for that helpful reminder about the first 32 popes--and other popes since St. Peter who suffered so much from corruption within as well as without the Church. Since when has a pope depended mainly on his own strength--mental, physical or spiritual--to do his duty as the Holy Father?
Do we have any grounds, though, to request that Pope Benedict XVI rethink his resignation? I ask this because I honestly don't know. I would rather see him stand fast and put himself completely at the disposal of God through His Immaculate Mother. I wondered, briefly, whether he would not take advantage of his last few weeks to consecrate Russia by name to her Immaculate Heart, as she requested.
Perhaps, this resignation will be counted as an act of "prudence"--in much the same way as the refusal to consecrate Russia by name was considered so by five popes, including Pope Benedict XVI.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

"I am not Spartacus," do you know the details of the vision that preceded the prayer? Pope Leo saw Jesus and Satan having the following conversation:

Satan: I can destroy the Catholic Church

Jesus: You can? Then go ahead.

Satan: I need time and I need power.

Jesus: How much time and how much power?

Satan: About a hundred years and the power to control those who will give themselves fully to me.

Here's the kicker:

Jesus: You have the time. You have the power. Do what you will.

Now, if the archangels are loyal subordinates to the Triune God -- and one Person of that Triune God gives Satan permission to do anything -- do you seriously believe that an archangel will countermand that permission?

Here's my point: Catholics have misinterpreted Jesus' promise about "the gates of Hell" to justify their church's existance. They refuse to see that Catholicism (along with other Christian churches) has offended a holy, righteous God with its arrogance; monarchistic pretentions; lust for political influence, power and money; at least a millenium of sexual imnmorality (see St. Peter Damian and "The Book of Gomorrah") -- and its utter refusal to renounce those tendencies.

If God can use the Assyrians and Babylonians to exile the Israelites for their idolatry, why shouldn't He use Satan to destroy something that could well have become a stench in His nostrils?

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr. D'Hippolito The subtext of your post is that Jesus can not be trusted; that Jesus is a liar; that Jesus is a deceiver.

Jesus established His Catholic Church and He remains as the Head of His Church with the Pope being but His vicar on earth. The Catholic Church is His Spouse and He sent the Holy Ghost upon it to teach it all truth and He promised to be with it for all time.

You are trying to bring another Gospel that "teaches" that Jesus' promises were lies - that He did not intend to stay with His Catholic Church for all time and you are trying to bring us a Gospel that The Holy Ghost is a complete and utter failure for letting the Catholic Church teach error and you are trying to bring us a Gospel that teaches that Jesus would destroy His Catholic Church that is the pillar and ground of truth and that teaches in His name.

I short, you are trying to teach that Jesus is Satan.

Mr. D'Hippolito. I am one who trusts and believes in Jesus; He is not a liar; He is not duplicitous; He does not makes promises He will not keep.

As it is the case that every single word of the New Testament was written by Catholics to other Catholics in an already existing Catholic Church , it is she alone who owns it lock, stock, and barrel and it is she alone who has the authority to say what it means - not you, not Luther, not Pastor Billy Bow-Tie of the New Harvest Evangelical Church of the Sun of God Megachurch which has contemporary services in the former Wilson Furniture Building on 34 and Main.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Dear Mr. D'Hippolito The subtext of your post is that Jesus can not be trusted; that Jesus is a liar; that Jesus is a deceiver.

No, my point is that Catholics have misinterpreted Jesus' teaching. The issue isn't whether Jesus is a liar (He most certainly isn't) but whether the Catholic Church's interpretation of His words -- in particular the passage in question -- is correct.

The Catholic Church is His Spouse and He sent the Holy Ghost upon it to teach it all truth and He promised to be with it for all time.

So you're assuming, then, that faithful Protestant and Orthodox Christians have less of a chance of reaching Heaven then even the most sinful Catholic?

...an already existing Catholic Church...alone...has the authority to say what it means - not you, not Luther, not Pastor Billy Bow-Tie of the New Harvest Evangelical Church of the Sun of God Megachurch which has contemporary services in the former Wilson Furniture Building on 34 and Main.

1. If the Catholic Church has the "exclusive" authority to interpret Scripture, then why aren't its members (especially its leaders) following its dictates -- not only in terms of personal morality but ethical issues (cf, John Paul II and capital punishment for murder)?

2. Prejudiced much?

BTW, you absolutely fail to address the substance of Pope Leo's vision...which, apparently, the Catholic Church considers legitimate, since it obviously considers the prayer resulting from it legitimate and it obviously is the only legitimate Christian institution on Earth.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

BTW, Not Spartacus, read Ezekiel 34. Read 1 Samuel 2:12-36. Read Matthew 25 beyond the first three verses. Then tell me whether those passages -- which talked about the failures of Jewish religious leadership -- do not describe the current state of Catholic leadership?

I am not Spartacus said...


Dear Mr. D'Hippolito. Your response to part of what I posted makes it clear i would be wasting my time responding to you

The Catholic Church is His Spouse and He sent the Holy Ghost upon it to teach it all truth and He promised to be with it for all time.

So you're assuming, then, that faithful Protestant and Orthodox Christians have less of a chance of reaching Heaven then even the most sinful Catholic?

Your response is apt only in the most oblique way and I have better things to do then to respond to a man who appears interested in an argument rather than the truth.

..an already existing Catholic Church...alone...has the authority to say what it means - not you, not Luther, not Pastor Billy Bow-Tie of the New Harvest Evangelical Church of the Sun of God Megachurch which has contemporary services in the former Wilson Furniture Building on 34 and Main.

1. If the Catholic Church has the "exclusive" authority to interpret Scripture, then why aren't its members (especially its leaders) following its dictates -- not only in terms of personal morality but ethical issues (cf, John Paul II and capital punishment for murder)?

Original Sin.

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not

You think you are clever in advancing this style of argument but you are simply being silly.

Goodbye.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Not Spartacus, "original sin" is no excuse for church leaders to sacrifice their spiritual patrimony on the altar of power, wealth, secular influence, prestige and arrogant isolation from the people and the God they claim to serve.

You might not be Spartacus but you certainly are a bigot...and a coward.

Post a Comment